HIgh court verdict

New Zealand High Court Verdict Finds No Problem With Experimenting on Children

The following is opinion inspired by the High Court Verdict in the judicial review of approval for the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds, by Judge David Gendall. We are reading the full judgement of the high court verdict but the medicinal brandy has not reached the spot yet , so we defer at this stage to our very wise friend Dr Guy Harchard’s quietly furious initial commentary on this high court verdict, and his deep dive here into the substantive judgement. We lack his self-control at this moment, immersed as we are in the facts of sudden and UNEXPLAINED DEATHS, especially notable in children and young adults. We can now state confidently that many if not most of these ARE caused by these new jabs, based on two things: overwhelming and wide-ranging circumstantial evidence, and the utter refusal to investigate that evidence, by the Police (due to its self-admitted cognitive dissonance that one medication might kill so many) and Medsafe (no excuse given, just bullish silence).

Opinion on the Hood High Court Verdict

So if this piece seems just emotive rhetoric, please remember that legal decisions will rarely have the impact on the scale of loss of life, health and livelihood as these recent “covid court cases”. No doubt historians expert in the legal and medical-political landscape of 1930s Germany would easily demonstrate how the trajectory to genocide was gradually enabled in its courts and committee rooms. We all know how that ended, and Holocaust survivors are calling out that history is repeating in front of our eyes unless we do something right now. 

In light of the latest gutless surrender that is the high court verdict, to the welding back together of the judiciary and the legislature, supposedly separate in any democracy, NZDSOS finds itself in the latest extraordinary and undreamed-of position: an urgent house call on the mental and moral health of the country’s high court judges.

We are well aware that they avoid criticising the merits of governments’ decisions if they possibly can, merely the lawfulness of the prescribed processes. Many barristers and seasoned medical expert witnesses have all told us that we will never win on science or moral arguments alone. There must, however, come a point for judges, surely, where a dim recollection occurs of their courts being a final bastion of protection of the public from gross overreach and abuse of power, and against the misuse of the law to avoid the law. 

That they lack courage to “hunt outside the pack”, and to grapple with sciency things like numbers and genes is certainly evident – but surely one or two had a more rounded education than just humanities and the law? Even so, this doesn’t explain the inconsistencies that run rampant through the string of recent High Court challenges to parliament’s vaccine mandates. These iniquities have not been so much between different judges – as it does seem like the judicial gene pool hearing these cases against the dictates is quite narrow – but, worryingly, between cases heard by the same judge, or even within one case!

We refer of course to another high court verdict, that of Justice Cooke’s finding in our joint action with a group of teachers, NZTSOS, where he seemed to register and reflect on all the important arguments we submitted to show the mandates to be unreasonable, unjustified and damaging, but then fell heavily at the last fence. He produced the tired old finding of “but there’s a pandemic on, and we must trust government experts”. And yet this same judge had already found in another challenge that the mandates breached the human rights of defence force and police personnel, who claimed objections on religious grounds, too. The judge upheld these. Is that where we and the teachers went wrong, by not appealing to Justice Cooke’s Christian values? Rather naively, we went for additional arguments, assuming the good judge would hold himself to his own precedential judgements. However, he was ‘persuaded’ in our ruling that the special risks our professions posed to the public justified the continuing forced vaccination – if we are to keep our jobs.

This same judge has previously stated in another case that of course the vaccine mandates do not equate to coercion, as people can always “choose” to leave their employment.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more things stay the same. 

This implication, by the way, that government will only ever act in the people’s best interests, and that its nominated experts are somehow suprahuman, is against the reams of evidence from history (isn’t that a humanity?) and psychology.

Well, for a start there isn’t a pandemic on, and hasn’t been, officially, since March 2021 when both the CDC and NHS downgraded to flu-level severity. (Note that WHO chief Tedros, the Ethiopian Marxist terrorist who presided over the WHOs inconsistent covid-19 panic porn, has now declared monkeypox to be a pandemic, single-handedly and totally overruling his advisory committee! That decision will not go well.) Total deaths from all causes did not start rising in covid-affected countries until the 2nd year, 2021, exactly in line with the vaccine rollouts, and confirmatory evidence of the vaccines causing deaths and injury far in excess of any supposed benefit is now a literal torrent. 

For instance, 1 in 246 vaccinated people are dead by 60 days, according to official UK ONS data

20% of the vaccinated have a chronic health condition they didn’t have before vaccination. 

Fraiman, Doshi, Greenland et al showed 3.4x more serious vaccine adverse effects than prevented hospitalisations from covid after analysing the data from original Moderna and Pfizer approval trials.

29% of 300 Thai boys showed cardiac effects following their 2nd dose in this trial. Around 2% got myo-pericarditis. This is at the very least 200x worse than our health authorities will admit. 

The CDC’s own figures have shown deaths in 25-44 year olds have been as high as 84% up from pre-rollout norms. following the numbers vaccinated. More have died than in Vietnam.

Multitudes of this type of evidence have been presented in courts, and our judges do rail at the Crown for not disputing or disproving expert opinion against the vaccines but still somehow give them a free pass. 

And in news just too late to save Judge Juliet from drinking Crown Romeo’s poison, the CDC have just rolled back their restrictions (and quietly removed from their website that mRNA does not persist in the body) and acknowledged finally that unvaccinated people are not the problem or the risk. Further, Denmark has banned any more jabs below age 18 and admitted it made a mistake vaccinating its kids. 

A Message to The Judiciary

Remember your supposed separation from the State; or are we now in a Stalinist dictatorship where penalties against dissenting judges are real and frightening? Is this why you entered the law: to give a veneer of legality to a captured Parliament? No, we didn’t think so, and you may recoil at our question, but from out here it seems to be a pertinent one.  We’ve heard it said that your oath at the bar commits you to not showing the Crown in disrepute. Is this right? We say however that, just like our Medical Council as it clearly dances to overseas commandments rather than its own standards and statements on informed consent, the Crown has brought itself into disrepute perfectly well all by itself.

Or has it? Supposed royal assent has been given to the Covid Response Act 2020, and the supplementary orders by extension.  But do lawful mandate orders actually exist? A number of the precedent Acts have recently and mysteriously left the statute books. Employers, schools, DHBs etc have all behaved as if the coercive orders have come down on tablets of stone, but is this actually the government going rogue? We believe so, as we see all relevant institutions paralysed, silent or complicit in ignoring hundreds of dead people and many times more injured who were variously tricked, lied to, abandoned and shunned on government orders. 

A common maxim is that the courts are dedicated to discovering The Truth of a matter. If that is the case, we’ll have to keep watching the space in case someone actually finds one that will. We are already stunned that even though safe and effective has been disproven by data, the law remains mute. It has shocked us even more that the application of jurisprudence need not involve matters of ethics. Perhaps we should just grow up, and unlearn that “do no harm” is a foundational principle of equity and common law too, harking back to the basics of natural law and God’s law where engagement is with an equal honesty and access to the truth, though each side may perceive it differently. 

What isn’t debatable, in our view, is this high court verdict that in effect allows for experimenting on kiddies and unborn babies with a proven dangerous gene therapy for a demonstrably benign infection. The evidence was black and white but the judge turned it to grey, and put the entire thing back on Chris James, Medsafe’s general manager. Few people would have the ‘brass neck’ to muscle through this far, but we guess we will see he is probably human too at some point. He has ignored evidence of disaster, and we look forward to him having his day in court to explain. That is to say, a high court verdict with a right judge. 

A Jab Too Far…

We have learned that the judges need not be vaccinated to do their jobs, but we do wonder if some have taken the decision that then sees them hopelessly biased as they will reject, especially subconsciously, any evidence undermining their personal choice. All humans manifest this, along with many other foibles that are spoken to by various parables and fables, such as the naked emperor astride the elephant in the room. Dr Hatchard has raised the spectre of brain changes, however subtle, from the shot, which might dull thinking, harden the personality and one’s spiritual and ethical dimensions too, as it interacts unfavourably with our DNA in ways we barely yet divine. 

As some of our medical colleagues have abandoned the good ship Informed Consent and are looking away from the evident casualties of their dereliction, there sounds hypocrisy in these final words, but please:

Judges, know thyselves.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1737 Average: 1.3]
Share this post

Similar Posts