Sabotaging Justice: Mandates and the Judiciary. Is the Law an Ass, or an Asp?

Mandates and the Judiciary

NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) is curious about the stinging judgement released from the NZ Appeals Court, where our sister group of mandated-out teachers, NZTSOS, took our formerly joint challenge against the mandates to appeal.

Nearing an unacceptable one year after being heard, with almost identical facts and legal team which produced a win for the Defence employees from the same judges recently, finally the teachers were told that this time the Court was comfortable with government science; and children were so at risk from teachers with asymptomatic covid-19 that a sort of reverse precautionary principle was used justifiably to visit an untested gene transfer device (masquerading as a vaccine) upon their precious bodies.

We assume this surprise judgement will clear the way for NZ Defence Force to win its appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court and Appeals judges found that it had acted unlawfully. The judiciary can be forgiven for being unaware of the dangerous history of mRNA technology, but its  non-acknowledgement of Comirnaty’s experimental nature is the point at which law uncouples from substantive reality, sublimating into some ill-defined, impalpable and ephemeral parallel realm.

As diligent doctors falling foul of a political directive to dismantle several thousand years of aggregated thought on medical ethics – all for, we contend, a highly exaggerated ‘pandemic’ – many NZDSOS doctors and other health practitioners have had ringside seats in the courts of New Zealand, and the kangaroo tribunals of their professional bodies. Sometimes the analogy of a circus or boxing match is hard to ignore (though the comedic aspect of the former is often very lacking), especially in disciplinary proceedings against health workers. 

For us, schooled ultimately for the binary end-game of life or death, a number of stark truths have been laid bare about the law and its practitioners, at least regarding the civil courts:

Medical ethics are of no interest or relevance; many judges are uneducated, seemingly happily so, on science matters; justice delayed is justice denied seems to be a virtue rather than an admonition nowadays, as important tribunal and appeal verdicts can spend nearly a year (presumably being spun and ‘consulted widely’ upon) before putting the defendants or appellants out of their misery with a release; and of course the old chestnut that judges will not examine the merits of government decisions, but merely that prescribed processes were followed. And, as with the Teachers’ and Defence employees’ cases above, some judgements are highly inconsistent, even from the same judge or set of judges. 

However, the three of us who appealed our unjustified suspensions by the Medical Council did win our cases, basically on freedom of speech and disproportionality grounds. Perhaps our District Court judges were freer to apply straight forward human rights protections.

It can’t be that the higher courts are unaware of these towering legal bulwarks against tyranny, not least of which is the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 4(2) of the ICCPR provides that no suspension of it is permitted for: the right to life (article 6), freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and freedom from medical or scientific experimentation without consent (article 7), and freedom from slavery and servitude (article 8 (1) and (2)). 

As far as examining the lies and failures that have led to many deaths, injuries and other multiple sufferings, the criminal courts have yet to be tested. However, thanks to the clarity of the Crimes Act, the search for truth that defines criminal law endeavours is harder to sabotage, if only thanks to the presence of a jury, the much higher requirement for evidence to prove each fact of the case, the ability to cross examine and the obligation on the prosecution to examine their target’s possible defences.  

Like with all our open letters and substantive posts, our thoughts on the current judicial climate are coloured by certain non-negotiable absolute truths. Readers, and seemingly some judicial colleagues, may disagree with the following precepts but as we read back through our open letters from Easter 2021 onwards, we can not find a single concern or prediction that was off-target and has not come home to roost with a mighty bump and a squawk.

Every single statement following is evidence-backed to the eyeballs, but when expert doctors and scientists have presented such peer-reviewed information, the judge seems to need just a solitary crown witness to poo poo it, who offers often no evidence of his or her own. So, Bob’s your uncle, the Pfizer contract remains unchallenged and unexamined, and ker-ching remains a thing for the drug company with the largest fine in history.

Fundamental Truths We Take to the Bank 

1. Long before any ‘vaccine’ eventuated it was clear the pandemic (of PCR testing) was NOT resulting in major deaths. All cause mortality around the world in 2020 failed to confirm the government and media horror stories put about whilst we were locked down and masked up. Remember, we older doctors have worked through many seasonal respiratory epidemics and a few declared pandemics. This was never a Hollywood death-in-the-streets scenario. Then the rollouts started….

2. From that realisation onwards – officially ignored – any pretence that national and international rights’ protections deserved suspension was not true. There were NO JUSTIFIED LIMITATIONS that could allow lockdowns, masks, passports, mandated rushed jabs, distancing and the cruelties of separation and abandonment that some families endured. This gross deception became the ramrod for everything bad that followed the WHO’s declaration of the fake PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern).

3. The Pfizer mRNA vaccine was not tested, nor able, to prevent infection and transmission; and this was predicted and quickly proven, and the truth got worse. But the NZ BORA was suspended anyway.  This was when we first learned of the parliamentary supremacy here that can leave judges hamstrung – unless they are activist bandwagon judges perceiving and massaging laws in line with their own societal preferences, but that is a whole other can of worms ….

4. The jab was and still is an experiment. 12 billion doses does not alter this. Different types of registration and approval cannot hide the simple truth that we could not know what could happen. Medsafe, and especially Australia’s TGA, had many questions and major misgivings from the start. 

5. Injuries and deaths from the injections are hideously high, the worst reported for any pharmaceutical. Official figures, retrospective and observational studies and insurance statistics tell a grim story of more harm than good- whilst officials lie or play pretend – but of course not everyone is dropping dead in court, or parliament or the sports fields. Is that what it will take, however, for lay people and our silent medical colleagues to acknowledge a problem?

6. The C-19 modified RNA injections ARE GMOs(genetically modified organisms), DO NOT stay in the arm, persist long term, DO integrate with host (human) DNA and are heavily contaminated with bacterial DNA that has clear pathways to be able to trigger or reactivate cancer. They are NOT vaccines, they are gene modifying devices.

7. The injections trigger hundreds or thousands times more spike protein than the infection. The spike IS the disease-causing particle, so any complications from the illness of covid-19 will be far worse from the jab, because of the larger and more widespread production as the body is turned into a spike protein factory.

8. Medsafe, MoH, Health New Zealand, ministers, police, Health and Disability Commission, Crown Law, coroners, Human Rights Commission and senior clinicians are silent, inactive and refuse to examine the evidence or meet to discuss it. 

9. NEVER were pregant women and children at sufficient riskto justify a ‘she’ll be right’ approach that breaks thenumber one GOLDEN RULE of medicine – we protect the unborn child. No panadol, ibuprofen or alcohol is best, but a gene modifying injection with no safety data is touted falsely as safe, even mandated in some professions.

10. To meet Ardern’s target of over 90% jab rates, people WERE coerced/forced/threatened/bullied/emotionally tortured, or tricked by slick marketing and impossibly optimistic sloganeering from politicians, celebs and influencers who all practised medicine without a licence; and doctors, nurses and pharmacists who broke the Medicines Act (and numerous Codes and Declarations) by agreeing not to discuss downsides in order to keep their licences. Some GP clinics and jab centres earned over a million dollars.

To those who cannot accept some or all of the above, we ask that you do your own research – trust your brain if not your immune system –  and listen to some of the silenced and censored voices. But you do have nasty shocks coming. The rubbery clot and damaged blood stories are gaining credence, traction and evidentiality.

It cannot be lawful to demolish medical protections, surely.

The assault on medicine’s ethical heart, and the ignoring of gravely evil historical precedents that echo louder now, must have analogies that would resonate with law practitioners. Suppose the government removed lawyer-client confidentiality; the police could interrogate without a lawyer present; children could sit on juries; the death penalty was reintroduced without consultation.

Does this sound preposterous? Perhaps, but it has been as seismic for medicine: we’ve been ‘relieved’ of our fiduciary obligations to patients (and a few dozen of us persecuted for defending them), and who’d ever have thought we would subject pregnant women to a trial drug, with no general outcry? And children too, who have virtually zero risk of the illness.

Were the judges mindful of their incomes and standing, or so terrified of covid-19 that they just rubber-stamped the legislature’s dismantling of a fraternal profession? And anyway, how much did law-making MPs really have to do with the new high-speed link between policy generation and its judicial enforcement?

And yet, here we are, as the sovietised health system collapses under a befuddling all-cause morbidity, but which appears hidden from the courts.  Such is the power of the government body and expert; the ability to swing a case just by virtue of some default perceived halo effect even has a name: the Chevron deference. The perception throughout covid-19 has been of hitherto unknown government-pharma complex talking heads preaching with almost supernaturally-conferred knowledge (which they never detail nor provide references for), absolute infallibility and moral authority.

Psychology tells us of mass hysteria and formation, the appeals to and by authority, of extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Denial and self-deceit is as old as the human condition, not to mention greed, corruption and stupidity. What makes our government and judiciary, here and now, so immune to the river of history? “This time it’s different”? That is the challenge to awake activists, to ensure this time that the outcome of the latest, ugliest and most evil manifestation of elite power and fear must be different. 

Unalert judges would be advised at least to imagine how they might feel if they discovered our 10 truths are correct (THEY ARE), and they have dozed expediently through the greatest medical assault in world history. How will they cope? We’re already too busy helping bereaved and injured people to worry, frankly. The judges can take their chances, like they have allowed the government to take it’s liberties with our rights and freedoms.

When (vaccine-induced) covid-19 eventually hit us, was it bad enough to have justified the lawlessness?

In summary, it turns out our precious laws which the judiciary are paid to uphold were good enough all along to deal with the deliberately demoralising “unprecedented global pandemic”. But there IS a global health emergency, since people started dying from the jabs immediately, so the absolute protections of the ICCPR and our Bill Of Rights should never have left centre stage.

In the initial panic though (understandable amongst lay people), critical thought flew out of the window and our legal protections came tumbling down. But, four years on, are the courts well into repairing the damage of David Parker’s hasty, conflicted and utterly overreaching Covid Response Act and subsequent orders? Not so far, sanity has not returned to the court buildings.

The veil is lifting and our supposed freedom from parliamentary, local body and institutional corruption is up for a reassessment. Perhaps the clear-headed judges in there should bone up on the Protected Disclosures Act and then huddle up to form NZJSOS – to Sniff Out Snakes, and Save Our Statutes.