SOFT LAW: The term soft law is used to denote agreements, principles and declarations that are not legally binding. Soft law instruments are predominantly found in the international sphere. UN General Assembly resolutions are an example of soft law.. For example when NZ signed the Non-Binding UN Agenda 2030 it was accepted by all political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington. Soft Law is a stop gap to ‘hard law’- legislations. Ardern entered the UN Agenda 2030 into Domestic Policies, it them became ‘legalized hard law’ (Note not necessarily lawful). Soft Law needs no political consensus, it is just accepted as it is and not opposed in parliament. Hence mobilises a consistent general response without consensus. (Soft law is non-binding)

CONTRACT LAW:Is common throughout the country, some specific court interpretations of a particular element of the contract may vary between the states, countries. In New Zealand there are 5 key elements of a valid contract, a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance, adequate consideration, an intention all parties enter into legal relations under certain terms. Based on the principle that agreements must be honoured

CUSTOMARY LAW:The rulings of Customary Law institutions can be inconsistent, unpredictable and discriminatory. As decisions are often not recorded, and appeals from  decisions may be difficult, there is insufficient monitoring and supervision of their operations. Customary Law: Under the doctrine of aboriginal rights, customary laws or practices of a continuous nature may be granted the force of law by the courts and an associated rights enforced if they have not been extinguished by statute. The four principles of customary law, the general principles of law are laches, good faith, res judicata, and the impartiality of judges. International tribunals rely on these principles when they cannot find authority in other sources of international law. Customary Law is consuetudinary or unofficial law) exists where: a certain legal practice is observed and. the relevant actors consider it to be an opinion of law or necessity (opinio juris).

CIVIL LAW: The term civil law derives from the Latin ius civile, the law applicable to all Roman cives or citizens. Its origins and model are to be found in the monumen- tal compilation of Roman law commissioned by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE. Civil Law covers disputes between individuals, companies and sometimes local or central government. Civil law disputes are generally the cases in court that are not about breaking a criminal law. New Zealand’s civil justice system works in such a way that cases can be resolved through a claims process. What are 4 examples of civil law? Four types of Civil Law deal with Contracts, Property, Family Relations, Civil wrongs causing physical injury or injury to property (tort). Civil law, also known as private law, regulates disputes between private individuals or entities (e.g. companies). It is thus different to cases dealing with matters between individuals and the state, i.e. public law and criminal law. The drawback of Civil Law is that even if previous cases show you should win your case, there is no guarantee a judge will interpret the code in the same way on your case,

COMMON LAW: Began in England in the 11th century with the establishment by William the Conqueror, King of England, of the Kings Courts. The courts, in deciding local disputes, applied local customs. Over time, these customs became rules and were the basis for later courts to make decisions on similar disputes. Henry 11 is recorded as being the alleged ‘Father of Common Law”.  At the centre of common law is a legal principle known as stare decisis, which is a Latin phrase that roughly means “to stand by things decided.” In practice, stare decisis is just a fancy way of saying that courts and judges need to follow earlier decisions and rulings — otherwise known as caselaw. : Much of New Zealand’s law, such as its common law tradition and constitutional framework, has been inherited from the English legal system, which was applied (so far as applicable to the circumstances of New Zealand) in 1840. Independent, fair and efficient courts are an important cornerstone in our democracy. New Zealand has common law, which means judges make legal decisions based on previous judges’ decisions as well as on statutes (written law) passed by Parliament. Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries. Common laws sometimes prove the inspiration for new legislation to be enacted. Common Law is better than Civil Law as it  allows for flexibility allows  judges to be able to respond to future cases, even those that they had not predicted. Common law is independent of political influence, ensures consistency in the legal systems and is clearer in instructions compared to civil law.  Civil law systems are codified statutes predominate.

My Rights Under Common Law:-Blackstone’s Introduction to the Study of the Law and the Constitution lists three primary common law rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice.  Common Law protects Human Rights:- These rights and freedoms are protected by the common law principle that legislation should not infringe fundamental rights and freedoms unless the legislation expresses a clear intention to do so and the infringement is reasonable. ‘Firstly Do No Harm’, This harm/no–harm distinction at common law cannot be dismissed

NOTE: An interesting case -Judge Wylie (Published 12/3/2020) A High Court Judge opened the door for a new ‘Tort’ laws making corporates responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. This is related to 2 out of 3 claims made by Climate Change Iwi Leaders Group Chair Mike Smith against Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, NZ Steel, Z Energy, NZ Refining and BT Mining. Has had a similar case against the government.

The hearing was to consider the corporates move to strike out the claim could not be reasonable argued. Wylie released a decision saying “while Smith could not proceed on already established rules of negligence and public nuisance, a new area of law could be created. He said “I am reluctant to conclude that the recognition of a new tortious duty which makes corporates responsible to the public for their emissions is untenable. It may, for example, be that the special damage rule in public nuisance could be modified, it may be that climate change science will lead to an increased ability to model the possible effects of emissions”. Smith wanted the court to declare the corporates have caused a public nuisance through their emissions and order they move to ‘zero net’ emissions from their activities by 2030.

The Judge referred to a paper where the Supreme Court chief alongside other judges, states the problem of climate change does not adhere well to established legal doctrine.  “The Common Law method brings stability, but it can also allow for the injection of new ideas and for the creation of a new responses as required” Judge Wiley cited. The statement of claim raises three caused of action, all in tort-public nuisance, negligence and breach of an inchoate duty. Declarations are sought that each of the defendants has unlawfully caused or contributed to the public nuisance alleged or breached duties said to be owed to Smith, Injunctions are also sought requiring each defendant to produce, or cause, zero net emissions from its activities by 2030.

Judge Wylie said “Smith’s negligence claim could not go ahead because there was no proximity between Smith and the Corporates, and that if he ruled in favour, floodgates may open”. He said “”the public nuisance claim was  clearly untenable”

Judge Wylie said “ Even if Smith was successful in his wider claim it would be difficult to craft an injunction which did not clash with Parliament, Government policy and other law. It would in effect have the court acting as regulator requiring specialist no judicial expertise. Meanwhile a High Court judge had declines an application to strike down a judicial review of Thames Coromandel District Councils refusal to sign a ‘climate change’ declaration. Justice Gault also declined the councils bid for security deposit, saying it was in the publics interest for the case to go ahead and the group seeking the review could not afford it.  Justice Gault did not look at the merits of the case, but said “the bar for striking out a judicial review should be hight”. Arguments in the application looked at whether the declaration had any meaningful impact or whether it was simple binary decision for the local Mayor to sign or not. The decision on the Smith case is covered in more detail in the Energy and Environment  documentation

LINKS

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2003/S00142/judge-leaves-door-open-on-climate-change-case-just.htm

https://energyandenvironment.net.nz/home.html

(Beehive Website) 16/1/2023 Trade & Export- Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor (Beehive Website) to attend the World Economic Forum and visiting Europe to discuss the agriculture Trade and in climate change and food security, World Trade Org., (UN) reform and NZ Agriculture Innovation in meetings at DAVOS then travelling on to Berlin for the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture meetings with the German Govt and industry leaders. (Refers to Climate Change challenge of all countries). Beehive report that “The World Economic Forum bring together civil society, business, political leader annually  (Did not mention philanthropist like Gates, nor royalty and those wealthy from Silicon Valley)

The Beehive documents that “This years World Economic Forum theme is ‘Cooperation in a Fragmented World’. Damien O’Connor participating in a panel on indigenous trade and attending a Swiss hosted ministerial meeting with a Canada hosted group namely the ‘Ottawa Group’ Damien O’Connor said that the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture provides a showcase for NZ’s global leadership, innovation in sustainable agriculture. It’s the worlds largest informal conference of agriculture ministers and industry. NZ’s attendance is reported t enhance the govts credentials as a global leader in agriculture innovation.

The Ottawa Group meeting presents the opportunity to discuss how we work towards this goal with our partners,” Damien O’Connor said.

Damien O’Connor said the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture provides a platform to showcase New Zealand’s global leadership and innovation in sustainable agriculture. O’Connor was” looking for partnership opportunities for climate research in agriculture” he said. O’Connor referred to the WEF DAVOS meetings and the Global Forum for Foods and Agriculture as an opportunity to lobby for the ratification of the EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement as well as for NZ’s candidate for Director General of the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) Dr. John Barker. Damien O’Connor travelling from 17/1/2023 to 25/1/2023

LINK

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/trade-and-agriculture-minister-attend-world-economic-forum-and-global-forum-food-and

What are you not being told as to why the government reintroduced the Therapeutics Products Bill. The message they give NZrs is that they are just making sure of the quality and the efficacy on therapeutics. Balancing the risks and benefits. Making sure they are a different product category to medicines and medical devices. That are they hiding, not telling the public of New Zealand.  The Govt sought an urgent law change to the Medicines Act which related to the Pfizer COVID19 rollout legality. The govt needed to urgently fix the Medicines Act so that they could roll out the 4^th COVID19 jab legally. After a High Court ruling on the decision to grant provisional approval to rollout Pfizer COVID19 jabs.  The Court concluded it was ‘reasonably arguable that the limited use provision (Off Label Medicine) under sect.23 of the Medicine Act was problematic as it encompassed a limited number of people that could receive the dose 4 of Pfizer jab, not the whole population. The Judge said “While I doubt that this is a much ‘limited’ class of persons than ‘ALL New Zealanders’ a class of that size seems well beyond what is contemplated by a straight forward purpose” referring to Sect 23 of the Medicines Act. Health Minister Andrew Little acknowledged the Judges ruling saying ‘The Medicines Act’ was due for a change. He said The Medicines Amendment Bill will be passed with urgency tomorrow”. Six products were currently used as an off-label medicine under sect 23 of the Medicines Act. 2 types of contraceptives, 2 pandemic flu vaxes, and a Pfizer Jab, also an electrolyte solution used in hospitals.

25/5/2022 Chris Hipkins Minister for COVID19 Response and Andrew Little Minister of Health made a ‘Regulatory Impact Statement to amend the Medicines Act 1981 allowing for Off-Label Medicines (Mass COVID19 Jabs-unlimited). The 4^th dose of COVID19 jab was an off label medicine classification, it had not been approved in large cohorts, thus a mechanism had to be implemented to allow for use. This would also allow the dosage timing between jabs to be shortened from 6 months to 3 months. The COVID Technical Advisory Groups had recommended that people over 65 and Maori and Pasifika over the age of 50 years old. Thousands of people. This giving the Director General of Health the ability to make decisions regarding the admin, supply and the implementation of the 4^th Pfizer Jab and other jabs that may be introduced that had not been approved, could only be used as off-label- limited use. Whilst being outside Medsafe regulations of the medicines process this would provide an enduring sound legal basis for the provision of any further dosed of COVI19 jabs, the 4^th dose and future ones. Thus future-proofing off label medicines even if there is no epidemic notice in place.

This was just one of the options the other was the Therapeutic Products Bill which became the preferential option rather than amending the Medicine Act, as it would provide regulatory mechanisms to ensure the future proofing of the 4^th dose of Pfizer jab and any other off label jabs that will follow. What does it mean when a medication is off-label? It is used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to treat. Can only be cause for a limited amount of patients not the whole population of NZ. You must be prescribed an off-label medicine by a doctor by doctors prescription. Out of several options discussed the government stated they found it necessary to introduce the Therapeutic Products Bill to pass it into legislation so they could deploy an unlimited jabbing of people across NZ. So the real reason for the Therapeutic Products Bill is the jab unlimited people with an off-label unapproved medicine where off label medicines are usually for a limited number of the population. As with all medicines, vaccines can be used outside of Medsafe approval (this is called ‘off label’) if they are prescribed by an authorised prescriber.

27^th May 2022 -Currently a fourth dose is considered “off-label” Pfizer’s 4^th jab had not been approved by Medsafe, due to the absence of an application from Pfizer. The only way for the approximately 834,000 at-risk people to access the fourth dose is on prescription via a General Practitioner (GP) on an individualised basis.  Thus raising concerns over the ability to maximise uptake of the vaccine in these groups, due to equity of access, cost and timeliness of implementation. Documented by Caroline Flora Associate Deputy Director-General System Strategy and Policy Ministry of Health. When publicly  explaining the reasons for the introduction to the Therapeutic Products Bill they deliberately left some very important information out, that being the real reason for introducing the Bill, however the government told  the people of New Zealand “they were  just making sure of the quality and the efficacy on therapeutics. Balancing the risks and benefits. Making sure they are a different product category to medicines and medical devices.”

That are they hiding, not telling the public of New Zealand.  The Government did not tell the public about why they really introduced the Therapeutic Product Bill, it was so they could legally jab more arms with an off-label unapproved Pfizer jab- more guineapig for another Pfizer jab, which has little to zilch results as yet.

LINKS

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/05/covid-19-government-to-urgently-change-law-after-high-court-ruling-on-pfizer-vaccine-rollout-legality.html

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/information-release/ris-fourth-dose-final.pdf

https://wakeupnz.org    Carol Sakey

2019 Jacinda Ardern was the guest speaker at a private gathering in New York which was hosted by Bill and Melinda Gates. She boasted to the audience that New Zealand is the first country in the world to embed UN Agenda 2030 in NZs Legislation and Regulatory framework.  UN Agenda 2030 was non-binding however once entering it into domestic policy becomes binding. The gathering was an event arranged by Goalkeeper an organization set up by the Gates Foundation in 2017 to accelerate UN Agenda 2030 with its 17 goals which include 169 targets globally. The first in the world, the leader of human experiments, the experimental path of UN Agenda 2030, to leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age. Prior to implementing Agenda 2030 into NZs domestic policy did the opposition publically warn us, after all this is a global economic, social engineering strategy to be actioned at local level.

UN Agenda 2030 was however in the 2017 ‘Confidence and Supply Agreement’ between the Labour Party and Greens, but the name was missing, it was merely a commitment to 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 featured in the 2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Labour Party and the Greens – although not by name. Instead, the parties made a commitment to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that underpin Agenda 2030: And yes Jacinda Ardern became the poster child of UN Agenda 2030. In 2018 Ardern spoke at the Conference on Sustainability in New York, she again boasted that her intention was to lead the world by embedding the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs into NZ’s domestic affairs saying :we have decided to try something no other country has done before, we have embedded the SDG Indicators into everything we do. (NZ Government chooses to do) She pointed out that traditional measures of progress for economic growth would no longer exist but these traditional methods would be replaced by new experimental indicators, “a national achievement that go far beyond growth”, she said.

Ardern’s ambitious project namely Indicators Aotearoa N Z, the creating of a set of indicators across varying dimensions eluding to New Zealanders future economic, cultural, social, environmental wellbeing. The introduction to the ‘Wellbeing’ Budget’ was not an innovative strategy to grow NZ’s economy it was merely the beginning phase of Ardern’s deliberate Socialist degrowth of our country. The plundering of New Zealand had begun. Ardern introduced the ‘Wellbeing Budget’. Never mind growth because she had already started taking the country into ‘degrowth’, and 2022 the global media familiarly report purposeful, deliberate ‘Degrowth’. . Ardern has said “whilst economic growth is important and something we will continue to pursue, it alone does no guarantee improvements to New Zealanders living standards”, and so New Zealanders living standards started to drop, as more people joined the public housing waiting list.

To publicly oppose any of Ardern’s decision making, pending legislations, regulations makes one the governments political politicking target practice. Failure to be compliant to government demands means that deliberate character assassination is deal out by the governments purchased mainstream media. Sadly far too many people in New Zealand can not, or choose not to conjure up moral courage to publicly speak out for one reason or another. The housing crisis in New Zealand is a nightmare, the high cost of housing and sections. I have to wonder does anyone just purchase a section anymore. All I see are’ pack and stacks’ hastily being built all over Auckland. I wonder whatever happen to council bylaws etc., where a huge number of townhouses over shadow peoples property next door, stopping the sunlight, spoiling their privacy, built right close to the boundary fence line. The intensification of housing ‘Agenda 2030’ Smart Growth.

Everything is just so entrenched in an ideological global framework of so called ‘Smart ‘Cities’ which don’t look that smart to me. No gardens for the children to play in and n o apple tree to climb, eem yes my dreams of yesteryear. No children playing  with the neighbours kids in the cul-de-sac’s now its little ones in pushchairs with cell-phones in hands. Both parents having to work to survive, children put into day care during their parents working day, they have no choice of being a ‘stay at home mum’

Now its all about ‘Smart Growth’, Agenda 2030,  surveillance camera’s and the talk of transhumanism where humans meet machines and become robot like. The UN Agenda 2030 that Ardern boasted about on the global stage, as she implied that she would take the lead, the lead to control every aspect of our lives, the UN-WEF have mapped it all out. Destruction of ‘free-market enterprise economy’, replacing it with ‘multi-stakeholder Capitalist corporations’, in public-private partnership with governments worldwide. Corporations in the drivers seat, government (regime) as the back seat passenger, small businesses and rural communities – farmers are the roadkill, those that New Zealand’s socialist regime deliberately throw under their tractors. The government using the farmers as their whipping boy in their ambitious climate hoax scheme. Yes, New Zealand the ‘guineapig state’.

There is no open public debate and no justification for Ardern’s actions nor that of any of the other political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington… In my research I have touched on UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030. Agenda 2050 and Agenda 2063 in on the table yet to be exposed worldwide. The UN Global Socialist States of the World. Socialism has failed miserably and caused huge suffering in the past. If you wear a blindfold and a mask around your mouth time to get rid of both and see it for what it really is. Ardern has gone replaced by Hipkins, just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Yes New Zealand truly is a guineapig state number one alongside Australia for human trials. New Zealand with its one regularity agency-Pharmac. A small populated country with numerous cultures, ethnic groups that live her. For human experiment, varying cultures are important part of human trials. NZ is the first country to see the rising of the dawn which is advantageous when it comes to the rest of the world. Much needed cancer drugs for example are often too expensive for people to buy, hence more people are inclined to take part in human trials. New Zealand has one of the quickest time frames for human trials to be completed, therefore saves drug companies, research agencies lots of money. ‘Wealth NOT Health’

New Zealanders have become guineapigs of socialist experiments.  Ardern also offered New Zealanders up to be guineapigs for the World Economic Forums ‘Reimagining Regulation for the Age of AI. Back in 2013 Google chose New Zealand to be the guineapig for global tech firms. Facebook has enthusiastically used New Zealanders as guineapigs when they trailed a scheme where user pay to make their posts more prominent on friends newsfeeds. In 2011 Facebook also rolled out its timeline feature first in New Zealand in 2011 saying at the time “As a global company we need to gain perspective and insights from outside the US” The LinkedIn social network also tested its endorsement feature in New Zealand

However Googles Project Loon is probably the most ambitious high tech test carried out in New Zealand, this aimed to bring the internet to 2/3rds of the global population currently without web  access. This involved send 30 helium filled balloons to the edge of space above the South Island, each of these balloons were carrying transmitters capable of beaming wi-fi internet access down to antennae on properties below. Googles ultimate goal was a network of thousands of these balloons thus creating a  network that provides online access to anywhere in the world.. this was Googles dream and still remains Googles dream.

NOTE; Guinea pigs often sleep with their eyes open looking like they are in a trance. COVID19 Guineapig State. Ministry Of Health reported ‘COVID19 Vaccine trials and testing..ongoing trials, safety monitoring and real world data from COVID19 vaccination programmes worldwide provide us with useful information. We are in phase 3 of the clinical vaccine (Jab) trials as the government determine whether the Pfizer BioNTech COVID19 jab is safe and effective.  YES this government purchased enough of these shots for every man, woman and child in New Zealand to be a guineapig for this human clinical trial. Coerced, blackmailed, lied to, manipulated and mandated into being guineapigs in global Human Clinical Trials as Guineapigs. And to top it off the government ignores the multitude of post jab deaths and numerous severe adverse events.

NOTE: A Texas Court demanded that FDA share their thousands of papers that Pfizer produced to gain authority to market their jab. This information will not be available to the public until at least 2024. Therefore NZ Government know jack shit about the Pfizer drug and all its contents, however they do know that there are huge risks but continue to announce this is for the public good, benefits the public with zilch risks.

October 2022 Pfizer admitted in European Court it did not test their jab to see if it stopped transmission of the virus before it entered the global market place . Governments, including NZ Govt continues to lie to us. If a person has a COVID test and it comes up positive e, if they die within 28days of that positive test they are counted as a COVID death. This was introduced 10^th March 2022 in NZ. The World Health Org., (UN) requested that all countries align themselves in counting COVID19 deaths in this way. Therefore a suicide, a post jab death, a motor vehicle accident, being shot by the police equates to a COVID death if that person came up with a positive COVID19 test within 28 days of their death. The window of time can be expanded and has been in the UK.   ZILCH TRANSPARANCY AND THE BULL SHITE LIES CONTINUE. Just keep people in the state of fear, so they are easier to control.

Guineapigs that sleep with their eyes open as if in a trance.