@jacindaardern NZ Bill of Rights (1990) makes your lockdown unlawful.
Anybody enforcing lockdown can be sued for nominal & injunctive relief at Tort for the following civil rights violations. See the link and thread below.
legislation.govt.nz/act/public/199…
9. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
10. Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.
11. Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
16. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
17. Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
18Freedom of movement
(1)Everyone lawfully in NZ has the right to freedom of movement & residence in NZ.
(2)Every NZ citizen has the right to enter NZ.
(3)Everyone has the right to leave NZ.
(4)No one who is not a NZ citizen & who is lawfully in NZ shall be required to leave NZ,,
Art.1 Bill of Rights (1688) states:
"That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall."
It is therefore illegal to pretend that the NZ Bill of Rights (1990) is suspended.
legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1…
Fitzgerald v Muldoon [1976] 2 NZLR 615 (HC) confirmed that a NZ Prime Minister can be sued for violating Art.1 Bill of Rights.
Kiwi's can also present NZ Bill of Rights (1990) has lawful excuse to lockdown prosecutions & can sue for civil rights violations
nzlii.org/nz/journals/Ot…
Art.29 Magna Carta (1297) is law in NZ, it elevates laws like the Bill of Rights 1688 and 1990 that provide civil rights above ordinary laws that impose obligations:
"we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1…
Under civil rights violations don't sue the government, sue the shop-keeper, the constable, the transport operator, the customs official, etc. who breaches your Bill of Rights Civil Rights. Courts will find that they should take your rights into account when enforcing lockdown.
It is then down to them to counter-sue the government or their employer if they believe that they were caused to breach your rights by another person. In reality their ignorance of your rights is no defence at law from being sued for breaches of civil rights.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter

Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @WAPFLondon

12 Sep
🚨MANDATORY EXPERIMENTAL🚨
VACCINES ARE UNLAWFUL IN EU
EU Directives 2001/20 & 2005/28 acknowledge the Declaration of Helsinki as the accepted basis for the conduct of clinical trials in humans to protect human rights and the dignity of the human being.
wma.net/policies-post/…
EU Directive 2001/20
"The accepted basis for the conduct of human clinical trials is founded in the protection of human rights & dignity of the human with regard to application of biology & medicine, as for instance reflected in 1996 Helsinki Declaration."
ec.europa.eu/health/human-u…
EU Directive 2005/28
"Clinical trials shall be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association (1996)."
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex…
Read 9 tweets
27 Aug
Bell v Tavistock : [2020] EWHC 3274 ruled that 12-16yr olds cannot provide Gillick Competency for experimental medicine with unknown long term effects. Not obtaining Parental consent causes the tort of battery. This should hold for COVID-19 vaccinations
judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
AC v CD & Others [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam) strengthened this position, finding that the removal of Gillick Competency does not remove the right of children to withdraw consent if their Parents attempt to consent on their behalf. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
Read 10 tweets
24 Aug
Any medical trial in UK such as COVID-19 vaccination & tests on emergency approval must comply with the @medwma's Declaration of Helsinki by virtue of s.1, of Part.2 of Sch.2 of The UK's "Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations (2004)". wma.net/policies-post/…
These provide amongst other things at Para.25 to 32 a more exacting measure of valid informed consent, the breach of which causes the treatment to be unlawful battery at common law.
@GOVUK's conduct therefore likely renders most test subjects victims of civil rights violations.
3. The Declaration of Geneva of the WMA binds the physician with the words, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, “A physician shall act in the patient’s best interest when providing medical care.”
Read 52 tweets
12 Aug
🚨URGENT Care Worker Action Alert🚨
It is about three months until deadline for care worker first vax. Most Unions require 3 months membership to provide legal insurance which can provide more than a million pounds of cover for tribunals.
Join a Union against mandatory vax ASAP.
You may not like Unions, but when a member, you can influence them by voting in elections and standing for positions and can opt out of political contributions.
@unisontheunion is against mandatory vaccines. unison.org.uk/news/2021/05/c…
Read 7 tweets
8 Aug
@barnes_law
English courts for time immorial considered medication without consent battery. Informed consent developed from this Tort when courts decided that battery still occured if consent was not informed. Battery & informed consent are inseparable at common law.
So it was great to hear you mention informed consent and battery on infowars regarding vaccine passports, but the solution is that the remedy to failure to obtain express informed consent is not to attack the mandate. Instead assert that mandates are no defence against battery.
Your litigation target for the Tort is the vaccinator for battery or the employer for unlawful inducement to break a contract based on a threat with malice that they must be battered. Plus, the threat of being sacked is bribery that directly invalidates informed consent.
Read 9 tweets
7 Aug
@SussexUni Bribing students to be vaccinated invalidates informed consent rendering the medication unlawful battery at common law making @SussexUni vulnerable to Tort proceedings with unlimited damages and criminal bribery charges.
@SussexUni Bribery Act 2010 provides four main offences:
1. giving or offering a bribe
2. receiving or requesting a bribe
3. bribing a foreign public official (also known as facilitation payments)
4. negligently failing to prevent a bribe (corporate offence).
gmc-uk.org/registration-a…
@SussexUni Under the Bribery Act, an offence has been committed even if no money or goods have been exchanged and a bribe has no minimum value. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(