Ep 106 N8 2nd Feb 2024 Follow the Money & Jab Injured Finally Get Justice

Wow this was another fantastic lesson in law from Liz! 

Show more

Through an OIA (not us this time but thanks to that clever person!) we have been able access the data from a document “Receipts and Dispatches” for all the jabs.

This document shows us that thousands of providers were paid $36 per shot at no cost to themselves and there were around 8 million shots. 

This new OIA shows data from the same source.

It shows there was an income estimated to be around $486 million just for the administration of the shots.


Barry Young put data together from this same source (using his own IP as how to go about this Liz added) which showed the dramatic uptick in the number of deaths from the time of the Chch mask tooting as a place to start.
His data also showed who gave the shots - pharmacies etc and attributed the number of deaths to each jabber.

If you have not seen our Whistle Blower Rumbles I would recommend watching. They are viewer favourites! 



As a side note, Barry’s data shows how money hungry some of the pharmacies were and their death statics reflect this and that the South Island was targeted big time with “bad batches”.



Churches, Marae, jabathons, Rainbows End, Jab Buses, workplaces, school all took part in this directly or indirectly… 



Australian case Shepard v The State of South Australia In Right of the Department of Child Protection decided on 15th Jan 2024

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html?fbclid=IwAR1P-K_eO3roVxLj4ipD6L2a-2nEmbMjzJkc2u-sjIUMS0_EoVCDk-1DDmM 


In this case a worker had a serious adverse event after his third shot. The judge found in the workers favour to receive compensation from his employer who was the State.


Liz takes us through the case which is super interesting and shows great promise for our New Zealand jab injured. 



One of the standout messages in this case is that it shows that the State in Australia used primary legislation for C19 and they still lost this case! Here in NZ much of our C19 legislation was secondary so we potentially have something big ready to happen! 



The worker was injured in the course of his employment as are so many of NZ jabbed injured

Liz reveals more very relevant details of this case and how these apply to New Zealand plus we look at parts of the Accident Compensation Act 2011 that are related to this case



A must watch!

TIMELINE & SHOW NOTES
Section 1 – 00:00:00
- Starting with discussion on a document from an OIA request listing COVID vaccine providers in New Zealand and how much they were paid per shot administered (estimated $36 per shot).
- Over 8 million shots were administered out of 12 million purchased, with around 4-5 million people eligible. This suggests they planned for 3 shots per eligible person.
- Barry Young previously analysed data showing correlations between vaccine batches and increased deaths within 3 months.
- The new document names all the pharmacies, clinics, etc. that provided vaccines and estimates total payout of $486 million just for administration.
- However, District Health Boards who organized mass vaccination events are not listed, so the total payout is likely higher.
- Liz will discuss how this data connects to a legal case from Australia called Shepherd that is very relevant.

Section 2 – 00:07:50
- Discussion around the case of Shepherd v The state of South Australia (In Right of the Department For Child Protection) which was decided 15 Jan 2024. Focuses on implications of the Shepherd case in establishing precedent that workers can seek compensation if they experience adverse effects from mandated vaccination.
- DCP equivalent is Oranga Tamariki. The facts were he was a child and youth support worker and worked for Baptist Care SA that had a sub contract with the DCP.
- Covid-19 PHRA 2020 (secondary legislation) is equivalent to Emergency Management Act 2004 SA (primary legislation.) Equivalent order in SA is called a “direction”. *Spoiler: The state is beat even when using primary legislation. Two directions were made under section 25 of the EMA.
- Mr. Shepherd experienced chest pains after his first two COVID vaccine doses and did not want to get the booster. After the booster he experienced severe chest pains. He struggled with chest pain and fatigue for months after.
- Key details of Mr. Shepherd's medical history, symptoms and the communications pressuring him to get vaccinated are summarized.
- The case establishes that employees required to get vaccinated by public health orders/directions can seek compensation from employers if they experience adverse effects.
- This has implications for challenges to vaccine mandates and orders in New Zealand by establishing precedent that workers can be compensated.
- The defense counsel Mr Garnaut attempted to argue Mr. Shepherd misconstrued the communications but the case ultimately found in his favour, setting an important legal precedent.

Section 3 – 00:19:00
- Liz discusses the case and legal basis for vaccine mandates in Australia under the Emergency Management Act and connections to New Zealand's legislation.
- Liz recommends taking note of paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 37. Liz schools on interpreting acts and their interactions. Note Section 5 of the EMA.
- Referencing sections 14 and 23 of the EM Act related to declaring emergencies and giving authorities special powers during emergencies. NZ’s emergency management part ended June 8th 2020 and were then on notices under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006. See past zoom re EPA 2006.
- The judgment notes that the SA Emergency Management Act incorporated a section from their Health Act providing immunity from liability for actions taken in good faith.
- A similar "freedom from liability" clause was incorporated into New Zealand's. The 2020 COVID PHRA Section 34 references the protection in Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 for legal liability for actions taken under health legislation/orders.
- This provides immunity for public servants and those implementing legislation/orders as long as they act in good faith and not recklessly.
- Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021 mentioned. The act expressly amended nine Acts but does not refer to the RTW Act.
- However, Liz points out that later in the judgment, the state is still found to be liable despite these immunity provisions.
- An important point is made that the objectives of New Zealand's COVID-19 Response Act did not actually include vaccination, yet vaccinations were mandated under it.
- This implies the immunity provisions may not apply since vaccination was not within the intended scope and objectives of the Act as passed by Parliament.
- The importance of comprehending the “Objects” of an act.
- The judgement analyses whether the worker's injuries arose from his employment or the vaccine mandate directives. This determines if he can claim compensation.
- The state argued the injuries arose from the directives not employment but the judge considered previous cases and ultimately found it was related to employment.
- This establishes precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination can be considered work-related and eligible for compensation through workers' compensation law.
- Bjekic v State of New South Wales: Court of Appeals case cited.

Section 4 – 00:30:18
- The judgement discusses and distinguishes previous cases like Dawking v Secretary regarding when injuries from anticipated health orders can be considered work-related.
- References Roberts v Comcare, where a worker sustained mosquito bites at employer-provided accommodation and the injury was still considered work-related.
- The judgement analyses the bifurcated causal criteria in Section 7 of the Return to Work Act - that the injury can arise either out of or in the course of employment.
- It is found that Mr. Shepherd's injury directly resulted from the vaccine mandate direction and his employment, as he would not have gotten the third dose otherwise.
- The state argues the Emergency Management Act protects it from liability for vaccine directions.
- However, the judgement cites several administrative law cases establishing that statutory powers must be reasonably exercised with regard to individual rights.
- It discusses the importance of legislative intent when interpreting laws that interfere with fundamental rights/freedoms.
- Mentions and analysis of:
#41.Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education): NSW case finding anticipated health order caused compensable injury
#51. Puntoriero v Westside Concrete Pty Ltd: WA case establishing poisoning of farm water was unlawful.
#52. Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board v O.K. Elliott Ltd: Establishes statutory powers must consider individual rights.
#53. Coco v The Queen: [1994] HCA 15): High Court of Australia case on interpreting laws that modify rights/privileges.
#54. Deane and Dawson JJ: Their substantial agreement with Coco v The Queen.

Section 5 – 00:43:12
- The judgement discusses a previous NZ employment case where workers were denied pay for not getting vaccinated, which was found unjust by the court. CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited
- While the defense argued pandemic laws require more leniency, the judge found workers' compensation liabilities are well understood and injuries foreseeable.
- The EM Act would need to expressly exclude liability for mandated vaccine injuries, which it did not.
- Employees can claim compensation for work-related COVID, so this injury from a mandated vaccine should also be compensable.
- Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers can also claim compensation.
- The judgement orders the claimant receive weekly income support and medical payments.
- This establishes a precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination in employment contexts can be claimed through workers' compensation.
- Liz discusses that injured individuals in NZ should pursue compensation claims against employers and the state using this legal basis and precedent.
- References pursuing claims through the Employment Court and ACC in NZ: Would rely on provisions in the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and Employment Relations Act 2000.

Section 6 – 00:55:43
- The discussion analysing key sections of New Zealand's Accident Compensation Act relating to what qualifies as a work-related injury or accident.
- Section 6 on interpretation and Section 25 on psychological/psychiatric injuries from events like attempted suicide are referenced.
- Liz argues vaccination injuries could satisfy the criteria of a "specific event" involving external "force" or "resistance" like a needle injection.
- Precedent cases establishing compensation for mosquito-borne illnesses are discussed as analogous to vaccine reactions.
- Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers would likely still be able to claim compensation per the Australian judgment.
- Implications of pursuing long COVID or other vaccine injury claims as work-related diseases through ACC are discussed.
- References are made to exploring precedents like this Australian judgment more to build confidence arguing similar cases in New Zealand.

CONTENT LINKS

Section 1
OIA (Official Information Act) request
This refers to the process by which individuals can request information from New Zealand government agencies under the Official Information Act 1988
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/official-information/oia-guidance-for-agencies/

Section 2
Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html

Emergency Management Act 2004 (South Australia)
This is the legislation under which COVID directions were issued in South Australia https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/

Equivalent to NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020
This legislation authorized public health orders in NZ. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344134.html

Section 3
Section 32A Emergency Management Act 2004 - Protection from liability—COVID-19
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s32a.html

Section 5 Emergency Management Act 2004 - Interaction with other Acts
(1) Subject to this section, this Act is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of any other Act.
(2) Where the provisions of this Act are inconsistent with any other Act or law, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s5.html

Section 34 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 - Protection of persons acting under authority of this Act
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344210.html

Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html

South Australian Public Health Act 2011
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/south%20australian%20public%20health%20act%202011/current/2011.21.auth.pdf

Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/v/a/2021/statutes%20amendment%20(covid-19%20permanent%20measures)%20act%202021_25/2021.25.un.pdf

RTW Act (Return to Work Act, South Australia): Criteria for work-related injuries.
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/RETURN%20TO%20WORK%20ACT%202014.aspx

Section 5 & 6
CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited
https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/2022-NZEmpC-123-CSN-v-Royal-District-Nursing-Service-NZ-Ltd-jud-110722.pdf

Accident Compensation Act 2001 (New Zealand): Sections 6 and 25.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM100904.html

OF INTEREST
Employment Law Updates with Liz Lambert and Erika Whittome – with Emanual Garcia
https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/employment-law-updates-with-liz-lambert?r=19j3sj

COVID-19 Directions - South Australian Legislation
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/legislation/CV19

Quiz bot: https://poe.com/s/2Lv84YwJIJpdbQR9mUVd