Thursday 4 January 2024

Dear Jonathan Milne, Re your article today about stressed health and medical staff and the shortage of these to cover NZ's real need

Dear reader, this article is the content of emails I sent to Newsroom journalists including the editors in respect to the elephant in the room, namely died and injured suddenly.

In my opinion and reasonably argued herein, Newsroom and the rest of the legacy or mainstream media are complicit in the crime; kill and injure New Zealanders through lethal injection of a novel, toxic mutagenic concoction with no precedent and inflict this as an all of Government Response or countermeasure on the population is to use the term implemented with extreme prejudice

Following is the email address line and text (I've swapped email addresses for their names and might have fixed a couple of errors in text; spelling:);

To:   Jonathan Milne
cc: Newsroom Briefing <>, Mark Jennings, Tim Murphy

Dear Jonathan Milne,

Re your article today about stressed health and medical staff and the shortage of these to cover NZ's real need;  

How a big green tractor helped win over a young doctor to rural practice
After two years of Covid, health workers are exhausted, burnt out, and struggling with their mental health. The employers successfully turning the tide aren’t doing it with lucrative remuneration packages.

Your article fails to account in respect to the major cause of the problem, the Response by Government and various public institutions to the pandemic rather than the actual lethality and morbidity of the SARS-CoV-2 entity.

The entity was likely a release of a product of US led gain of function research also known as dual purpose research into Bat Coronaviruses which arise from Horseshoe bats found in caves remote by over a thousand kilometers from Wuhan which coincidentally has a few biolabs including the level 4 biosecurity laboratory which was doing research with the multitude of specimens they had collected from the previously mentioned caves. 

The SARS2 bioweapon was then assaulted with a further bioweapon known as COVID-19 Vaccines. The only problem being the SARS2 entity only has ingress to the human being via their mucosal system; mouth, nose and eyes. The mRNA/LNP product (highly inconsistent and contaminated with chopped up DNA from the manufacturing process) enters the vascular system and infects cells transfecting mRNA to mobilise the cells to produce S-spike proteins modelled, modified and synthesized based on the original strain of the SARS-2 entity. 

Why Covid-19 vaccines are a freaking miracle  by Helen Branswell Feb. 14, 2022

“The previous fastest vaccine ever developed … would just be entering into the clinic now. And we’ve delivered 11 billion doses. That’s how much we’ve moved the needle.”

Some of it was luck. Scientists had been toiling for over a decade trying to figure out the right construct for coronavirus vaccines, work that was spurred by the 2003 SARS-1 epidemic and outbreaks from 2012 onward caused by a cousin virus, MERS, that jumps sporadically from camels to people on the Arabian Peninsula. It was clear coronaviruses, which originate in bats, were promiscuous enough that the world needed to be ready for more such incursions.

“For whatever reason, we had just the right information and had just the right partnerships and all the right things in place to do something for a coronavirus,” said Barney Graham, who with his team at the NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center and Jason McLellan of the University of Texas at Austin, designed the spike protein target that a number of vaccine manufacturers used to make their Covid vaccines.

The coronavirus vaccine research gave the world a head start when SARS-2 reared its head. “When the sequence was published, we knew how to modify it immediately because of what we’ve done a dozen times on other coronaviruses,” he said. Had the pandemic been triggered by a virus belonging to a less well-studied family, the world might still be waiting for vaccines.

“For some of the other virus families the design of the antigen is not as generalizable as we have found it for coronavirus,” said Graham, who retired from the Vaccine Research Center last August.

A lot of the pandemic preparedness funding went into developing different ways to make vaccines, methods that are less cumbersome or time-consuming, say, than the approach used to make influenza vaccines, which involves growing viruses in eggs. For Rick Bright, it came down to a simple mantra: “More, better, faster.”

Bright was the head of BARDA at the outset of the pandemic. At the time, the agency was providing funding to Cambridge, Mass.-based Moderna, whose messenger RNA approach was promising but had never been used in a licensed vaccine. In early 2020, Bright thought a Covid mRNA vaccine was a long shot, and that a more established platform — the viral-vectored vaccine being developed by Johnson & Johnson — was a more likely bet.

“I thought that would be our first vaccine. And the mRNA, if it worked, would be great, but I had my doubts because it had never scaled,” he said, referring to the fact that it’s one thing to design a vaccine and another entirely to learn, on the fly, how to produce it at commercial scale. “It was truly a Hail Mary pass with mRNA.”

“I would have to say at the outset I would not have thought we’d be here by now, given the technology,” admitted Bright, who left the federal government early in the pandemic in a dispute with the Trump administration. He now heads the Pandemic Prevention Institute at the Rockefeller Foundation.

Here's Rick Bright, Anthony Fauci and friends at the Milken Institute Health Security conference just before the pandemic broke speaking about a universal influenza vaccine based on the innovative mRNA platform.. 

Also Fauci is on record at Georgetown University in January 2017 before Trump is inaugurated as President, predicting there will be a surprise outbreak in the term of the next President. How did he know? 

So NZ eliminated the SARS2 entity from March 2020 on the basis that the Hail Mary pass with mRNA would pay off.. NZ MoH said so in April 2020;  COVID-19 Health and Disability System Response Plan Published online: 15 April 2020

Not everyone saw the Hail Mary silver bullet solution as being good for them and refused. 

By August 2021 only about 25% of kiwis had accepted the final solution.

This was not enough for the rulers so the earlier promise that none will be forced to take the shot was broken without much regret by the one who must be obeyed. What psychopathy, given by August 2021, NZ's Government had all the data to confirm that they were inflicting a statistical tidal wave of death and injury upon the NZ team of 5 million and in particular the 4 million who have had at least two shots and the reducing millions who have taken the other 5 million shots to add up to 13 million mostly Pfizer Comirnaty products including bivalent boosters shot into the arms of Kiwis. 

Of course many nurses and medical professionals and care or general staff of the health industry disdained the notion of taking the Pfizer toxic and mutagenic product. It was the illegitimate, unethical and unlawful vaccine mandates that forced that proportion of the population to take one for the team to get the tally up to about 80% of the total and near 90% of the so called eligible population for the jab. 

It's scary to think that the obvious cause of all the disquiet and division is the approach to the pandemic by the previous Labour Government cheer-led by the legacy and or mainstream media propaganda machine and with the institutional backing of all eight universities and all the polytechs, and most employers who forced the papers please vaccine passport system on the people to force more folk to get the shot for the 2021/2022 summer that was cancelled by decree for fear of the virus despite all that vaccination. 

Says heaps for 'vaccine' effectiveness..?

The only folk who had a festival that Summer were those who participated in the Freedom Village festival on the lawns and surrounds of the Parliament precinct during February 2022.

It's the Labour Government with Newsroom as complicit partners who have caused or contributed to the labour/staff shortages in the health system. 

Own it. I know it. You know it, and you know I know, just as the Government knows I know. 

Your war on "we the people" will soon be exposed properly to the mass of people. 

Then there will be a process some call Justice that must be served to ensure future journalists are independent and critical rather than partisan and stupidly mendacious and criminal. 

That Justice process must, if it is true to its principles, find guilty and sentence to confinement for extended periods, many participants in the plot to inject a bioweapon into the blood systems of the mass of New Zealanders. 

I wrote to the New Zealand Police in October 2021 with a report of homicide by lethal injection which is included in the evidence to the Parliamentary Petitions Committee, in respect to my petition proposal to fix the Bill of Rights. It highlights the criminal charges I suggest the NZ legacy media ought to be charged with; one extract from the report to NZ Police with [paragraph numbers]; 

[48] Lynda Wharton makes the point that there is minimal public reporting of vaccine
adverse reaction or death, rather lots of official denial of the tragedy that people risk as
they are coerced to accept the toxic Russian Roulette kill or maim shot. Paragraph [17]
references a Newsroom article by journalist Marc Daalder; “Medsafe’s vaccine safety
reports misused by anti-vaxxers” which appears to be advocating the removal of
Vaccination adverse event reporting from the Medsafe website, which hints at a further
denial of information necessary to properly and fully inform the public.
[49] My testimony and that of many others is that the mantra that the “vaccine is safe and
effective” is not a factual representation of the Pfizer Comirnaty mRNA injection product. 
Where an authority misrepresents information and actively denies important data such as
the true level of adverse events and deaths from Vaccination, the public are being
deceived. Section 240 of the Crimes Act; “Obtaining by deception or causing loss by
deception” might apply particularly where it states;  
(2) In this section, deception means—
(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the
person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
(I) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person,
in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
[50] Given the deception by the Government and its allies appears to be to sell a particular
commercial product, it is reprehensible to falsely advertise its merits.
[51] I assert people with just a headache or similar localised discomfort in association with
being Vaccinated are likely to have suffered damage to their tissues in those regions of
their body. Damage may not present as an injury until much later in one's life. Science is still
researching the long term effects of injecting people with mRNA gene therapy products.

What are your thoughts in response?


Greg Rzesniowiecki 

I got an automatic response from Jonathan Milne as follows;

Hello, I’m off work until Monday, January 22, and don’t intend to be checking emails. Please direct Newsroom Pro editorial queries to Cassandra Mason up until Jan 7, then Andrew Bevin through to Jan 21. Urgent inquiries to the duty editor at

Jonathan Milne (he/him)

Managing Editor
Newsroom Pro

So I added the following in the forward email to the holiday staff;

Hi Cassandra and Andrew,

For your information given Jonathan Milne's holiday ghost is writing stories.. full of whimsy and disinformation

cheers Greg

From Andrew

I’m away until January 8.

Thanks, Andrew Bevin

I'll add any considered response from Newsroom to this post in the event it is forthcoming

Btw I'm not holding my breath.

P.S. I might have been blocked on one of their email addresses

Thursday 7 September 2023

A letter to the United Nations Association of NZ: Your September National Conference agenda breaches your UNANZ constitution

On Monday 7 August 2023 I wrote to the United Nations Association of New Zealand (UNANZ) with some concerns about their agenda and keynote speaker at their upcoming National Conference 28 September 2023, given the apparent inconsistencies between the UNANZ constitution and some of the policies pursued by Sir Ashley Bloomfield as Director General of Health for the Labour Government and the matter of countering disinformation. 

My reasons for writing UNANZ is because they and their constitution are about upholding the UN Charter, Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the various covenants agreed and made international law through UN General Assemblies then ratified by the various UN members including New Zealand. 

Any individual paying attention would comprehend that the NZ Government has breached international law with their COVID-19 Response; lockdowns, restrictions of movement, mandates, including forcing mass vaccination of the population with experimental toxic mutagenic mRNA products, through the employment of economic blackmail, such as loss of employment (huge breach of human rights). 

The following is the text of the email I sent the UNANZ President and National Council. 

To date I have had no acknowledgement or response. 


Dear UNANZ President and National Council,

I note the United Nations Association of New Zealand National Conference in September has a few matters on its agenda:

Highlights include a keynote address by Dr Sir Ashley Bloomfield KNZM. Sir Ashley Bloomfield trained in medicine at the University of Auckland and specialised in public health medicine. He has 25 years’ experience in public policy and health leadership, including at the World Health Organization in Geneva. Sir Ashley was New Zealand’s Director-General of Health from June 2018 to July 2022 and led the country’s health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Panel discussion speakers include Member of Parliament Ibrahim Omer, Ambassador Carolyn Schwalger, New Zealand's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Mary Wareham, Advocacy Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, and Sophie Handford, Paekākāriki–Raumati Ward Councillor at the Kāpiti Coast District Council.

Panel discussions will cover a range of topics, including The Climate Challenge, Reforming the United Nations and Countering disinformation and rebuilding trust in institutions.

With respect to this statement; Countering disinformation and rebuilding trust in institutions, and Sir Ashley Bloomfield's COVID-19 address we have the ground of a serious controversy. 

Before I go into the specifics of my critique, it also is necessary to point to the UNANZ Constitution's objectives which state in Article 2;

2.1 The principal objective for which the Association is established within New Zealand is to be a peoples' movement for the United Nations, through which the principles of the UN Charter can be shared widely and its vision realised. 
To advance this Objective the Association proposes to engage in such charitable activities as: 
(a) To co-ordinate, initiate and support activities which relate to aims and purposes of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. 
(b) To promote research, information, education and general public knowledge about the treaties, conventions and resolutions agreed in the UN General Assembly by the governments of the world and furthermore provide the Government of New Zealand with information as to the evaluation of UN policies and actions by the New Zealand public. To promote how the UN system works and to provide general knowledge of the history behind the UN to the New Zealand public. To promote the role or the contribution that the UN makes towards peace and prosperity.  

Some folk require reminding about the International Bill of Human Rights which is a restatement of a nation's ratification of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, and  the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, all of which NZ has ratified ICESCR and ICCPR in 1978.

NZ has ratified Article 4 and 7 of the ICCPR:
Article 4
1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Additionally the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, April 1985 are engaged. The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR make clear the non-derogation of certain articles even in times of public emergency. The test of proportionality is set at a high level.

There are more covenants and treaties from international law that apply. 

NZ's Bill of Rights 1990 (BORA) is an attempt to legislate the rights and freedoms articulated in the ICCPR. 


NZ's COVID-19 Response measures and COVID-19 vaccination with experimental gene therapy products; offered, proselytised, coerced and mandated upon the NZ population, abrogated all of the principles and law that UNANZ states as their objectives in their constitution. 

However, any who point out the FACT that the official narrative about COVID-19 is unhinged and unlawful, is labelled as one who promotes extreme white supremacist misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. That being the case I am so labelled. However, I know that I am correct in my interpretation and that the accusers including from the disinformation project are the unhinged disinformation proponents as they are regurgitating the NZ Government's talking points on the COVID-19 phenomena. 

Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Amend Section 5 and add a new section 5A to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 

Introduction and summary
● The petitioner addresses New Zealand and international law as it relates to NZ's Bill of Rights Act 1990 and any justification for derogation from the rights provided in sections 8,9 10 and 11 under the heading; “Life and security of the person.”
● Law is both written and unwritten. Written law provides sufficient explanation to assert that there is no justification to derogate from the right to life and security of the person in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
● The paper gives some consideration to recent High Court and the Court of Appeal judgements with respect to COVID-19 matters and the respective Judges' interpretation of the law.
● The Court of Appeal decision in the Andrew Borrowdale vs the Director General of Health case clearly upholds the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) article 4 non-derogation against certain rights; “Certain rights may not be derogated. The rights in the ICCPR that are treated as being sacrosanct include the rights to life, religion, and freedom from torture and slavery...
For completeness, we record the rights contained in the NZBORA include the right in s 8 not to be deprived of life.”
● The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) articles 1-6 uphold certain rights including article 6 the right to free and full consent in the following contexts;
• “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information” and;
• “Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned” and;
• “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent”.
● The petitioner addresses the question; “Is the COVID-19 Vaccine rollout an experiment?” FACTS support the conclusion that it is experimental.
● The petitioner addresses the question; “Is the COVID-19 Vaccine rollout promoting a “safe and effective” treatment? FACTS support the conclusion that it is NOT SAFE nor is it effective at preventing infection or transmission.
● The petitioner finds it disturbing, the FACT of the serious risks of the COVID-19 Vaccines, whilst known to the NZ Government, were not provided to the citizens.
● The petitioner is also dismayed, that the Government's duty to care, for COVID-19 patients was compromised, through a refusal to facilitate early treatment, with cheap generic, and off-label drugs (including anti-viral and anti-inflammatory medicines), with known safety profiles, which have been used to great effect in other jurisdictions.
● The Petitioner finds that the NZ Government COVID-19 Vaccine rollout and the Orders and Legislation forcing people to be “Vaccinated” engages each of BORA sections 8,9,10 and 11. This is contrary to the spirit of BORA and the Law
articulated in the non-derogation articles in ICCPR and UDBHR.
● The petitioner finds that the NZ Government COVID-19 Vaccine rollout as constituted is unlawful. Were the existing LAW applied properly, this proposed amendment to section 5 BORA would be redundant.

And; the official Covid narrative involves belief in the following which a critical mind might view as disinformation or false (found on page 70)
1. COVID-19 is caused by a novel pathogenic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
2. COVID-19 pathogen is a zoonotic emergence (natural, rather than biolab creation of a synthetic chimera).
3. COVID-19 is both highly infectious and deadly.
4. COVID-19 positive diagnosis is measured by PCR test.
5. COVID-19 in early 2020 had no known cure amongst available medicines and therapeutics in the global medicine cabinet.
6. COVID-19 illness would overrun hospital ICU capacity causing a breakdown of the Health system.
7. COVID-19 is best kept out of NZ for as long as possible no matter the cost to other policy considerations; public health and mental wellbeing, economy, social spirit, trampling of rights and democratic practice, and which required NZ to seal the borders and adopt an elimination strategy.
8. COVID-19 in early 2020 could only be mediated through lockdown, social distancing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions.
9. COVID-19 would cause in NZ an estimated 30,000 (or more, from variance in the many models) thousands to die and countless thousands to become ill.
10.COVID-19 cure would arrive in a vaccine, being developed at Warp Speed.
11. COVID-19 Vaccines are both safe and effective.
12. COVID-19 Vaccines will be voluntary.
13. COVID-19 Vaccination would enable New Zealanders to regain their lost freedoms.

The promotion of a strategy that is anti disinformation without defining the controversial matters one slurs as disinformation and assert that is the grounds for the loss of trust in institutions is spurious where one fails to see that the lack of trust has been forsaken by those who inhabit the institutions in favour of a dogmatic narrative view that is found extremely lacking when held up to the enlightenment values of logic and the scientific method.

I note that the just announced National Security Strategy document published 4 August 2023 has the same ideological failing and as such can never hope to regain the trust of those people who can easily see through global government's including New Zealand's Government's lies and the mendaciousness of the institutions; Universities, NGOs, international bodies; WHO, UN and various philanthropic bodies who all proselytised the false narrative aimed at an agenda part of which was/is to inject the human population with novel toxic mutagenic products, see Moderna and Pfizer June 2020 filings for indications as to the novel nature of the technology platform:




These COVID-19 Vaccine products were developed on novel platforms based on lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems, themselves with a questionable safety profile. 

New Zealand's Government committed to vaccinating the population in their formal documentation published 15 April 2020; COVID-19 Health and Disability System Response Plan


Latest stats from MoH has it that 4 million have had 2 shots, 1.7 million at least one booster and guess what official stats have 2.5 million being official COVID-19 cases. Given that many such as myself didn't report our infection, I imagine that the real number of New Zealanders who have contracted COVID-19 is well over 3 million.

The COVID-19 shots did nothing to stop COVID-19 infection or transmission and only had bad effects causing thousands of adverse events and deaths in many of the recipients. 

The COVID-19 measures have caused much economic, vandalism and personal and societal harm and injury. The NZ COVID-19 Response is a complete failure and ought not be repeated in the event of a future pandemic involving a respiratory pathogen. 

Your guest speaker Sir Ashley Bloomfield is co-chair of the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments working group, and is actively pursuing a policy that would lock New Zealand into repetitions of the COVID-19 Response error in the event of a future pandemic involving a respiratory pathogen. 

The best thing UNANZ might do to assist to reestablish trust in institutions is to inform itself as to the facts of the matter and then act to put those many wrongs right, which would require the Government and institutions to acknowledge their profound error in perpetrating the COVID-19 Response in lockstep with Australia, UK, Canada and the US. 

Who initiated the pandemic? Dr Anthony Fauci's NIAID funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan China did that have something to do with the bug in the system? Go figure. 

I'm more than happy to provide further material for your consideration or engage in a dialogue including introducing you to people expert in the field, where you are interested in the truth of the matter.


On Tuesday 5 September 2023 I wrote a follow up letter to (UNANZ) addressing it to their leadership, National Executive member and their National Council representatives. I searched for and found email addresses for most of the National Executive members and included those in the address line of the follow up email. (It must have gone through as I gained advice from my email provider that one of the addressees had my email address blocked)

That letter also failed to gain any response or acknowledgement. 

The following is a replication of that emailed correspondence. 


Dear UNANZ Leaders, Executive and National Council,

UNA NZ National Executive

Karim Dickie, National President
James Bushell, Vice President
Gayathri Paranisamy, Immediate Past President
Vacant, National Executive Officer
Amelia Blamey, National Treasurer
Catherine Ashworth, Secretary
Nick Abel, National President, UN Youth New Zealand
Annie Wu, National Council Representative on the Executive
Patrick Metham, National Council Representative on the Executive
UNA NZ National Council

Abeer Youssef, Special Officer for Humanitarian Affairs
Alyn Ware, Special Officer for Peace and Security
Dulce Piacentini, Special Officer for Human Rights
John O'Brien, Special Officer for UN Renewal
Vacant, Special Officer for UN Agenda 2030, SDGs
Joy Dunsheath MNZM JP, WFUNA Executive Committee Member
Wajirani Adhihetty, Special Officer for Sustainable Economy and Innovation
Vacant, Special Officer for UN Education
Ishant Ghulyani, Special Officer for Global Health
Steven Arnold, President, Northern Region Branch
Dr Gray Southon, President, Tauranga Branch
Mano Manohoran, President, Waikato Group
Kate Smith, President, Whanganui Branch
Martine Udahemuka, President, Wellington Branch
Pauline McKay, President, Canterbury Branch
Monique Corson, President, Manawatu Branch
Patrick Metham, Ordinary Member of the National Council
Annie Wu, Ordinary Member of the National Council
Acacia Wall, Communications Officers
Events Officer Hope Lan 

My name is Greg Rzesniowiecki and I am an advocate for rule of law, freedom and human rights. 

I last wrote to your leadership 7 August 2023 with some concerns about your agenda and keynote speaker given the apparent inconsistencies between your constitution and some of the policies pursued by Sir Ashley Bloomfield as Director General of Health for the Labour Government (in coalition with NZ First)  2017-2020 and (alone) 2020-2023.

I found it surprising and unprofessional that your officers failed to even acknowledge the 7 August 2023 correspondence below in this thread. Was it referred to your National Council meeting for consideration?

My concern is that where you breach your constitutional objects you derogate from your constitutional purpose and as such are acting inappropriately.

Authoritative figures and institutions label data, knowledge and facts as disinformation, misinformation or malinformation for purposes of censorship. 

Your leadership apparently views with disdain my emailed opinion (forwarded 7 August email) as they didn't bother addressing or refuting the claims I made that you are in breach of your Objectives and the UN Charter, which you purport to uphold. 

Perhaps these facts have not previously been presented to your leadership and so they struggle to know what to do or offer in response - given your organisation has already booked Sir Ashley Bloomfield and set the agenda with reference to Disinformation etc. 

I suggest that you consider opening your conference to one who might provide a rebuttal of the alleged disinformation, one who might provide a balanced report on the costs and harms of the pandemic response and the medical solution characterised as the 'safe and effective' COVID-19 Vaccines, notwithstanding there was no long term safety data when the novel mRNA LNP injectable products were initially marketed. Since 2021 the evidence mounts indicating the deleterious effects; harms, injury, death and long term dysregulation of recipients' immune systems. 

For instance in my petition to the House to fix the Bill of Rights (which I reference in the 7 August correspondence to your leaders) I proposed a new section 5A to fix the problem of section 5 Justified Limits being used to unreasonably limit people's right to refuse medical interventions and experiments. Recall the NZ Bill of Rights is NZ's attempt to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which you say you uphold.

Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Amend Section 5 and add a new section 5A to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 published November 2021 and sponsored to the House in December 2021 by ACT Party leader David Seymour.

Here's a link to the evidence I tendered and screen capture of the papers, which includes the advice from the Ministry of Justice to the Petitions Committee. note the Ministry of Health did not offer any advice to counter my evidence in respect to the COVID-19 phenomena or the Government's Response: 


My Petition read; That the House of Representatives amend Section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by inserting “and subject to section 5A”, and insert a new section 5A: “Unjustified limitations” to say “None of sections 4, 5, 6 provide any justified limits on rights and freedoms contained in sections 8, 9, 10 and 11”

Read the Bill of Rights here particularly sections 8, 9, 10 and 11:

I provided two initial documents to the Petitions Committee and a request to present oral evidence in person. They didn't want to let me near them in person.

The Petitions Committee invited advice from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

MoJ provided advice to the Petitions Committee July 2021:

Which said in part; Most of the rights cited in the petition either cannot be justifiably limited, or would be very difficult to justifiably limit, as described in the next section.

 MoJ said in respect to s 11 (the right to refuse medication); Section 11 protects the ability of individuals to decline to have medical treatment, safeguarding individual autonomy and dignity. There are a number of circumstances in which section 11 can be justifiably limited; for example, medical treatment of children, cases where a power of attorney is activated, or where persons need emergency medical treatment and are unconscious. Rule 7(4) of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights permits treatment without consent in circumstances such as these.

The Ministry of Justice advice did nothing to negate my proposed amendment to BORA, and in respect to the critique they did offer I propose a solution, see below.

In August 2021 I provided the Petitions Committee with a response to the MoJ paper and adjustment to s 11 to accommodate their specific concerns. From page 7 of my paper.

Without prejudice, MoJ's advice provides for limited derogations and only for specific circumstances where a person, not a class of persons, might be unable to provide their consent freely; eg: children and persons unable to make decisions for themselves.

If the examples provided in the MoJ advice are the sum total of the NZ Government and Parliament's concern in relation to the absolutism of the proposed BORA amendment, I imagine a suitable qualifying addendum might be added to section 11 similar to the caveat in Sec 8; that is, the right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice.

Without prejudice, section 11 might state; Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment; the caveat being; informed consent might be provided for children by their guardians, and for persons unable to make decisions for themselves by lawfully enacted means. 

This elaborates the individual and specific nature of any derogation. The petitioner looks favourably upon any similar textual solution.

I would have thought that an organisation UNANZ who purports to uphold the UN Charter and human rights would welcome ideas to stop government overreach and breaches of human rights rather than placing the despots who imposed unlawful mandates upon the NZ population onto a pedestal. 

You will never rebuild trust in institutions if you fail to address the root cause and problem, the institutions breached their public trust and need to redeem themselves through proper inquiry and remedy. The UNANZ appears to be complicit in breaching the letter and spirit of the law that you assert you uphold. The plain English reading of the ICCPR article 7 which cannot be derogated even in times of emergency is;

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Most sincerely

Greg Rzesniowiecki


I will update this post where I gain any response from folk at the UNANZ. 

Tuesday 29 August 2023

NZ Freedom Parties: unite for freedom, or divide for futility


The plethora of freedom parties contesting the 2023 general election is troubling especially where they are competing for the votes of the freedom movement.

There are a likely limited number of votes to spread amongst the many parties whose policy platform freedom voters might consider. 

I have been participating in the Voters United initiative which have fielded six (6) straw polls seeking respondents' preferred party. Voters United continue to act to unite freedom voters. 

But what of the competing freedom parties?

I'm not advocating for any one party, rather for common sense and political wisdom amongst the freedom parties - sufficient to join in an unified entity, potentially either the Freedoms NZ umbrella or the Democratic Alliance umbrella, both legitimately available as they are registered with the NZ Electoral Commission. If not these, through any other entity that might be considered legitimate by the NZ Electoral Commission. 

There is not much time for a miracle to happen.

Recently I wrote the freedom parties in the following terms. I did not address it to NZ First. 

If you support the sentiment, or it seems like common sense to you, perhaps forward it to the party you support (or all of them), to the candidates, branches, boards and party leaders to indicate that you want the freedom parties to unite to give the freedom movement a solid opportunity to be represented in the Parliament. 

To cross the five (5) percent threshold will require more than 130,000 votes, and would mean at least six (6) Representatives in the House (in the letter I mention 145,000 votes, but any votes for parties that do not cross the threshold are effectively discounted in the MMP party list allocation process).

Text of the letter.. 

Monday 14 August 2023

Greg Rzesniowiecki

To: New Zealand Freedom Parties 

contesting the 2023 general election

By email:

To:    Democracy NZ,  Democratic Alliance,  Leighton Baker Party,  New Conservative Party,  New Nation Party,  New Zeal Party,  NZ Loyal,  Outdoors and Freedom Party,  Vision

Subject: Unite for freedom, or divide for futility

Dear NZ Freedom Parties,


My name is Greg Rzesniowiecki and I reside on the Kapiti Coast. Some of you may know of me and my involvement in NZ politics over the past decade, however, this isn't about me, it is about the freedom loving people of New Zealand and those who purport to represent these people's views.

We all disdain what the NZ Government has done to the nation we love under the guise of the COVID-19 Response.

Voters United – unite the voters if the parties won't unite

Voters United have done a fair bit of researching, thinking and acting in providing the freedom loving proportion of the New Zealand electorate with a platform to draw attention to the need to unify for the purpose of reestablishing freedom and human rights as the underpinnings of the New Zealand society and democracy.

Voters United principles1 are consistent with the views expressed by most freedom lovers and freedom parties and/or parties that support a free and democratic New Zealand.

How are freedom loving New Zealanders going to attain these principles?

We all appreciate that it is the majority in Parliament that passes legislation to make the laws that govern the population. Judging from the number of freedom parties contesting the 2023 election it is reasonable to say these comprehend the need to gain parliamentary representation in order to have any real effect on legislation made in the House.

The MMP electoral system requires a party or individual to win an electoral seat, or a party to gain five (5) percent of the Party Vote cast at the election to gain representation in the House. The likely combined party vote in the 2023 general election will be in the order of 2.8-2.9 million votes. Five percent is ~145,000 votes.

Based on current polling the following parties either will, or are highly likely to gain representation in the House; National, Labour, ACT, NZ Green, Te Pati Maori and possibly NZ First.

All other smaller parties who are contesting the election with the exception of TOP (The Opportunities Party) are polling no more than one (1) percent in mainstream polls.

NZ's Parliament provides for 120 Representatives and five (5) percent or more, would enable at least six (6) Representatives, where a party crossed the threshold.

With Parliamentary Representation comes a number of benefits.2

A party with six (6) Representatives would be entitled to six (6) offices in the Parliament precinct and six (6) regional electoral offices, staffed and resourced from the Parliamentary budget.

Additionally, a Parliamentary Party would gain representation on select committees. Allocations for oral questions and speaking rights in the various debates are made on the basis of a party's representation in the House.3

Parliamentary resources would be available, such as access to the Parliamentary library. Parliament Representatives' staff are fully funded. These are able to conduct research and assist administratively, both in respect to work related to Parliament business and constituent or electoral matters. Informal advantages include that the press gallery journalists and news media are always more interested in what elected parties are doing and are more likely to report on policies, bills and press releases when the party has representation in the House.

A freedom focused political coalition or umbrella party with at least six (6) Representatives with proper focus, intent and expertise would be an incredible force for freedom and human rights.

The disparate parties ought put aside their various differences and in some way combine to present a unified, coherent and representative political force for the Freedom Movement to endorse and vote for in two months time.

It ought not matter which freedom politician is placed one through six (1-6) on the umbrella party list, as either all six get elected or none do.

If you do not combine, you will not be elected. In such circumstances, voting for you will be wasted votes.

Where the freedom parties do not unite and combine, you are doomed to ignominy and derision for the missed opportunity.

This 2023 general election, with the COVID-19 Response as background, provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to address the principles outlined by Voters United and your various party platforms.

A credible political force might attract more voters in subsequent general elections as the electorate acknowledges their principled stand and the effective workings of an 'umbrella party'.

Consider the opportunity presented where an 'umbrella party' gains the five (5) percent threshold alongside the resurgent NZ First party, who appear to be picking up a number of the freedom movement policies and voters.

It is evident that NZ First is attracting “freedom votes” as the realisation dawns on freedom voters that there is no credible umbrella party that is likely to attain the five (5) percent threshold as of mid August 2023. Several hundred thousand votes divided between a dozen small freedom parties is not good number crunching.

I know from anecdotal testimony that some freedom voters think that NZ First is the only party espousing freedom policies likely to cross the five (5) percent threshold.

NZ First is now polling consistently at or just above five (5) percent, a trend likely to increase as we near the election.

If it forms in the next couple of weeks, an umbrella party might keep NZ First honest also!

Where this opportunity to gain Freedom Movement representation in the House is missed, through disunity and division of political capital, those who populate the leaderships of the various freedom parties will have done a great disservice to the Freedom Movement and the principles, we the freedom voters, have united around and stand for.

The February 2022 Parliament occupation and freedom village proved that there is incredible support from the people of New Zealand for freedom and human rights.

Only a coherent and coordinated approach to the 2023 general election will enable that larger potential to be realised as a political bloc with power to effect legislative change; that is, to ensure NZ is a free and democratic nation that upholds human rights.

I implore you to use an umbrella entity to maximise freedom party Parliamentary representation. As I comprehend it, the Democratic Alliance is nearly registered, and is available for this purpose. Freedom Parties have at best three (3) weeks to make necessary arrangements for a unified political entity, whatever that might be.

NZ’s democratic future rests in your hands.

Yours most sincerely,

Greg Rzesniowiecki

About the author;

Some of you may know of me and my involvement in NZ politics over the past decade; initially opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which was reformed as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and my general anti-war, anti-imperialism political views.

More recently you might be aware of my absolute scepticism of the COVID-19 phenomena, the Authoritarian Response and opposition to counter measures employed by Government and authorities from early 2020 to present.4 5 6 7

Irrespective of the impact this correspondence has on the freedom parties, I will continue my efforts opposing the COVID-19 Response and any similar set of policies being implemented in a WHO Pandemic treaty or amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

1  Voters United principles:

2  Parliament Website, Speaker’s Directions 2020: The Speaker makes Directions, under section 23 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, to provide services and support funding for members of Parliament and parliamentary parties.

4  Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Undertake a public inquiry into the national COVID-19 response my evidence, reasons and proposed terms of reference are available at this link: and the pdf document:

5  Amend Section 5 and add a new section 5A to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, submissions and advice provided to the Committee:

6  Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before signing the proposed WHO pandemic treaty: and Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before amending International Health Regulations:


Thus far the response from the freedom parties is underwhelming or non existent.

It might be that it is all too late and no miracle is available. 

I sincerely hope wisdom might prevail and the power of the freedom movement is maximised through the fullest possible Parliamentary Representation.

Politics is about power, whereas futility is the lot of the powerless.

Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the NZ Bill of Rights

In peace, freedom and full human rights.