High Court of NZ rules that the Covid 19 vaccine roll out is illegal

EMF does not buy into the fear hysteria of COVID-19,
nor agree with the agenda of mandatory mRNA vaccinations.
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

High Court of NZ rules that the Covid 19 vaccine roll out is illegal

Unread post by David McCarthy »

The High Court of NZ rules that the Covid 19 vaccine roll out is illegal...
and the Government quickly tweaks the law to make it all ok again.
As I've learnt from painful experience, you cannot fight a corrupt system using that system... :idea:

Covid 19 coronavirus: Govt makes urgent law change after High Court ruling on legality of vaccine rollout
The Health Minister is making an urgent law change after a High Court judgment ruled it was "reasonably arguable" the Government's provisional approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is "problematic".

The case - Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated v The Minister of Health - was in the High Court at Wellington last week.

In a decision released on Tuesday, Judge Rebecca Ellis said: "it is reasonably arguable that the decision to provisionally approve the vaccine for much wider use is problematic" and went beyond the powers of section 23 of the Medicines Act.

Doing so could undermine public confidence in the vaccine and waste vaccine stock that already in New Zealand.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/.../IWB53LM2XNNFMOK44DSGN6.../.
..
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: High Court of NZ rules that the Covid 19 vaccine roll out is illegal

Unread post by David McCarthy »

NZ Government Breaking the Law? ‘No Problem, We’ll Fix It Tomorrow’

The government, yet again, have been caught out playing fast and loose with the law during their haphazard pandemic response. First, it was the lockdowns that were illegal, and now it is the vaccine rollout:

The Health Minister is making an urgent law change after a High Court judgment ruled it was “reasonably arguable” the Government’s provisional approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is “problematic”.

The case – Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated v The Minister of Health – was in the High Court at Wellington last week.


In a decision released today, Judge Rebecca Ellis said: “it is reasonably arguable that the decision to provisionally approve the vaccine for much wider use is problematic” and went beyond the powers of section 23 of the Medicines Act.

Doing so could undermine public confidence in the vaccine and waste vaccine stock that already in New Zealand.

What Ellis said could be problematic was the vaccine being granted for a limited number of New Zealanders – namely those aged over 16.


“While I acknowledge that this is a more “limited” class of persons than “all New Zealanders”, a class of that size seems well beyond what is contemplated by a straightforward, purposive, reading of the section,” she said.

However, Ellis declined to grant interim orders stopping the vaccine rollout – sought by the plaintiff – on the basis the repercussions “are too great, by some very considerable margin”.

In response, Health Minister Andrew Little said the Government was making an urgent “technical amendment to modernise the law”.

Little said section 23 had been used over 40 years by successive governments to grant early access to approved medicines when there was public good.

“The law has for some time now, lacked clarity over how it can be applied,” Little said.

NZ Herald
Andrew Little used to mock Steven Joyce for his “pretty legal” claim. Now his Government has been caught breaking the law yet again.

Never mind, a cute little rushed retrospective legislation should fix it all up.

When this case was taken, the media and commenters labelled these people as cranks and conspiracy theorists. Some times, you know, the cranks are right.

The BFD | Government Breaking the Law? ‘No Problem, We’ll Fix It Tomorrow’

https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/05/19/governm ... -tomorrow/
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: High Court of NZ rules that the Covid 19 vaccine roll out is illegal

Unread post by David McCarthy »

Related:
Eli Salt

Congratulations NZ!!
This was the law change that the government bought in without consent or consultation, overnight on Tuesday, after the High Court Ruling, on Tuesday, that the rollout was illegal: in that it did not meet the criteria for its 'provisional consent'.
CONGRATULATIONS NZ!
Just like they did with the high Court ruling that the lockdowns were illegal, just change it overnight.......
Read it for what it is.
There needs to be no science, no explanation, no accountability....ONE person gets to say what happens, because they have an opinion that it is desirable that it should.
Read it carefully. See it for what it is.
We are in serious serious trouble.
This is about as loud a warning bell you can get. Most missed this when it happened with the lockdown ruling. I pray people don't look away this time. Those laws were there to help keep us safe from tyranny and medical experimentation.
I mean really, this unlawful law change is bought in so they can keep administering a lethal injection.
Just had a quick look at the just the Pzfizer injection worldwide death statistics on VigiAccess
799,668 reactions have been officially recorded so far, of those, Deaths are 5066. Remember, less than one percent of injuries are reported.
Another person in NZ died in the 24hrs after their shot yesterday. Thats 4 officially reported back to us by CARM, and by my calculation from people reporting to social media groups, around 15 are dead. Not made it to the system yet, maybe?
How can this be happening?
A completely reckless government. We mustn't stand for it.

186544569_326767612417964_5826771292104745527_n.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Rushed amendments to both of the above Acts in April and May 2021 without due process.

Unread post by David McCarthy »

New Conservative NZ

The Covid-19 Vaccine Rollout: Rushing Through Legislative Amendments for Political Expedience
--------------------------------------------------
Relevant Legislation and Issues:
- COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.
- Medicines Act 1981.
- Rushed amendments to both of the above Acts in April and May 2021 without due process.
--------------------------------------------------
Nelson Lawyer Sue Grey and Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated have recently brought a case against the Labour government's Minister of Health (Andrew Little) over the government's approval of a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine rollout for the entire adult population of New Zealand.
The plaintiff argued that the vaccine should only have had provisional approval under Section 23 of the Medicines Act 1981. Therefore, the vaccine should have only been intended for a limited number of patients at the very most. Not all New Zealanders who are over the age of 16.
On this basis, High Court Justice Rebecca Ellis agreed that the plaintiff had correctly identified an issue of legality with the rollout, and that it was "reasonably arguable" that the approval of the Pfizer vaccine went beyond what the Medicines Act 1981 allowed.
But Justice Ellis was not willing to prevent the rollout because of potential "political repercussions" (including, she argued, the undermining of public confidence and the wastage of vaccine stock already in New Zealand). However, Justice Ellis added that the crown should consider the issue identified by the plaintiff carefully.

But in a radio interview with Peter Williams on the 19th of May 2021, Sue Grey argued that of the rollout, "People are too trusting in this experimental mRNA vaccine", and this is due to the lopsided and selective ways government and media have covered the subject. She then explained that the government had assured the public that the vaccine had been approved by Medsafe, when in fact, it had only been provisionally approved, and not with the intent that it would be made available to the entire adult population of New Zealand.

So in essence, the government could not in honesty say that the vaccine is safe and effective, yet have done exactly that.
Sue then said to Peter that under Section 22, 2 of the Medicines Act 1981:
"Medsafe must look at all of the evidence and decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. So when they first looked at it, and they looked at it for all of New Zealand, they decided that there wasn't enough evidence of safety to be satisfied that the benefits outweighed the risks."
"There was not enough evidence of safety, there was not enough evidence of efficacy, i.e. that the vaccine prevents infection or transmission, and there was not enough evidence that the processing when they scaled up from making it in a laboratory to making it in a commercial factory, that that could ensure a pure enough product. So the Medsafe experts themselves decided that that didn't meet that 'benefits-exceed-risks' test. So that's when they tried to slip it in through the back door."

"But it's actually still the same test, they still have to be satisfied that the benefits outweigh the risks, however, in addition, there's a restriction [that] it can only be for a limited number of people. So the argument I've had all along is that the benefits might outweigh the risks for a limited number of people who are dying, or very ill and they urgently need a medicine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the benefits exceed the risks for everybody. And this is a classic case. We've got healthy people, we've got [virtually] no Covid in New Zealand, we're stopping it effectively at the borders. The risk from Covid is currently very low when you look at [what] experts such as Dr. Simon Thornley, and experts such as Dr. Alison Goodwin (who gave evidence for us) [are saying]."

"However, the risks from the vaccine, which is an experimental vaccine, [and which] they themselves admit that it hasn't been tested for pregnant women, it hasn't been tested for breastfeeding, it hasn't been tested for anybody on any medication, it hasn't been tested for anybody who has had another vaccine (which might have affected their immune system), not tested and not safe for anybody who has got allergies or autoimmune conditions...you know half the population it's not safe for."
So, in response to Sue Grey's legal challenge, and in response to Justice Ellis's recommendations the Labour government have rashly rushed through the updating of Section 23 of the Medicines Act 1981, without consultation — to try to legitimise their decision.
This has been done without regard for public safety. Without regard for public input. Without any thought as to why Labour were found to have broken the law in the first place. And without any care for the implications of the court's decision.
So, it seems that when the Labour government are found to have broken a law, their response might just be to rush through a new one!

https://www.facebook.com/NewConservativeNZ/
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
Post Reply

Return to “Covid 19 Pandemic - mRNA Vaccine Safety - Lockdowns”