Corruption in New Zealand's Justice system?
2022 Dec 9
I long ago abandoned the naïve belief that my dear home country ofNew Zealand was free of corruption.
30 November 2022 Justice Layne Harvey heard the initial case and set the date for the urgent hearing for the following Tuesday. [https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/supporters-gather-as-health-nz-heads-to-court-over-baby-guardianship-after-parents-request-unvaccinated-blood-for-heart-surgery/]
6 December 2022 Justice Ian Gault heard the case.
Why did Justice Harvey not continue with the case?
Ian Gault joined legal firm Bell Gully in 1993 and joined the partnership in 1997. 6 December 2018, he was appointed to the High court. [https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/appointments-judges-high-court]
(You see that right, it was four years to the day since he was appointed judge to the High Court. I have no reason to believe that is anything other than a coincidence.)
It would be naïve to think that after 25 years Ian Gault has no current connection with Bell Gully.
Why is that relevant?
9.
This document sets out the business case for the indemnity that we have negotiated, taking into account advice from our external legal adviser Bell Gully.
--------------------------
Annex Two – indemnities comparison (supplied by Bell Gully)
Pfizer Indemnity
Janssen Indemnity
AstraZeneca Indemnity
Novavax Indemnity
Pfizer is the manufacturer of Comirnaty. Comirnaty is the mRNA 'vaccine' most in use in New Zealand and therefore. Bell Gully represents Pfizer
Justice Gault:
“Dr Morley’s evidence (including her reply affidavit) is that there is no scientific evidence there is any Covid-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated by donors previously vaccinated with any New Zealand approved Covid-19 vaccine, and there are no known or suspected harmful vaccine-related effects of blood from a vaccinated individual to a recipient of any age, after millions of transfusions around the world,” Justice Gault said. [https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/baby-blood-donor-battle-parents-appear-on-american-conspiracist-alex-jones-podcast/]
I note he did not say the evidence is that it is safe. For perspective: In 1960 there also was no evidence that smoking was bad for peoples health.
Is Dr Morley to be believed? The parents laywer Sue Grey had witnesses that contradicted them. [https://odysee.com/@FreeNZ:d/6185280FreeNZ-ICW-SueGrey-BabyWillsCase-Odysee-720p:5]
And [https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/blood]
Conflict of interest
Bell Gully represents Pfizer. Not only do they represent Pfizer, they represent Pfizer over the product at the center of the parent's concerns - Comirnaty.
Justice Gault worked for 25 years to Bell Gully.
Pfizer's Comirnaty is at the center of the risk of what may be in blood.
NZ blood themselves say:
What about the safety of the spike protein in the blood transfusion?The spike protein is present in vanishingly small quantities in the blood in some people for the first two weeks after their mRNA vaccine. The chance of finding spike protein in donated blood is very small, and it will be in the picogram range if it is there at all. It is not found in the blood after this time period has passed. There is no evidence that this represents any risk to recipients.
[https://www.nzblood.co.nz/knowledge-hub/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines/]
So they know it can last at least two weeks/fourteen days.
Would not common sense say that you take the least risky option, especially for the health of a baby?
It is very important to understand that an ‘absence of evidence’ is not the same as ‘evidence of absence’. NZ Blood can say there is ‘no evidence’ but is that because no-one has looked and there is no evidence full stop? Or does it mean someone has looked and determined through meticulous study that vaccinated blood is safe in the short and long term?[https://nzdsos.com/2022/11/30/challenge-to-nz-blood/]
By the way (screenshot taken 2022 Dec 09, 9am).
O- is the universal donor. Baby W's family had organised 20 O- donor, just like NZ blood is currently doing.
I am not saying categorically that Justice Gault is corrupt. But dear reader, can you see that he at the least has an apparent conflict of interest? Would it not be natural for him to lean favourably to those of the from the firm he worked for, for many years?
Would I be out of place for questioning his integrity for not stepping down in favour of someone with no links to any pharmaceutical involved with covid-19 products?
I am not a lawyer, but I hear that the presiding judge is the same judge who has to give leave to appeal or/order a stay of the decision. That is crazy and opens the system to corruption.
So, do things look corrupt to you?
----------------------------------
The judgement: [https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2022/2022-NZHC-3283.pdf]
Daily Telegraph NZ comment: [http://dailytelegraph.co.nz/.../open-letter-to-ministers.../]
