Please find below  my opposition to the LEGALLY BINDING  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I have found that the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “Zero Draft” the new agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, called WHO CA+, is significantly flawed.  Due to the evidence and information provided below I oppose the WHO CA+ Treaty.

(1)WHO failed miserably in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the WHO CA+ draft would dramatically expand WHO authority to declare a pandemic and, thereby, trigger provisions in the treaty that would re-allocate resources and encourage governments to waive intellectual property rights

(2)New Zealand is already playing an active part in planning the WHO CA+ without consultation of the public of New Zealand’s input. The Government have been deliberately non-transparent as to the WHO CA+ and its purposes, aims, goals as to its intention as to the WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(3)The proposed Treaty is due to be introduced at the 77^th World Health Assembly in May 2024.  If New Zealand agrees and are compliant to the WHO CA+ this will risk  further increased significant tax payer payments  as to the allocation  to the added expenditure it will cost our country

(4)The World Health Organization has already miserably failed since the pandemic first evolved on many accounts, yet it appears that members of the New Zealand Government are supporting and even promoting the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(5)The draft of the WHO CA+ clearly focuses on significantly strengthening, expanding the powers of the World Health Organization which I note signed a ‘Partnership Memorandum with the World Economic Forum on 13^th June 2019.

(6)The WHO/ WEF is now  a Public-Private Partnership. The UN was never originally declared as such when it was created.  Obviously through the extraordinary super powers awarded to the WHO would also reward the Multi-stakeholder Corporations that WEF represents., therefore there is a massive conflict of interest that would effectively bring multistakeholder corporations, and those represented by the WEF huge wealth and power in the realms of  global politics and economies. The WEF is the whisperer in the ears of the WHO.

(7)The ZERO draft of the International Pandemic Treaty focuses on hugely expanding the authority, powers of World Health Organization, which give WHO the super powers to trample on ‘intellectual property rights’ and the redistribution of knowledge and technology. The WHO will become the only one, so called source of ‘Truth’, therefore having the ability to shut down the ‘True’ source of Truth., this is very dangerous.

 (8)WHO International Health Regulations 2005 failed miserably when it came to accessing China’s part in the origins of the COVID19 pandemic instead of holding them to account and responsible for their failings under the IHR2005 the WHO now parrots the CCP and even praises the Chinese regime. Therefore cannot be trusted to be such a superior force of authority over all UN Nation States.

 (9)In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of International Laws the people of New Zealand have the right to self-determine and manage their own autonomous approach to public health. This is a ‘sovereign’ right, the people of New Zealand are the ‘sovereignty who have that right. The global superior authoritative right does not lay with the WHO to control, cause damage to society, business, infrastructure or medical, technical determinations of the people of New Zealand. The people rights in New Zealand are that of ‘self determination’

(10)The people of New Zealand have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Principles of International Law the sovereign right to determine, manage their own approach to public health, this notably also means ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to the autonomy of domestic policies, legislations. That is provided that within this domestic jurisdiction the control awarded to the state through the vote of the people in New Zealand ‘causes no harm, damage to the peoples of New Zealand’.

‘(11)Sadly I say there has been much damage done to the peoples of New Zealand through the governments misinformation as to the COVID19 immunizations and the mandating of these. The closures of businesses throughout New Zealand and the loss of work and income.  Also the closure of schools where many children have not returned back to school.

(12)The members of  New Zealand House of Representatives have shown themselves to be  non-transparency upon publicly  exposing the serious harms and deaths of post COVID 19 immunizations. The many law abiding decent people of New Zealand have been deliberately abused by members of the New Zealand mainstream news media that has been paid for by the Governments Journalist Fund.

 (13) A member of Parliament namely Michael Wood character assassinating, labelling people those who are grieved through loss of work and income, loss of businesses as a so called ‘River of Filth’. Amongst those people he called a ‘River of Filth’ and ‘Anti -Vaxers’ were those that had been vaxed and were suffering serious harms post immunization.  As noted, not one member of Parliament has apologised for this cruel emotional harm caused to people of New Zealand by members of the House of Representatives. 

(14)The mandating of COVID19 Immunization. The following  term has often been quoted by members of WHO and WEF,  and even members of NZ House of Representatives ‘No-one is safe until everyone is Safe’. Pfizer Chief Executive has publicly admitted that they did not test their COVID19 immunization for transmission prior to entering the global market place.  Evidence has shown us that those that have been injected with the Pfizer mRNA  Injection have still been infected by the virus.. . Obviously the people of New Zealand have been misled when it has come to mandating of COVID19 immunizations and mandates

(15)It is a huge concern that large Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer have and continue to advise the Intergovernmental working group on the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty as to the Zero Draft which is a huge conflict of interest.

(16)It is a deep concern that if the New Zealand Government continues to pursue, support the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) it would give the WHO superior authority over NZ Domestic policies. WHO would have the power to declare a pandemic globally whether New Zealand is affected or not and could have the power to reallocate resources.

(17)The Zero Draft of the WHO CA + Pandemic Treaty makes transparency and cooperation mandatory (legally Binding). Uses the word ‘shall’ when referencing facilitating accessing, sharing of research and genomic data, however there are no repercussions for ‘non-compliance’. It is evidently clear that the WHO and those drafting this treaty , and those that support, promote it have learned nothing. There is no reason to believe that China would be compliant with the obligations set out in the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)  I also note that the  World Health Organizations failure to quietly abandon investigations into China’s incompetence to comply to the legally binding WHO Health Regulations (IHR 2005)

(18)The WHO CA+ Draft lets China off the hook. Despite China having the largest economy in the world the United Nations considers China as a developing country. Developed countries financially support developing countries when it comes to ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ among nations. Developed countries would share the greater costs therefore  China will likely be the beneficiary of the WHO CA+ obligation for developed nation parties, among other provisions.

(19)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty Zero Draft calls on the parties to tackle misleading, misinformation or disinformation. Yet the WHO  themselves have been the source of disinformation when they tweeted  “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of COVID 19.

I refer to the ‘World Health Organization ‘Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no evidence of human to human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-n CoV) identified in Wuhan Vina. Twitter January 14^th 2020 ¹⁸

^{https://twitter.com/WHO/status​/1217043229427761152} 

(20)As for the CDC on the efficacy of facial mask wearing that shifted over time, when Anthony Fauci defended flip flop accusations after shifting mask guidance, this has reported changed time and time again. There is much controversy about mask wearing. It is clearly evident that many people wear masks as chin straps. Masks do risk emotional, psychological damage to some extent. Mask wearing is not normalised behaviour so will affect people in different ways.  ^{LINK: Independent, July 29, 2021, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fauci-cdc-mask-flip-flop-b1892600.html}

(21)A recent study found that natural immunity acquired by a COVID-19 infection was “associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Yet WHO superior authorities under a legally binding Pandemic Treaty could mandate all populations to be vaccinated, immunized without accountability. This is very dangerous.

LINK:” ^{Hiam Chemaitelly et al., “Protection from Previous Natural Infection Compared with mRNA Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 in Qatar: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” The Lancet, November 11, 202, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(​22)00287-7/fulltext (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(22)The WHO and UN Member Nation Governments and their  so called experts have been proven wrong far too often, yet the WHO Pandemic Treaty gives WHO the global super power authority to police “disinformation. This seriously infringes on the internationally accepted right to freedom of expression. (UN International  Human Rights and NZ Domestic Human Rights Legislations)

(23)The WHO CA+ Treaty Draft emphasizes ‘Equity’. It is guided by ‘Equity’, which is defined by the absence of unfair, unavoidable or remediable differences among and within countries, including between different groups of people, whether these groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, geographically or references ‘Inequality’. The term ‘Equity’ and ‘Equitable’ appear more that thirty times in the ZERO Draft of the Treaty, however there is no clear definition what this means.

(24)The people of New Zealand have the right to have clear, concise information. (ibid., Art 3,4 (3) ). It is evidential by the ZERO Draft of the WHO CA+ Treaty that it is guided by ‘Equity’, a term that is deeply rooted in ‘Marxist’ ideology and should never be embedded in the guiding principles of any international legally binding commitment of any State, including that of New Zealand.

(25)The ZERO Draft of the CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord- Convention) commits to the term ‘Universal Health Coverage’, this is not clearly defined. I stand to be corrected, but does that mean that the Government provides the peoples of New Zealand health care, is that with or without costs to the peoples of New Zealand, and at what costs must the people of New Zealand pay?. How will this indeed affect tax payers pockets?

(26)Its obvious that if the NZ House of Representatives agree, comply to the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty domestic legislations will have to be amended.  The people of New Zealand are not awarded end decision making rights when it comes to domestic policy making.    I refer to the (Non-Legally Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda), and even if this did become ‘Legally Binding’ the people of New Zealand would have no end decision rights when it comes to Domestic Policies due to the legally binding nature of the WHO CA+ Treaty.. Therefore upon voting for political parties at election time, this means that promises made to the voting public can be over- ridden by the WHO Pandemic Treaty

(27)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty (Accord) incorporates a ‘One Health’ approach framework. This includes ‘Humans, Animals-wild and domestic and all Eco-systems’. This means that the WHO under the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty has massive super superior control over every aspect of life on this planet.

(28)WHO CA+ Treaty under the classification  of ‘Climate Change’ will have the authority to restrict, control food systems, trade and travel, infrastructure, land use and property rights. This is scandalous and extremely dangerous when it comes to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

(29)Those that reside in the NZ House of Representatives are accountable to the people of New Zealand who voted them in to the political positions they hold in the New Zealand House of Representatives. To be responsible and accountable to ALL peoples of New Zealand.  Through researched evidence of viewing speeches in the House and other UN Information that New Zealand Members of Parliament are supporting, promoting and are in agreeance with the WHO ZERO Draft of the CA +.

(30) I also note that at the 77^th gathering of the World Health Assembly the final draft of the CA+ WHO International Pandemic Treaty will be produced, introduced to all UN Member Nation States to determine whether, and which UN Member States agree on the WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(31) I therefore request that the NZ House of Representatives transparently accords the peoples of New Zealand open public debate, discussion without political intrusion as to all knowledge, information that is pertained in every ZERO draft of the WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty as it is produced, introduced.

The draft states that the WHO CA+ “shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by UN Member Nation States, therefore clearly requires advice and consent under the process outlined.^{, “Circular 175 Procedure,” https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/c175/index.htm (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(32)I conclude that the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) is highly problematic and deeply flawed and would allow the global superior powers of the World Health Organization (UN) to have authority over New Zealand’s domestic policies. One size does not fit ALL and there is no evidence of ‘trustworthiness’ as to why the people of New Zealand should support this WHO Treaty proposal.

(33)The ‘Public-Private’ partnership of the World Economic Forum with the UN is a huge conflict of interest as they are  the ‘whisperers in the ear’ of the UN, therefore also  rewarded global superiority political, economical control through the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreeance.

Therefore, for all the above reasons , information provided I totally oppose the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord). I find it to be highly dangerous to the health and wellbeing of ALL peoples of New Zealand. I have cc’d other groups, individuals, organizations, members of parliament the above information-communication t as outlined to the NZ House of Representatives as to opposition of the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I request a response at your earliest. Thank you.

Carol Sakey

Algorithm Bias is described as systematic and repeatable errors in a computer system that creates unfair outcomes, eg privileging one category over another. Algorithms can be simplistic or complex. They are tiny pieces of invisible code that perform calculations that power machine learning. There are many types of bias for example  sample bias, prejudice bias, measurement bias and exclusion bias.

Algorithm bias are caused by the people that create them, that write algorithms those that choose the data used for the algorithms, they choose how to apply them as to the results required of the algorithms. Its easy for people to determine conscious biases which automatically perpetrate the end result required, for whatever purpose needed.

For example- information bias, selective bias which equate to the distortion of research. Biases affect decision making, policy making may be – survivorship bias, confirmation bias, framing bias, group think bias. There are of course other biases such as – Invisibility, stereotyping, imbalance, selectivity, non-reality, fragmentation, isolation, linguistic, cosmetic all are namely biases. A Linear Algorithm has the highest bias. Linear Regression an to error that is introduced by real live problem which maybe complicated. Linear models can introduce bias, make output easier to understand.

What about Climate Model Bias:- Errors in climate modelling is caused by a range of factors for example- spatial resolution (large grid sizes), simplified thermodynamic processes and physics or incomplete understanding of the global universal system. Limitations of climate models as predictions of climate is incomplete, the climate systems imperfect ability to transform knowledge into accurate mathematical equation. Climate models inability to reproduce important atmospheric phenomenon. That natural variability is still the dominant uncertainty in predictions. Uncertainty in Climate projections, predictions ,

Are they taking into account volcanoes, even dormant ones gives off gasses, what about El Nino and the North Atlantic Oscillation? Climate models are imperfect tools, control mechanisms, used for the purpose of social & behavioral re-engineering. To replace the global economy, to de-growth to promote tribal feudalism. To take us back to the dark ages.

Climate simulations differ from reality. Simulated clouds, surface atmosphere and representations of soil & vegetation in climate simulations models are to small. Climate models predicting our future,  determining our lives for us. Plundering New Zealand, plundering, destroying the livelihoods of farmers worldwide.

The complex nature of the climate system is too difficult to determine the exact impacts that change will be at different locations at different times.  Uncertainty increases the level of fear- climate doom and gloom. Rising seas, the scorches earth.  Equates to uncertainty, biased algorithms consequently data in-data out and rubbish and rubbish out. .No-one can be certain of the natural climate ability but the climate scientists know for certain what algorithm biases they are using. Question- who is creating the invisible tiny codes that make up for Algorithms and for what purpose will they use the end result for-..who benefits. Who are the winners and the losers. Its not possible to determine the future by emission. Carbon offsets are a scammers dream and is largely a sham, a massive fraud.  On the 23^rd March 2022,The Guardian on Australia’s carbon credit scheme reported is largely a scam  says whistleblower. Professor Andrew McIntosh said the system gives credits for projects such as regrowing native forests after clearing, is a fraud on the environment, taxpayers and consumers.

Prof Andrew McIntosh is an Environmental Law and Policy expert a former head of the Governments Emission Reduction Assurance Committee. He launched an extraordinary attack on the scheme, saying the govt had wasted $1 billion in tax payer funding. 3/5/2016 Multi-billion Euro Carbon Trading Fraud Trial Opens in Paris , this was called the heist of the century. The SpinOff News ‘Dodgy deals with Climate Fraudster-NZ’s role in the junk carbon scam. Alongside Russia and Ukraine, NZ is complicit in a carbon swindle, and NZ’s reputation is at risk, write Geoff Simmons. 18^th April 2016. NZ was willing and able to participate in a wholesale climate fraud

The short story is that Ukraine and Russia found loopholes in the International rules for carbon trading. The loopholes allowed them to create millions of carbon credits that had no environmental benefit whatsoever- they were simply fraudulent. Other countries cottoned on, stopped dealing with Russia and Ukraine Incredibly New Zealand ended up being the largest customer of these climate criminals because our government was the only one that accepted their dodgy wares. The scam used was claiming for carbon credits for projects that had already happened.

Examples -after the Soviet Union downfall Ukraine was left with large rock piles that still contained coal. Occasionally these piles caught fire, releasing carbon emissions. In 2012 the Ukraine started claiming carbon credits on the basis that they would remove the coal from the piles and put out fires. Trouble was they already removed the coal four years earlier, they even lied about how much coal was involved. In 2012 Europe and NZ got increasingly suspicious of what the Ukraine & Russia were up to. NZ made noises about banning these dodgy credits in April 2012, the minister then was Tim Grosser, he claimed “there is serious danger of NZ essentially exporting capital for no good reason”. Backroom negotiations took place with their coalition partner ACT CHANGED THEIR MIND. July 2012 they left our Emissions Trading Scheme open to dodgy credits, claiming that our scheme should reflect the ‘international price”

By the beginning 0f 2013 Europe had banned the trade in these dodgy credits, leaving New Zealand as the only willing buyer. One must question “How was it as NZ Govt stated “the international price”?. The International Price of fraudulent and environmentally worthless carbon credits. At one point falling as low as 15 cents per tonne. The price of carbon credits in 2011 was around $20 per tonne. That price was a sufficient  incentive to plant trees so back in 2011 NZ had no need to purchase International units to cover our emissions.

When the price of carbon crashed, nobody bothered to plant tree’s, everyone bought the dodgy carbon credits instead. NZs emissions soared. Meanwhile polluters profited and ordinary Kiwi’s got ripped off. The details are in the report. NZ rapidly became the largest consumer of these fraudulent foreign credits. Over a quarter of all  NZ emissions between 2008-2002 ended up being covered by dodgy carbon credits. 99% of NZ emission reduction units came from Russia and the Ukraine.

 In  2015 a review by the Stockholm Environmental Institute found that 89% of Ukrainian projects were of questionable or low environmental integrity, as dodgy as hell. NZ tax payers ended up with the govt sending around $200million of their good money to these crims. The opinion in many circles that NZ Govt was knowingly an accomplice in this climate crime.  Stuff NZ reported August 16^th 2016 ‘Companies revealed over dodgy carbon credits’. Some of NZ’s biggest businesses including BP, Z Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra were named by the Morgan Foundation as buying dodgy carbon credits

 A number of forestry companies were also identified as having purchased fraudulent carbon credits from Ukraine and Russia these include NZ Forest Leasing, Matariki Forests, Ngai Tahu Forest Estates and China Forestry Group. James Shaw Greens co leaders said the govt should trade good carbon credits for bad ones to ensure the integrity of NZ’s global commitment to cut climate pollution.  The Morgan Foundation said the govt had stockpiled about 85-90 million units which would see the country through to 2020, but many of the units were fraudulent.

Associate professor Euan Mason of the school of forestry University of Canterbury said “Our govt knew the imported credits were fraudulent. They knew that their policies allowed companies to act immorally, that many companies did act immorally.

NZ Herald also reported on 17^th April 2016 that NZ’s Carbon Credits Scheme A Farce’. NZ accused of cheating to fulfil its International Climate Change obligations. The Emissions Trading Scheme allows polluters to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by buying carbon credits from companies such as the forestry industry

Polluters were able to buy carbon credits from other countries which had signed up to the Kyoto Agreement,. NZ was far the largest purchaser of Russian and Ukrainian carbon credits through NZ Emission Trading Scheme. This was a National led govt at the time

NBR Report Paul Bennet dismissed the Morgan Foundations recently released ‘Climate Cheats’ reports which highlighted the NZ companies that had bought carbon credits from Russia and Ukraine. The minister said the Morgan Foundation “Offered nothing new” It was accepted that the Stockholm Report had pulled the plug. All political parties behind the closed doors of Wellington knew the fraudulent carbon credit scam was happening.

NZ Geographic reported “Credit where none is due’ 12 companies profited from pollution using fake carbon credits from Russia. A Reports that back in the 1990’s NZ government assured that the country would trade (and plant) our way out of climate change. In 2002 Labor Govt announced the Emission Trading Scheme.

The carrot being that businesses that reduce their emissions could sell their unused units. Those that had exceeded their allocated carbon credit would have to buy more.  Thanks to hot air the Emission Trading Scheme has removed NOT ONE GRAM of  greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.

The Government highly aware that hot air was killing its own ETS, the govt continued to flood the market, giving its own units to businesses for free. Fraudulent Carbon credits. In 2016 140 million emission units- 5years worth of activity remained still out there in 2020, doing absolutely nothing to avert climate change.  Where are they now? Its was said back them “when the price is right, they’ll  cash up their free credits whilst paying for their pollution. “Profiting from pollution”. As always the taxpayer picks up the climate doom and gloom tab. Come on people do you really believe in this climate doom and gloom bullcrap.

And here the govt is carbon tax on commercial and domestic rates, energy etc., And throwing the farmers under their own tractors, using them as the govts whipping boy. Climate Change Bias’s are many. Data in and Data out. Rubbish in and Rubbish Out. Corruption in and Corruption Out. Tax payer money in and tax payer money out. We have become a disposable society. The NZ Govt plundering NZ.

https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/credit-where-none-is-due/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-zealands-carbon-credits-scheme-a-farce-says-morgan-foundation-report/3TPOX7WZFKM4TVYLCTBTIINTBA

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/18-04-2016/dodgy-deals-with-climate-fraudsters-nzs-role-in-the-junk-carbon-scam

https://www.france24.com/en/20160503-france-trial-multi-billion-carbon-emissions-trading-fraud-opens-paris

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/australias-carbon-credit-scheme-largely-a-sham-says-whistleblower-who-tried-to-rein-it-in

March 2019 UNITED NATIONS  TECHNICAL BRIEF ON THE EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION EDUCATION SECTOR was part of the outcome of the Sexuality and Relationship Programmes in the School Curriculum in New Zealand. Under the guise of planning  the implementation of a School Bullying Program worldwide numerous studies and surveys took place internally nationally worldwide as described in Part 1 of my video.

The Stop Bulling, stop Violence, stop Discrimination masked the entrenched questions and responses required of students in schools. These surveys, studies included schools students being asked a number of questions of a very personal sensitive nature around sexuality and relationships, feelings, actions etc., sexual desires. ..preferential sex partners eg girl-girl, girl boy, boy-boy and what were their sexual preferences, sexual desires these were integrated with questions and responses related to discrimination. For example:  dress, skin colour as to discrimination, (critical race theory). All to be aligned manipulated incorporated in UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 5 ‘Achieve Gender Equality and SDG 3 ‘Leave non-one behind’  manipulated to include – lesbian, gay, non-binary, bisexual trans and gender diverse.(LGBT) persons, groups, communities. Which can be directly or indirectly link to trans.- gender fluid, gender diverse, LGBTQ1 etc.,

NOTE: Under the guise of education, ‘Stop Bullying ‘- Anti-bullying’  RSE Programs were included in School curriculums worldwide, in NZ- in to every class activity. The UN  designed ‘Monitoring school violence based on sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression in national and international surveys

UNESP (UN) is an UN Global Agency that collaborates with UN Member State authorities, leaders. UNESCP led the UN Agenda 2030 SDG for Education 2020-2030, ambitious goals and commitment. With education promoting a global movement based on sexuality and relationships and they call it ‘Monitoring School Violence’, at the very core  is a deliberate based on sexuality, gender identity, gender expression (SOGIE)

Worldwide an estimated 245 millions boys and girls experience school violence (UNESCO 2017). UN concluded ‘All forms of school violence is a barrier to achieving UN Agenda 2030 SDGs (SDG 4) Target  non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all’). That ALL forms of violence are  seen as a barrier to achieving UN Agenda 2030 Global Goal (SDGs), an inclusive, effective learning environment for all.  Gender expression, gender non conformance, girls categorized as masculine, boys categorized as effeminate became information that was embedded in school violence, bullying.

2020 – 2030 N Agenda 2030 Global Goals (SDGs). Saying that Agenda 2030 could not succeed without this UN Global Education framework, strategy. Which included the capturing of sensitive sexual data from students, academia. The scarcity of data prevented an accurate picture of the nature and impact of school violence. Data on SOGIE majorly was pretty non-extent at National, Regional and Global levels. It was found that very few counties routinely collected data on school violence based on SOGIE.  (SOGIE is an LGBTQ acronym for Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, transgender, queer etc

Many countries found that such studies could be costly, unreliable, unsustainable. Therefore UN Member Nation Governments managed the studies because they had the power over what evolved from academia research (universities) If data was recorded  was collected by universities, academia,  NGOs that supported, promoted LGBT1 people.

The UN ‘Global Education 2030 Agenda UNESCO led the way at National, Regional and Global levels, to implement their ambitious global goals for what us called the Best Practice for Global Education 2020-2040. This was school violence physical, psychological, sexual, bullying inside and outside the classroom, off line and online. QUOTE- All forms of violence are a barrier to achieving UN Agenda 2030 Global Goals

Surveys , studies were adapted, manipulated to fit directly or indirectly into UN Agenda 2030 Development goals. Approaches, questions, responses included students being questioned about certain   sexual fantasies, same sex attraction, the classification of multiple genders. Sexual attraction,  sexual behaviours, sexual desirability

Questions included: Whom have you had sexual contact and the frequency (define it) Males, female, trans , defining answers around eg sexual kissing, sexual touching, oral-genitalia sex etc., etc.,  Which of the following do you consider yourself to be?  Heterosexual, that is, straight  Lesbian or gay

The UN Technical Brief on these surveys dated March 2019 referenced the ‘ CDC Global School based student health survey/ Global Population 2018’ and Auckland University. These massive international-national  UN designed studies, survey’s purpose, deliberately highly inflated data on LGBT1 and minor reporting on Heterosexuality.)

For example Auckland University research was namely ‘Youth 2000 School Survey. The sample size was 28,000, Was conducted in 2001, 2008 and 2012 included 9-13 yr olds. Included were references to pasifika cultures, maori languages and terms for gender diversity-Gender-queer

Referenced the CDC  ‘School-based survey. Country: Global. Population: Adolescents. Age: 13-17 year olds. Sample size: Unknown. Frequency: From 2018

In Australia, for example, Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA) recommends using non-binary options – such as ‘X’ or ‘non-binary’ – rather than intersex in survey questions about a person’s sex or gender (Intersex Human Rights Australia, 2012)   And Australian Commonwealth Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender 2013. An approach that gives recognition to non-binary gender identity or sex characteristics. Examples that  identify ‘sexual jokes, comments or gestures’ – something that could be linked to SOGIE – as a specific form of bullying. Indeed, such practices are often related to a student’s perceived gender non-conformity, particularly boys who are seen as ‘effeminate’. Other studies stated that young children unsure about whom they are attracted to.

Collecting data on intersex students Due to the very small number of students who are intersex, it is highly challenging to collect meaningful data on school violence affecting such children in large surveys. .The term ‘Queer’ a reclaimed word used as an umbrella term for a range of sexual identities including LGBTI or gender questioning Queer’  interrogating of sexual gender. Survey on full-time members of the Canadian Forces; the institutionalized population, children aged 12-17 that are living in foster care, and persons living in two health regions of Quebec

25TH May 2019.. The World Health Assembly updated ‘ 21st Century , the reflecting of critical advances in science and medicine. Reframing Gender  Incongruence . Previously termed as NOT a Gender Identity Disorder. Describing a marked  incongruence between an individuals experienced/ expressed gender and the assigned sex in pre-pubertal children. Incongruence is a lack of consistency, or appropriateness as in inappropriately affect one when one is subjectively evaluated in situations that are at odds with reality. These International- National UN designed population based studies, surveys were deliberately designed and implemented into the UN ‘Global Education 2020-2030’ . Orchestrated by policy makers worldwide as the now ‘Relationship-Sexuality Programs in the NZ School Curriculum.

The UN March 2019 Technical Brief refers to “ Each individuals (school students) physical features relating to sex, including genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, physical features, gender identity differenced from their sex attributed to them at  birth. Was well documented as part of the research, study material

Everyone in society will suffer, children are deliberately being robbed of their innocence, their precious magical childhood years, pushed into a world of instability. Children are our most vulnerable, they hurt the most. Wake Up NZ

February 17^th 2022 The Daily Telegraph New Zealand reported ‘Pfizer Leak #2 Has the New Zealand Government Signed Over Our State. Under the title of this news article is documented ‘Global Regulatory Capture and the Demise of Constitutional Democracy #Pfizer Leak

18^th January 2022 whistle-blower cybersecurity IT Researcher Ehden Biber released findings related to Pfizer jab contract conditions signed by 110 Govts. The series of leaked findings from July 2021 led to many citizens worldwide to question the levels of the contract indemnification, liability protection that governments had willingly signed off. New Zealand Govt was one of them..

Biber’s leak exposed critical evidence detailing a testimony of a senior executive of Pfizer Carlos Murillo an ex Country Manager of Pfizer Brazil and current President of Pfizer Latin America who testified under oath in front of a Senate Investigative Committee on 13^th May 2021.He revealed in his testimony Pfizer Contract Conditions that were negotiated with Brazil that comprised of an unilateral template, the standardizing of negotiations provind for International consistency in obtaining legal security dispute settlement methods, competent jurisdiction, applicable law, confidentiality, waivers of immunity and enforcement. Thus allowing standardized conditions allowed by Pfizer to negotiate with 100’s of countries in parallel, and advance the pace they advanced in order to roll out the jab uptake. Pfizer dictated ‘leonine’ clauses to ensure incompatibility with Brazilian law, which led to complex legal negotiations to alter Brazilian legislation in order to guarantee legal security for Pfizer. Hence being standardized 110 countries facing constitutional interference.

Because in NZ, I am of the opinion we have the least transparent highly censored government ever OIA requests were with-held, it was almost impossible to ascertain what NZ’s contractual negotiations were with Pfizer, whether the government had allowed bullying by Pfizer, there was no clear picture, evidence available. However the various leaked contracts that were unilateral standardization documented that the purchaser must fulfil all contractual obligations under the agreement, including without limitation any such obligations that survive expiration or termination of this agreement. The question being did NZ Government sign away its constitutional ability to uphold the rule of law. The Pfizer Mandate, did Pfizer interfere in NZ’s State Sovereignty was this indeed a Pfizer Judicial reset? As Biber stated.

The OIA request Pfizer Contract Clause 9.4 was successful,  entitled ‘Waiver of Sovereign Immunity’. Question how can a private company such as Pfizer execute such powers over the government that was voted in by sovereign people of NZ.? And immunity from any court in the land, immunity of jurisdiction, immunity against any judgement rendered by a court or tribunal, immunity from the enforcement of judgement, immunity against precautionary seizure of its assets

Biber stated that by signing the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Govts have violated the sacred principle of power separation between executive, legislative and judiciary branches that constitutes democratic sovereignty. Thus endangering democracy be allowing a foreign imposition and corporate interference to capture State Sovereignty through unlawful contracts that indemnify against ‘any other theory’ law, which included criminal law. Biber also refers to NZ Attorney General David Parker and his ability to hold so many overlapping, conflicting portfolio’s and his ministerial responsibility to a complex emergency situation. That there appears to a series of procedural anomalies. Judges also being captured by Pfizer’s judicial reset.

The governments deliberate evasiveness, their concentration of power over the sovereign peoples of NZ, preventing of checks and balances the exceeding of limits of constitutional law. NZ Judges exercising arbitrary power over the life, liberty of the sovereign peoples of NZ hence guaranteeing corporate immunity rather than obedience to International, National Human Rights. Legal is not necessary lawful, so how lawful were the jab orders.?

Biber states in the Daily Telegraph that NZs COVID19 Vaccination orders may have been made unlawfully, he stated “according to new evidence obtained from the Dept of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under the OIA-Official Information Act. Legal professional were advised of a number of anomalies 1) no such order was ever made by Chris Hipkins Minister for COVID Response. Reasonable research discloses ‘no evidence’ of warrant or prime ministerial authority in the NZ Gazette authorizing Dt Ayesha Verrall to make secondary legislation under the Principle Act (VLA2021. S4 (4)

Here are some facts of evidence outlined in the Daily Telegraph, followed by a summary of questions:-   1. The main vaccination order (COVID-19 Public Health Response Vaccinations Order 2021 was made by Dr Ayesha Verrall Associate Minister of Health, not by Chris Hipkins, Minister of COVID19 Response- Legislation dated 28/4/2021 Wellington. Issued under the authority of the Legislation Act 2019. Notification in Gazette 28/4/2021. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall Associate Minister Of Health.

The Act (COVID19 Public Health Response Act 2020 required the minister to be someone authorized either by the Prime Minister or by warrant. The Minister means.. a) for the purposes of Sections 11AA, 11AB and 33AA (i) the Minister for Workplace relations and Safety or (ii) the Minister under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister responsible for the administration of those sections.

(b)For the purposes of any section- (i) the Minister for COVID19 Response or (ii) the Minister who under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister responsible for the Administration of this Act. An information request was made to the Dept of the Prime Minister Office (DPMO) for such authorization.

Information provided by DPMO included 2 letters from the Prime Minister to Chris Hipkins and a Warrant issued to Chris Hipkins by Governor General Patsy Reddy. No documents were received in relation to Dr Ayesha Verral at all. It has therefore been taken that she had no authority under the ACT at all.

The PMs letters describe what the COVID19 portfolio responsibilities might include, only authorizes two things, but no authority to make Vaccination orders. However authorized Chris Hipkins firstly to exercise the responsibilities of the Minister Of Health under the Act, however the Minister of Health has no responsibilities under the ACT. It authorizes Chris Hipkins to exercise ‘Cost Recovery’ but not section 11 of the Act. Arderns letter 9/11/2020 to Christ Hipkins ‘managing any resurgence of the virus, having the responsibility for exercising the responsibilities, functions, powers off the Minister Of Health under the COVID19 Public Health Response Act 2020, to be Minister responsible for subpart 3a -Cost Recovery- of part 2 of that Act. Ardern reaffirmed this being a limited authority in a further letter dated 17^th December 2020. The Warrant under the hand of Dame Patsy Reddy does appear to give wider authority to Minister Hipkins. But that warrant explicitly requires Minister Hipkins to act “in person”, and details precise criteria for exception to that  condition

Included with information provided was an opinion volunteered by Michael Webster Clerk of the Exectuve Council suggesting any member of the Executive could act for any other at any time, Apparently per S7 of the Constitution Act 1986.So what is being stated that there are no certain qualifiers- anyone. Biber makes a valid point here:-These Orders are Secondary legislation, which means they are not made by vote of the House of Parliament, but are merely a delegated responsibility to one Minister.  Accordingly, secondary legislation is subject to specific limits of authority, in particular a delegated authority must be exercised by the person delegated, not someone else except in extenuating circumstances. This is like a Sherriff delegating a deputy – that deputy cannot delegate another deputy, and neither can one deputy tell another deputy what to do. Such things must go back to the Sheriff to decide. And also points out other relevant consideration:-. Firstly, rules of construction/interpretation: A special law shall prevail over the general and prior laws. Therefore, Hon Hipkins Ministerial Warrant requiring him to act only “in person” takes precedence over s7 of the Constitution Act 1986, as explained for example:

Biber gives an example of this: Lecture 8 – Chapter 9 Specific law takes precedence over general laws, if law is not specific then we can refer to the general interpretation of the law. When we have a Specific article of law on a specific issue, we use this to interpret. The constitution is the most general, for example freedom of press, expression, liberty, discrimination…An ex. of specific law would be an Article in the criminal code: prohibition of hate literature (if you breach this, court must interpret this article, if can’t, go to general Constitution: Freedom of discrimination)

Further in the same vein, if secondary legislation is going to be amended, then that must be by the same person. Legislation Act 2019 s41 provides: by the same person. But it appears Hon Verrall and Hon Hipkins have been amending each other’s orders contrary to s 41 Legislation Act.

Secondly, a Minister might indeed need to step into the shoes of another, in case of sickness or other incapacity. That is arguably the proper purpose of s7 of the Constitution Act 1986. And that would then require them to act in expressly in that exact capacity. I.e., “Acting Minister for COVID-19 Response”. No other capacity can suffice, wrong hat. But Minister Verrall’s Orders are instead signed in her capacity as Associate Minister for Health. Therefore, the question whether Hon Hipkins could amend Hon Verrall’s Orders becomes irrelevant. If Hon Verrall’s Order was invalid in the first place, then there is nothing for Hon Hipkins to amend. This claim that the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 was made unlawfully by Hon Verrall was put to the High Court in Wellington on 20 September last year. The case was overturned. The case was brought by a former employee of the New Zealand Customs Service who had her employment terminated as a result of the implementation of the order.

The court stated that Covid-19 Orders were able to be made by the Minister, meaning “the Minister who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of the Act. The court noted that the “Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall signed the Order on behalf of Mr. Hipkins and the applicant argues that she was not authorized to do so.” Both Dr. Verrall and Minister Hipkins provided sworn affidavits to the court. The Court concluded that Dr. Verrall lawfully signed the Order on behalf of Mr. Hipkins. One can only wonder why the warrant pertaining to Minister Hipkins’ authority were not made available to the court by the Crown? Or what the outcome might have been, if the ministerial warrant had been made available to the court. As explained, it appears the Associate Minister of Health has no powers under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. By not providing the warrant or letters granting Prime Ministerial authority, the Court was perhaps not properly informed leading to a mistaken decision accordingly.

Pfizer Mandate: Making sense of the obfuscated puzzle:- If Hon Dr. Verrall has no Warrant or Prime Ministerial authority, can she make a valid Order under the Act? If not,  Was Hon Hipkins ever sick or incapacitated such that Hon Dr. Verrall might need to act in his stead?  If so, Would Hon Dr. Verrall then be able to act only in capacity as “Acting Minister for COVID-19 Response”, and not “Associate Minister of Health”? If so, Does the Main Vaccination Order made and signed by Hon Dr. Verall, in her capacity as Associate Minister of Health have any validity at all? If not, Do we have any valid Vaccination Order’s at all? If not,

Have all the protests, and Judicial Reviews, wrongly presuming the Orders were properly made, and then challenging the details, been a waste of time? And what about those people whom publically opposed the jab mandates, those that publicly used their International, national human rights to lawful legal assembly those that have been before the courts and imprisoned. Brian Tamaki, Vinny Eastwood, Bill TK and anyone else I have not heard about.  Do they have immunity from the judicial system such as the foreign corporate Pfizer. Corporate Capture Of NZ.?? Biber pointed out errors in the law, are we questioning that? When he refers to MBIE as a decision maker failed- and refers to an error of law. What about the sovereign law abiding people of NZ where does this lead them. The Attorney General acting for the Crown did not disclose the ministerial warrant to the court. The ministerial warrant has not been gazetted with full limitations and restrictions publicly available.  The DPMO will not publish the relevant OIAs on their website.

The Chief Ombudsmen has no authority under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 to investigate acts and decisions of ministers.  Medical Ethics have been ignored. Data Collection has been inaccurate. Adverse Reactions  Injury  Death. Revealing clause 9.4: Waiver of Sovereign Immunity has raised some acute questions:
If the New Zealand Government are in fact under contract blackmail regarding breaching indemnification clauses and cannot challenge the situation due to such a breach, how could the Crown and New Zealand get out of such a contract?

How can New Zealand citizens challenge constitutional validity of Parliament that has been compromised or threatened with such extreme censorship and non-disclosure from a Foreign Corporation? One that has dictated the government will give the corporation some form of mortgage or charge over State assets and if there is any contractual dispute it will not be litigated in NZ’s courts but in some tribunal outside the jurisdiction of the State, such as the New York State or an ad hoc Tribunal.

If the New Zealand Government was to cancel, amend or override the Pfizer contract resulting in commercial or political retaliation – how could it defend itself Would there be specific case law or legislation to enact the protection of State Sovereignty?

This is not over rover. The Authoritarian regime of New Zealand have and are showing us they are still violating the sovereign peoples human rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression etc., etc., etc., and many more etcs., This Government (Regime) are doing similar to what Hitlers regime did with Goebbels controlling the press and the invasion of privacy, censorship, and unjust sentencing and imprisonment of law abiding New Zealanders. The Govts journalist fund that advocates that law abiding citizens are publicly slandered and lied about. Freedom of the Independent Press is being massively persecuted as our Christians worldwide. New Zealand- The Plundering Of NZ. What we need is a sovereign population that loves their country that will publicly speak out with moral courage.  Biber states:- Was there ever a Mandate? Or have employers been tricked into firing their staff unlawfully?

My Question:  Did the political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington give a foreign corporation the right to take away our sovereign rights as the sovereign people of NZ.?

https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/opinion/pfizerleak-2-has-the-new-zealand-government-signed-over-our-state-sovereignty/