Global Regulatory Capture and the Demise of Constitutional Democracy. #PfizerLeak.
On the 18th of January 2022, whistleblower Cybersecurity IT Researcher Ehden Biber, released further findings relating to Pfizer vaccine contract conditions signed by over 110 governments worldwide. Previously, his series of leaked findings from July 2021 prompted many citizens of these countries to question the unprecedented levels of contract indemnification and liability protection that governments had willingly signed off on.
New Zealand was one of them.
Biber’s latest leak is a critical piece of evidence detailing the testimony of a senior executive of Pfizer, Carlos Murillo. Murillo as ex Country Manager of Pfizer Brazil and current President of Pfizer Latin America, testified on the 13th of May 2021 under oath, in front of a senate investigative committee.
Biber revealed, one of the many key takeaways from this testimony, is Murillos’ confirmation that Pfizer contract conditions negotiated with Brazil, were comprised from a unilateral template that standardized negotiations. Standardization provided for international consistency in obtaining legal security: dispute settlement methods; competent jurisdiction; applicable law; confidentiality; and waivers of immunity and enforcement. Murillo testified that the standardization of contract conditions allowed Pfizer to negotiate with hundreds of countries in parallel, and advance at the pace they advanced, in order to roll out vaccine uptake.
Latin American negotiations were not always smooth sailing. Brazil referenced Pfizer dictated these ‘leonine’ clauses to ensure incompatibility with Brazilian law, resulting in complex legal negotiations to alter Brazilian legislation in order to guarantee legal security for Pfizer.
Over 110 countries now are facing constitutional interference.
Here in the Pacific, due to the unprecedented levels of censorship; lack of transparency; and withholding of Official Information requests (OIA), it has been almost impossible to ascertain whether New Zealand’s contractual negotiations with Pfizer were equally as fraught; or the degree to which bullying occurred.
However, due to unilateral standardization, we can take from various leaked contracts, that the Purchaser must fulfill all contractual obligations under the Agreement, including, without limitation, any such obligations that … survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
New Zealand has signed away its constitutional ability to uphold rule of law.
#PfizerMandate: Pfizer Interfering in New Zealand State Sovereignty. Pfizer Judicial Reset
Of the OIA requests that were successful, Pfizer contract clause 9.4 entitled ‘Waiver of Sovereign Immunity’ provides answers as to the Warp speed parliamentary legislation changes that the New Zealand Government rushed through without adequate public mandate.
In my previous article investigating New Zealand’s manufacturing of mandated compliance,
I questioned how a supposedly ‘democratic’ nation would willingly approve Pfizer’s contractual agreements to diminish the role of Parliament and the Judiciary, allowing provision for execution of extreme executive powers under emergency public health orders.
Clause 9.4 provides the answer for New Zealand citizens: Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. According to Biber, by signing Clause 9.4, Governments have:
- expressly and irrevocably waived any right of immunity… including but not limited to immunity against service of process, immunity of jurisdiction or immunity against any judgment rendered by a court or tribunal, immunity against order to enforce the judgment, and immunity against precautionary seizure of any of its assets
- agreed not to assert any such immunity in any proceeding in connection with this Agreement
- expressly and irrevocably waived the application of any Law in any jurisdiction that may otherwise limit or cap its obligation
Furthermore, Biber states, that by signing a Waiver of Sovereign Immunity, Governments have “violated the sacred principle of power separation between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches” that constitute democratic sovereignty. Endangering democracy by allowing foreign imposition and corporate interference to capture State Sovereignty through unlawful contracts that indemnify against “any other theory” of law, which included criminal law.
Not only does this clause provide explanation for how New Zealand’s Attorney General David Parker is able to hold so many overlapping and conflicting portfolios and ministerial responsibility; but the relevance to why complex new emergency legislation, formulated under executive orders, appears to have a series of procedural anomalies that question the constitutional validity of ministerial authority.
Our judiciary has been captured. Judges’ hands are tied. Pfizer is attempting a judicial reset.
This also answers why our public service has become so deliberately evasive and unlawful, and that the separation of independent branches of government have enacted a concentration of power that prevents proper checks and balances, and exceeds the limits of constitutional law.
In doing so, New Zealand judges are exercising arbitrary power over the life and liberty of its citizens to guarantee corporate immunity rather than uphold justice and correct injustice.
The vaccination orders are therefore, unlawful.
In all of this, I ask where are the New Zealand lawyers speaking out on judicial capture?
#PfizerMandate: Pfizer Trumps Rule of Law
New Zealand’s Covid-19 vaccination orders may have been made unlawfully, according to new evidence obtained from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the Official Information Act (OIA).
Legal professionals spoken to this week were advised of a number of anomalies. As it appears no such Order was ever made by Hon Chris Hipkins, Minister for Covid-19 Response. Reasonable research discloses no evidence of Warrant or Prime Ministerial authority in the NZ Gazette authorizing Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall to make secondary legislation under the Principle Act (VLA2021 s4 (4))
Here are some facts and evidence, followed by summary questions:
- The main Vaccination Order COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 was made by Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Health. Not by Hon Chris Hipkins, Minister of COVID-19 Response.
- The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 (the Act) requires the “Minister” to be someone authorized either by the Prime Minister (PM) or by Warrant.
- So an information request was then made to the Department of Prime Minister’s Office (DPMO) for such authorization
- Information provided by DPMO included two letters from the PM to Minister Hipkins, and a Warrant issued to Minister Hipkins by Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy. No documents were received in relation to Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall at all. It is taken then, that she has no authority from either the PM, nor any Warrant, to make any Orders under the Act at all.
- The PM’s letters describe what the COVID-19 portfolio responsibilities might include, but then only actually authorizes two things. Neither of which give any authority to make Vaccination Orders. Instead, they authorize Minister Hipkins firstly to exercise the responsibilities of the Minister of Health under the Act (though it appears the Minister of Health doesn’t actually have any responsibilities under the Act), then secondly, it authorizes Minister Hipkins to exercise Cost Recovery, but not s11 of the Act.
PM Ardern’s letter of 9 November 2020 to Minister Hipkins:
PM Ardern re-affirmed this limited authority in a further letter dated 17 December 2020:
- The Warrant under the hand of Dame Patsy Reddy does appear to give wider authority to Minister Hipkins. But that warrant explicitly requires Minister Hipkins to act “in person”, and details precise criteria for exception to that condition:
- However, included with the information provided was an opinion volunteered by Michael Webster, Clerk of the Executive Council, suggesting any member of the Executive could act for any other at any time. Apparently per s7 of the Constitution Act 1986:
While that may be so, surely that is subject to certain qualifiers? Imagine if one afternoon 6 Ministers turned up to a press conference all claiming to be acting as PM under s7 of the Constitution Act. While Ms. Ardern is right there as well?
- These Orders are Secondary legislation, which means they are not made by vote of the House of Parliament, but are merely a delegated responsibility to one Minister. Accordingly, secondary legislation is subject to specific limits of authority, in particular a delegated authority must be exercised by the person delegated, not someone else except in extenuating circumstances. This is like a Sherriff delegating a deputy – that deputy cannot delegate another deputy, and neither can one deputy tell another deputy what to do. Such things must go back to the Sheriff to decide.
A few other relevant considerations
Firstly, rules of construction/interpretation: A special law shall prevail over the general and prior laws. Therefore, Hon Hipkins Ministerial Warrant requiring him to act only “in person” takes precedence over s7 of the Constitution Act 1986, as explained for example:
Lecture 8 – Chapter 9 Specific law takes precedence over general laws, if law is not specific then we can refer to the general interpretation of the law. When we have a Specific article of law on a specific issue, we use this to interpret. The constitution is the most general, for example freedom of press, expression, liberty, discrimination…An ex. of specific law would be an Article in the criminal code: prohibition of hate literature (if you breach this, court must interpret this article, if can’t, go to general Constitution: Freedom of discrimination).
Further in the same vein, if secondary legislation is going to be amended, then that must be by the same person. Legislation Act 2019 s41 provides: by the same person. But it appears Hon Verrall and Hon Hipkins have been amending each other’s orders contrary to s 41 Legislation Act.
Secondly, a Minister might indeed need to step into the shoes of another, in case of sickness or other incapacity. That is arguably the proper purpose of s7 of the Constitution Act 1986. And that would then require them to act in expressly in that exact capacity. I.e., “Acting Minister for COVID-19 Response”. No other capacity can suffice, wrong hat.
But Minister Verrall’s Orders are instead signed in her capacity as Associate Minister for Health. Therefore, the question whether Hon Hipkins could amend Hon Verrall’s Orders becomes irrelevant. If Hon Verrall’s Order was invalid in the first place, then there is nothing for Hon Hipkins to amend.
This claim that the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 was made unlawfully by Hon Verrall was put to the High Court in Wellington on 20 September last year. The case was overturned. The case was brought by a former employee of the New Zealand Customs Service who had her employment terminated as a result of the implementation of the order.
The court stated that Covid-19 Orders were able to be made by the Minister, meaning “the Minister who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of the Act. The court noted that the “Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall signed the Order on behalf of Mr. Hipkins and the applicant argues that she was not authorized to do so.” Both Dr. Verrall and Minister Hipkins provided sworn affidavits to the court. The Court concluded that Dr. Verrall lawfully signed the Order on behalf of Mr. Hipkins.
One can only wonder why the warrant pertaining to Minister Hipkins’ authority were not made available to the court by the Crown? Or what the outcome might have been, if the ministerial warrant had been made available to the court.
As explained, it appears the Associate Minister of Health has no powers under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. By not providing the warrant or letters granting Prime Ministerial authority, the Court was perhaps not properly informed leading to a mistaken decision accordingly.
#PfizerMandate: Making sense of the obfuscated puzzle
- If Hon Dr. Verrall has no Warrant or Prime Ministerial authority, can she make a valid Order under the Act? If not,
- Was Hon Hipkins ever sick or incapacitated such that Hon Dr. Verrall might need to act in his stead? If so,
- Would Hon Dr. Verrall then be able to act only in capacity as “Acting Minister for COVID-19 Response”, and not “Associate Minister of Health”? If so,
- Does the Main Vaccination Order made and signed by Hon Dr. Verall, in her capacity as Associate Minister of Health have any validity at all? If not,
- Do we have any valid Vaccination Order’s at all? If not,
Have all the protests, and Judicial Reviews, wrongly presuming the Orders were properly made, and then challenging the details, been a waste of time?
#PfizerMandate: Violation of Rule of Law
Why then, did the court case Bolton vs Chief Executive of MBIE in relation to self-isolation and MiQ win?
Was this because it was not a critique of the Pfizer vaccine or mandate and did not breach any contractual indemnification obligations? As the judge in this case ruled in favour of the applicant determining that MBIE and DG misconstrued clause 12 of the IQ order; were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and failed to undertake a proportionality or balancing exercise. MBIE as decision maker failed to take into account relevant consideration leading to an error of law that limitation to exceptional reasons (exemptions) was incorrect.
Where does this leave the New Zealand public?
- The Attorney General acting for the Crown did not disclose the ministerial warrant to the court.
- The ministerial warrant has not been gazetted with full limitations and restrictions publicly available.
- The DPMO will not publish the relevant OIAs on their website.
- The Chief Ombudsmen has no authority under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 to investigate acts and decisions of ministers.
- Medical Ethics have been ignored.
- Data Collection has been inaccurate.
- Adverse Reactions
#PfizerReset: How Can the House of Cards Fall?
Void Ab Initio ♠️ Perfidy of Contract ♦️Parens Patriae ♥️ Ultra Vires ♣️
Revealing clause 9.4: Waiver of Sovereign Immunity has raised some acute questions:
If the New Zealand Government are in fact under contract blackmail regarding breaching indemnification clauses and cannot challenge the situation due to such a breach, how could the Crown and New Zealand get out of such a contract?
How can New Zealand citizens challenge constitutional validity of Parliament that has been compromised or threatened with such extreme censorship and non-disclosure from a Foreign Corporation?
One that has dictated the government will give the corporation some form of mortgage or charge over State assets and if there is any contractual dispute it will not be litigated in NZ’s courts but in some tribunal outside the jurisdiction of the State, such as the New York State or an ad hoc Tribunal.
If the New Zealand Government was to cancel, amend or override the Pfizer contract resulting in commercial or political retaliation – how could it defend itself?
Would there be specific case law or legislation to enact the protection of State Sovereignty?
The time has come for a Peoples Court of Opinion.
Was there ever a Mandate? Or have employers been tricked into firing their staff unlawfully?