Bail and the political bias of the NZ Police Force
When NZ whistleblower Barry White appeared at court, supported by a packed gallery on Monday, police opposed bail based on two grounds:
Police opposed bail “because of the risk he could continue to spread misinformation”.
This is concerning because of several reasons:
The obvious one is who defines misinformation. Did police analyze the data set to prove White’s claims were correct? No words of it. So, how can the prosecution use this to oppose bail?
Not that it matters much because misinformation, even if misinformation is adequately proven (is misinformation even possible in a free society? It used to be called “debate”?), it is not (yet) illegal in NZ. There is no law against it, so how can police use it to oppose bail?
Currently, misinformation and disinformation are political issues in NZ, not legal issues. This shows that the NZ police follow a political, ideological agenda against ignoring the democratic principles of the independence of the three pillars of democracy. This is not the first time in the recent past that NZ police overstepped:
They also failed to protect “Let Woman Speak” activist Posie Parker in a public rally in Auckland earlier this year when an angry trans-activist mob prevented her from speaking and physically attacked her supporters. This led to charges and a guilty plea in court by a young trans activist punching a 77-year-old Parker-supporter in the head.
A police force losing its independence and siding and acting politically is a grave danger to democracy. The world is watching if the new NZ government, just sworn in, is doing anything about that - but so far - nothing.
Police also opposed bail because of “possible interference of evidence”. This was rejected by Young’s lawyer saying.
…police had presented “no evidence beyond the assertion that there might be interference with evidence.”
Fortunately, the judge made the right call and granted bail.
Leaked NZ Data shows a clear signal of vaccine-induced death
Meanwhile, we got an important update from an unnamed statistician and data modeller, aligned with Steve Kirsch:
This is an excellent analysis that a layperson can use to understand and explain some of the problems of the data and how to overcome them. We need more of this from other capable people.
It didn’t, however, address the cherry-picking Barry White allegedly does in his analysis.
In one of my recent comments about the dispute between several data analysts (e.g.
and others) about how good this data is, I wrote that for statistical laypeople like myself, it ultimately comes down to trust:
I dont know anything about stats, so it comes down which "experts" we trust, once again. While Steve is a genuine warrior with tremendous success getting the story out, he will also (maybe unconsciouslly) be more biased and desperate towards finding the "final proof" and slightly overestimates some conclusions. I just got a bit worried, when Kirsch, in a recent post, said something around "there is only one way to statistically proof this (the statistical method he was using) and "encouraged" everyone to use this method only. Like I said, I have no clue about statistics and he might be factually right with this, but it just reminded me of a way "to not do science".
Jikkyleaks analysis is amazing crude. That’s not the way to analyze this data. I like Jikky but he’s wrong. Once again, nobody would analyze the data that way. There is a right way and a wrong way. The UK ONS got it right. Let’s stick to that way. NOBODY SEEMS TO WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. They all want to use their own custom made analysis technique that they create on the seat of their pants, rather than the right way to do that. Why is that?
Steve has been onto this for years and spent a lot of time, money, and energy on it, and he is a numbers guy. So, he probably knows what he is talking about. But he also sounds a bit desperate and authoritative in this post.
Understandably, he wants to go for the kill after working so long and hard on it, and he has been ignored and belittled for years. And this is the best data he ever got his hands on.
But he also has a solid political investment in the Kennedy campaign - financial and personal - that might put pressure on him to get absolute proof of vaccine harm quickly. Nothing wrong with supporting Kennedy. I do. But I don’t want any manipulations. I like the truth, even if it is not as positive as I hoped.
Further, desperation is a dangerous emotion that can be easily exploited. We all have to help and guide Steve on this. And we do that by being extra vigilant and thorough and not shying away from challenging our own. I hope
He aligned with the NZ freedom movement by visiting the Wellington protest against vaccine mandates and lockdowns. From the above article:
At that stage, many New Zealanders wondered if Winston Peters, Mr Opportunistic, had his heart invested in this or was using this opportunity to resurrect his political career again. With most people still backing the government on the protest issue, it was a risky move. However, Peters didn’t need a majority. All he needed was 5% to get back into parliament and a little more to maybe be kingmaker again, with enormous perks for himself.
The growing NZ anti-government, anti-Covid movement didn’t care much about his motives, though. They were desperate to break through the government-imposed brainwashing and control of the Covid narrative and embraced Peters as their new hero, with or without his consent.
In this dramatic and emotional 3-minute-long video on Rumble filmed “on the run”, Liz Gunn not only strongly appeals to Winston Peters but cites past allegiances where her father stood with Winston in another whistleblower case. She also claimed that she helped Peters be elected to parliament again by interviewing him early in the campaign and “securing” freedom fighter votes. She then pressures Peters to intervene with the NZ police and free the whistleblower.
Liz Gunn, “on the run”, appealing to NZ foreign minister Winston Peters
I can’t help but be irritated by Liz Gunn. I don’t think she handled the whole whistleblower saga very well, and I am worried she does more damage than good. I find her overly dramatic in all of this, and I fear that her attitude will damage the credibility of the whistleblower and the data in the public eye.
I am unaware that the police have issued a warrant for her arrest. So why is she on the run?
And I think it will backfire badly to put massive pressure on Winston Peters, bordering on emotional blackmailing. After all, he is the foreign minister and deputy prime minister of New Zealand, and she talks to him like he is Joe Blogs from down the road. How naive is she?
Winston can’t just walk into a police station and free the whistleblower; any action or words favouring the freedom movement will be closely watched now.
The outgoing Labour Prime Minister, Hipkins, is already piling the pressure on the ruling National party by saying they encourage conspiracy theorists by not signing the WHO declaration. According to Hipkins, the WHO declaration prevents the next pandemic. If you want to make a virus laugh, tell them about WHO’s plans.
The mainstream media will watch Peters closely; they are already highly alert against Peters (see below).
\She practically forces Winston Peters to openly take her side and the side of the freedom movement. Of course, we all want that, but that’s not how politics works.
Even if Peters is inclined to do that (which is doubtful), his priority is always to keep his position of power in the cabinet. Without it, he can’t do anything.
An open endorsement of anti-vaxxers and defending a whistleblower who possibly broke the law outright so early into the new government term could be undefendable for Prime Minster Luxon. Luxon had to defend Peters only a few days ago when Peters attacked the NZ media. (see below). There is only so much Peters can do before becoming a liability for the PM.
I am not surprised Winston Peters is dead silent on this. She effectively shut him up and tied his hands, at least publicly.
This makes me wonder if only nativity and a strong desire for dramatic self-promotion drive Liz Gunn. I do not want to create an unfounded “conspiracy theory” around Liz Gunn, but, like Steve Kirsch, we have to watch our own. Unchecked emotions can make people do stupid things. What if she gets played and used in 5th-generation Psy Op?
The National Party of NZ and PM Christopher Luxon
The good news first: They didn’t indulge in extensive anti-freedom-movement propaganda as the previous Labour party did. They mainly stayed brief and factual regarding the whistleblower and focused on reassuring the NZ public that no personal information was leaked.
However, they tried to discredit the whistleblower and his message, which is very disappointing.
Any caring government in their right mind would follow up on the claims, have them independently analyzed and researched, and have the raw data published immediately.
I wonder if they could be accused and tried for murder or manslaughter in the future as they still encourage people “to keep up with the vaccination shots” despite being aware of the whistleblower’s claim that the vaccine kills thousands of people, based on actual raw government data. And they do not dispute that the data is accurate.
To neglect double-checking and disproving these claims and, instead, encouraging the NZ population to take shots that can potentially kill them is very concerning.
This was a massive opportunity for the new government of NZ to break with the problematic old-government “safe and effective” narrative, which they did not use.
This, to me, is a clear indication that they are as much under the global elite’s thumb as the previous Labour government. It confirms what a few critical, resistant thinkers have been saying about the worldwide globalist palace coup for some time: This is no longer about the politics of left and right. The globalists have captured both sides in NZ based on what we have seen so far.
Is Winston Peters corrupted by the globalists (yet?). It doesn’t seem so. Fresh in power, he wasted no time and immediately and viciously attacked the captured NZ mainstream media:
The only ones thinking Peter’s accusations of media bribery are baseless are the benefitting media reporting on it, of course.
Among those, Peters has made false allegations of corruption and bribery against reporters, claims he repeated in the Cabinet room on Tuesday.
Peters' remark refers to the $55m Public Interest Journalism Fund, a three-year contestable fund made available by the government in 2020 to support news media through the pandemic.
This all evolved from the globalist BBC-led “Trusted News Initiative”. The Daily Telegraph NZ summed up its purpose beautifully:
Winston Peters has proven over and over again that he has excellent political instincts. Discrediting the captured NZ media in the public eye first makes strategic sense. They will push the globalist “safe and effective” pro-vaccine narrative until the very end and severely harm the efforts of any whistleblower.
I am worried that Liz Gunn is messing everything up with her desperate attempts to strong-arm Peters into action.
To be fair, according to Gunn, the whistleblower tried to contact Winston Peters and offered the data to him, but he didn’t touch it. There might be legal reasons for him not to do so. Perhaps he could still have facilitated a better, more professional, higher-level release to add credibility.
But what do we know? These are all speculations on minimal information. Maybe the data was checked and found not good enough. Peters usually recognizes a political opportunity if it presents itself, but he passed on this one. I am sure he has his reasons. Maybe he smelled a rat.
We all have to watch this space and our own.
We are dealing with very smart people on the other side who know how to play people psychologically and set traps. They know how to manipulate presidents, let alone small-town journalists and whistleblowers.
They can easily play Steve Kirsch, Liz Gunn, and Barry White. Please read the article below if you need a reminder of how Trump was played. He was manipulated to reverse his initially correct assessment of the neglectable dangers of the coronavirus (confirmed in hindsight) by the same players:
