NZDSOS Raises $100,000 to Pay Health Freedom Court Costs & Keep Fighting

Thank you to everyone who has donated amounts, large and small, to help cover our legal costs. We appreciate every cent and dollar donated.

Despite our fundraising campaign having been censored, shadow banned and throttled – which has limited our reach on social media – we have received significant support from the public and have reached our cost requirements.

It May Feel Galling, But It Was Worth It

It may feel galling to have to pay legal firm Dentons for their representation of the Medical Council of NZ (MCNZ) and Dental Council (DC), and to pay for the other side’s expert affidavit evidence from Dr Helen Petousis-Harris (vaccinologist), Dr John McMillan (‘bioethicist’) and Dr Matthew Doogue (pharmacologist re Ivermectin).

In addition, there are costs to Crown Law, to be shared with our partners Fluoride Free NZ, on behalf of the Director General of Health (DGoH) and Attorney-General (AG) for our challenge of the resumption of water fluoridation in Hastings in the absence of the court-ordered BORA assessment being conducted by the DGoH.

However, it was worth taking the various actions even if we did not ‘win’ the cases in the court of law. These, and other related cases we have supported and attended, have exposed much along the way that should concern every New Zealander.

What We Took On

NZDSOS has taken several legal actions including challenging the vaccine mandates with the teachers (NZTSOS), challenging the MCNZ and DC April 2021 Guidance Statement and seeking a declaration about the ability of doctors to prescribe off label medication, and challenging mass medication with community water fluoridation.

The only legal option available was Judicial Review in these circumstances. This means a judge gets to hear from lawyers from both sides of a situation. There is no (or limited) ability for cross examination of witnesses and only matters of law and process are considered. This sort of review does not do justice to science or medical ethics. And it seems there is no capability in NZ for independent adjudication of scientific matters (which is perhaps something the Royal Commission could address).

We Have Demonstrated That

• The legal system will not uphold the Bill of Rights, in particular the Right to Decline Medical Treatment, when the MoH wishes to force mass medication eg fluoridation and mandated jabs.
• Lawyers and judges will not assess matters of science and medicine, preferring the ‘scientism’ of the State and its media
• The legal system does not have to take account of medical ethics, such as the sanctity of pregnancy, and informed consent.
• The right to decline medical treatment is not a matter of public interest apparently
• Doctors being silenced, censored, restricted in what they can advise is not a matter of public interest either
• The courts wouldn’t uphold a doctor’s right to prescribe off-label treatments for covid
• The courts thought it is appropriate for the MCNZ to make medical recommendations despite not having a mandate to do so under the HPCA Act
• The government is in the consultation room, and doctors are not free to give you their professional opinion specific to your situation if the advice does not align with current government narrative
• We are unsure if the courts have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart (we know this is old news for some, but hope that maybe a wider audience is now aware of the shortcomings of legal system)
• The judiciary appears not to be independent and defers to government evidence, however thin or even absent
• The Hansen test (to suspend the Bill of Rights) is not suitable for verifying justification for a medical procedure that carries the risk of death

We Discovered That

• The MCNZ believed the c-19 vaccine to be a zero-risk product
• The MCNZ and DC did not do any independent assessment of the science with regards to risks from c-19 infection, or efficacy and safety of c-19 vaccine
• The MCNZ is captured by/intertwined with international organisations and the WHO
• The MCNZ members had a derogatory and vindictive attitude to doctors who questioned the c-19 narrative, pursuing witch-hunts and show trials to this day
• The MCNZ ignored the courts when told to stop persecution
• The DGoH ignored a court order to perform a BORA analysis of compulsory fluoridation
• Our Court ignored a powerful California Supreme Court precedent (and most countries) which agreed fluoridation causes brain damage in babies and poses unacceptable risks to all
• The Crown and at least one appeal court judge agreed it is arduous for officials to have to consider our rights when making decisions
• Some judges announce a pro-vaccine bias at the start, which scuppers the court’s responsibility – to search for the truth of a matter
• Some lawyers facing us have deceived judges on crucial issues

Future Actions – Would We Consider Further Legal Action in the Current Climate?

A valid question, but can we honestly ignore the MCNZ claiming, with morbid stupidity, that the novel genetic intervention was a zero-risk medical product? Even the government vaccinologist above said she thought about 10 kiwis had suffered serious adverse events (so disagreeing with ACC, CARM, coroners, and tens of thousands of bereaved and damaged Kiwis) – thanks. What are these people smoking? Human beings are dying here.

When we have clear proof around the world of suddenly dead and disabled people, turbo cancers, strange white clots, serious DNA contamination causing widespread diseases and showing up in some cancers, should we just shrug and turn away? Can we walk away from this, really? Well the State has, so we are left staring into its clear failure of duty, and blinking at the loss of separation of the legal system and government. Incestuous may be a more contemporary word.

Since Judge Churchman appeared not to recognise any of our legal arguments against the MCNZ Guidance Statement we had elected to lodge an appeal against his verdict (which said MCNZ did not breach any laws in mandating doctors and suppressing informed consent), but now we have decided to withdraw the appeal.  If we did proceed and lose again, further costs will accrue, so we would be throwing more (of your)  good money after bad.

At some point we’d like to stop head-banging in the courts, but what then? Even more anti-human edicts are heading our way – some of it, like the watershed Gene Technology Bill, sponsored by Attorney-General Collins herself. Then we have further cell tower densification for 6- and 7 G, eRUC surveillance and control of movement, 10-fold increase in permitted carcinogenic glyphosate, assaults on child psychology and our food, water and energy systems.

We have a social contract with the judiciary, as well as the government – although that bit seems trampled and bleeding – not least because we pay their wages. We do not consent to being hurt. Even if we did – and yes it does look like the people are on the painful end of an S&M relationship with parliament – the Crimes Act does not protect an assailant who kills and maims.

Surely, if the laws no longer serve the people, shouldn’t the parliament declare them invalid and replace them? This is not sedition, just a reasonable question. Goodness knows, it seems like many of our current laws are being ignored anyway. 

A Sign of Our Strength

Your response to our fundraising call, despite the censorship we faced, shows this movement’s true power. In just two weeks, you raised $100,000. That’s a sign of our strength.

We’re not going anywhere. With your support, we’ll continue fighting for truth, accountability, and the fundamental right to informed medical consent.

Thank you again for standing with us. Together, we’ve proven that the truth cannot be silenced forever.

Please let us know what you think should happen next in the comments below.