Leighton Smith Podcast #272 - February 19th 2025 - Muriel Newman and Michael Connett - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debate of the now, the Leyton
Smith podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two hundred and seventy two for February nineteen,
twenty twenty five, two seven to two will set a
length record for the lateon Smith podcast. I believe I
haven't checked it, but I believe it does. We present
you with two interviews which, though unintended to share a
common theme, and that is the law and I guess

(00:50):
its application now. Apart from that, they both stand independently.
The second interview is with the American lawyer Michael Connett,
who succeeded in a case against the Environmental Protection Agency
in the United States, a very powerful organization, not so
much now after the change of government, but certainly it

(01:12):
has been for a long time. It was over fluoridation
of drinking water, and whether you care or not about
being forced to participate in that debate. It makes for
interesting listening. But first up Murial Newman from NZCPR, the
New Zealand seter for political research. Now, when you read
a headline parliamentary sovereignty hangs in the balance, it should

(01:35):
act as a magnet to anyone who has an engaging
mind and concern for their country. What I want to
read you a couple of quotes Apart from that, the
American people will never be able to regain democratic self
government and thus shape public policy until we curb activist judges. Now,
that was a quote from Edward mess Attorney General of

(01:59):
the United States under President Reagan. The second is from
retired Judge Anthony Willie, who we have great admiration for
on this podcast. And there's a couple of quotes from
the article by Jural Law. The concern is that our
superior courts now contain a number of judges who have
shown a ready acceptance of infusing the common law with

(02:21):
the notion of tea Kanger. In the Supreme Court, these
include the Chief Justice, Justice Glazebrook and Justice Williams x
y TAGI Tribunal. Added to which, in a number of
cases the silent majority on the Court has raised no
objection to the introduction of tea Kanger. Then, in the
next paragraph, it requires no conspiracy theorizing to see this

(02:43):
as part of the wider drive to dismantle a pillar
of our democracy and impose the pernicious adern Hapa pooor
construct in which a small group of MARI activists seek
to impose their wishes on the public, with the long
term goal of taking over the governance of New Zealand.
Now that doesn't bother you, I guess there's not much
that will.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
Now.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
Following Muriel Newman, we joined by Missus Producer for the
mail Room as always in its usual place, after which
Michael Collett and the subject of fluoridation and whether or
not it should be mandated, and that debate, of course
continues in this country, although some people are sick of it,
including including in part me. But it's the legal aspect

(03:27):
of it that caught my attention. So hang in there,
stay with it, and I think you'll get something out
of it. But in a moment Burial Newman Layton Smith.
Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal

(03:51):
decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief, and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty
four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next

(04:11):
time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
the pharmacy and ask for leverickx L e v Rix
Leverix and always read the label, take us directed, and
if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland

(04:42):
Burial Newman was he an MP for nine years, after
which she established nz CPR, the New Zealand Center for
Political Research, and it is arguably the best collector of
articles on current events that we have in New Zealand.
I say arguably because there are others. But if you're

(05:03):
looking for answers and commentary on things as they arise,
i'd suggest what I do often. I suggest that then
said CPR is very good, Muriel, it's great to have
you back on the podcast. Nine years. When did that finish?

Speaker 4 (05:19):
It was two thousand and five late and it was
that election where ACT went down from having eight MPs
or nine MPs, sorry, to just having two. And so,
you know, election night we suddenly realized that it was
time to find a new focus, in a new direction.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
Are you happy as what you've done?

Speaker 3 (05:41):
Oh? Absolutely, to be honest.

Speaker 4 (05:43):
The one thing I loved right from the time I
got involved in politics was I used to write a
little newsletter to people that i'd met, and as it
went on throughout the years I was an MP, I'd
built it up to quite a big sort of mailing
list and I loved doing that, and so we had
this idea, I wonder if I could make that into

(06:06):
something and make it work. So that was the beginning
of the New Zealand Center for Political Research.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
How many years since the first edition.

Speaker 3 (06:14):
It'll be twenty years now, so yeah, it's getting on.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
Is pretty impressive. And you are not funded by any
organizations as such.

Speaker 3 (06:26):
No, No, we've funded by readers.

Speaker 4 (06:28):
We've got probably the worst business model in the world.
We say, here's our stuff, it's all free, but if
you like what we do, would you consider giving us
a donation? And you know it works to some extent.
So yeah, it's been a wonderful experience because what I've
been able to do is use what I learned. We know,

(06:49):
as a member of Parliament, learned about the political process,
the parliamentary process and where to find stuff, and I've
been able to use that to continue to inform readers
and you know, debate the issues, and so it's been
a sort of carry on really and yeah, I've loved

(07:11):
what I love what I do. It's just very frustrating
that you don't get some of the changes that you
know are necessary to happen in a timely manner. And so,
you know, we beat our head against a brick wall sometimes,
but then sometimes things happen quite quickly. So that's the
thing about politics, it's always changing. Well, let me ask

(07:31):
you a simple question. Since the Coalition came in, how
would you rate them out of ten ambition I'd probably
give them an eight, but delivery probably a three or four.
And I think that's been the frustrating and I think
the disappointing thing that a lot of the promises that

(07:54):
were made that got everybody so excited and so pleased
to have voted for the coalition parties at the last election.

Speaker 3 (08:01):
Are now falling flat.

Speaker 4 (08:03):
And the reason, of course, is that they're in a
hostile environment that trying to change things for the better
with people who don't want that to happen and are
trying to drag us back to the days of the
Ardern administration.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
Who is leading that? Do you think?

Speaker 4 (08:22):
Look, I think what's happened if you consider this fact
that you know there's probably what twenty thousand more people
employed in the public service now from when National was
last in government in twenty seventeen. A lot of those
people would be activists who are pushing particular viewpoints, and

(08:45):
the Coalition has done a pretty dismal job at reducing
that workforce down. A lot of the so called reduction
in numbers vacancies, you know, the actual number of people
who've had their marching orders is really quite low, and
so I think there's a lot of people in there

(09:07):
who've got activists intentions. There's no way they want to
let go the agenda that was being pushed by the
last government. And that's what I think the Coalition hasn't
factored into all their directives and everything else. They're not
doing enough follow up and that's the problem. So they
say you've got to use English, and they've got people

(09:30):
in their own offices who are using mari, you know
what I mean. So it's some of it is really simple,
and it's happening under their noses. But of course they've
got their hands full on many of the bigger things.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
You know. There's one thing that people have said to
me as much, if not more than anything else over
the last month or so. We need our own Trump.
Ye what do you think?

Speaker 3 (09:57):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (09:57):
Look, absolutely, you need somebody who will get up and
say the right things, and you know deep down in
your heart that man alive is he or she going
to follow them through?

Speaker 3 (10:12):
And that's what we don't have.

Speaker 4 (10:13):
We have people who talk the talk, and that makes
us really happy because we have then many expectations of
what's to follow. And I think it's this deep disappointment
that the follow up doesn't happen. And yes, if you
can find a Trump for us, latent, let us know,
because we desperately need one.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Do you think that what you just said is reflected
by the or vice versa, by the current polling that
suggests that the Left coalition would have a greater chance
of taking the Treasury ventures.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
I think it is.

Speaker 4 (10:51):
I think it's this disillusionment and disappointment. And you've got
to remember that most elections have decided by that swing voter.
These are people who are not really aligned to a
particular political point of view, but they go where they

(11:12):
think the promises are going to deliver a better New Zealand.
And I think that probably number one, you know, the
Prime Minister goes on about the economy, Well, that undoubtedly
is having a big effect. So the promises of a
stronger economy haven't come to fruition yet. And then the
second thing that I think was driving the election was

(11:35):
the issue of race. In my mind, it's a sleeper issue.
People don't like talking about it, but man alive, does
it influence them. And what they've seen is that the
promises that that would be sorted haven't come to fruition
and so a lot of those people are probably drifting
back to labor.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
What to quote you some headlines for reasons that'll be obvious.
Supreme Court's rush to judgment is a constitutional wake up call,
doctor Oliver Hartwich wrote that was written by Roger Partridge.
By the way Oliver Hartwich, America's Pacific paradox leaves the
door open to China. This one is from Radio New

(12:17):
Zealand actually, and it's very rare that I'd be quoting
something of theirs. Cook Island signs China deal at center
of diplomatic row with New Zealand and the New Zealand Herald.
New Zealand Government concerns regarding Cook Island's China agreements. And
one more parliamentary sovereignty hangs in the balance, and that

(12:40):
was ausered by you. So let's start with that, shall
we Parliamentary sovereignty hangs in the balance. Give us a
brief outline.

Speaker 4 (12:49):
We've got a situation now where China is coming closer
to New Zealand the Cook Islands. There are a Pacific
New Zealand realm nation, so that part of our our
sort of grouping, if you like. And now a dealer
is being done. That's going to bring their influence essentially

(13:11):
onto our doorstep. So if you park that and then
you look at what's happening in New Zealand politics, we
had the coalition promising to fix.

Speaker 3 (13:22):
The Marine and Coastal Area Act.

Speaker 4 (13:24):
For people who've forgotten what that involves, this is the
act that allows tribal groups to gain control of New
Zealand's coastline and territorial Sea. When the Act was devised
by National back in two thousand and eleven ten eleven,

(13:44):
it was designed in such a way that only a
minority of areas of the coastline would become owned in
quote marks by tribal interests. Most of it would not qualify.
But what the courts have done is they've misinterpreted the
law or reinterpreted it to deliver the opposite. And the

(14:07):
culprit here is the word teacunger. They brought teacunger into
the original Act that has now been reinterpreted to mean
way more than it was ever intended. And so the
result is now that virtually all of the claims and
there's about almost six hundred of them to the coast
the entire coastline stand to be awarded to tribal interests

(14:32):
unless the government honors their election pledged to fix the law.
Now before Christmas, they had a bill in front of
Parliament which was to do that. It was to tighten
up the requirements that would allow for a customery marine title,
and that bill was ready to go into law in
late December when the Supreme Court issued a judgment they

(14:58):
rushed it through. They split their judgment, which they never do.
They rushed through the first bit to essentially emballish Tea
Hunger and say that it has to override any other
influence in making the law about the foreshore and seabed.
And it was a purely political move. It was judicial

(15:20):
activism on steroids. And what that did is it forced
our government or caused our government to delay the law change.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
And so now it's.

Speaker 4 (15:30):
Been the Electoral Commission, sorry, the Law Commission is meant
to be reviewing it and providing advice to the government
and it's on hold. And meanwhile China is getting closer.
And if the law is not passed as the coalition promised,

(15:51):
then what will happen. Number one is that the Supreme
Court will have determined the law. This is the activist
Supreme Court. And number two, virtually the entire coastline will
go to Mari interests, tribal interests, and that will give
them own ship of all of New Zealand's seabed and

(16:13):
all the mineral wealth within it, apart from the nationalized
minerals of petroleum, silver, gold, platonium and so on. And
they would then be able to do deals with China
to come into our area and have our seabed minerals
as well, which is what they want from the Cook Islands.

Speaker 2 (16:33):
What is it about seabed minerals.

Speaker 4 (16:37):
These are the minerals that are used in electronics and
of course in the batteries for electric cars, so that
whole renewable energy or solar and wind energy uses these
minerals cobalt, nickel, academium, magnesium and rare earths, and they

(17:00):
are all found in.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
Huge quantities on the seabed.

Speaker 4 (17:04):
And what the Chinese want to maintain their global dominance
in this market is to find sources of more of
these minerals. And they're there in our seabed and at
the moment they're unprotected. And as I say, if the
tribal groups gain control of the coast, they will own

(17:25):
those minerals and be able to sell them.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
And you're suggesting that the Cook Islands and the deal
that they've done is a forerunner.

Speaker 4 (17:32):
It's I mean, who knows what their strategic content is.
But the reality is that of all countries in the world,
New Zealand is on the cusp of giving away control
of our coast and territorial sea to private interests. It's
unbelievable what's happening. It is so wrong. What the government

(17:57):
should have done, if it had the courage, was actually
to repeal the Marine and Coastal Area Act and bring
back the Foreshore and Sea Bed Act where it all
was owned by the Crown on behind of all New Zealanders.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
That's the safe thing to do to protect a nation.

Speaker 4 (18:13):
And instead we've got this ridiculous situation where private groups
can control your territorial.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
See, I mean, how mad is that? So?

Speaker 4 (18:23):
Anyway, one of the things coming out of this is
our realization that we have non we have nationalized minerals.
I read out you know, listed them before gold and
silver and petroleum. That law needs to be extended to
all of these new minerals which are hugely important to

(18:47):
the future development of the world.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
All right, stop there, these stop stop there. If that's
the case, why is it not being recognized by our
government and why aren't they doing what you're suggesting, which
is the only sensible thing to do.

Speaker 4 (19:02):
Look, I think number one, nobody's put too and two together.
Nobody has realized China and the Cook Islands essentially in
our Pacific.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
Realm waters.

Speaker 4 (19:16):
Tribal groups about to gain control of the seabed and
obviously the coastline, because that's going to be incremental. Right,
Each group has got to go through a court process.
But the courts are now starting to move on all that.
They put it all on hold when the coalition promised
the law change, and now what's happening.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
The judges are saying, oh, there.

Speaker 4 (19:39):
Might not be a law change, and therefore we're going
to start progressing these cases. Now. That will be a
disaster for the country, I can tell you. But it'll
take a while before people really realize what's happening.

Speaker 3 (19:52):
And that'll be too late, and then it'll be wait,
too late.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
Yeah, Okay, what was the in that case before Christmas
with a Supreme Court? What were the numbers? Do you know.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
The case?

Speaker 2 (20:08):
These things are complicated, right, I mean the voting numbers
of the court.

Speaker 4 (20:13):
Oh, the court was unanimous. So what it was was
the first case and the foreshore and sea bed law change, right,
the Marine and Coastal Area Act. The first case was
heard by a judge who found in favor of the
tribal groups. We were involved in that case through another group,
and so we appealed to the Court of Appeal, as

(20:36):
did all the people who'd gained title and the ones
who hadn't. All of them wanted to argue, you know,
how do you how much do you get? They wanted
to argue about who got more than someone else, So
all the tribal groups were in there as well.

Speaker 3 (20:52):
The Court of Appeal rejected.

Speaker 4 (20:53):
Our claims that you know, nobody should have gained title,
and then that case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (21:02):
So there were nineteen parties involved in that.

Speaker 4 (21:06):
Appeal and the Court came out with their judgment in
just a couple of weeks. I mean, the Supreme Court
never does that, and it was all done. Their decision
was or judgment on that part of it.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
The political part of it was released the day before
the debate was.

Speaker 4 (21:25):
To happen in Parliament to start passing that law. So
it was a hugely political thing that they did. And
so my view and our view is that you cannot
trust the Supreme Court to interpret the Marine and Coastal
Area Act as Parliament intended. So whatever judgment they finally

(21:47):
come out with on that case should be annulled, like
the decision of the Court of Appeal and the decision
of all the High Court decisions, and they should all
be reheard under the new Amendment bill.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
You see the parallel that we're running with America at
the moment as far as the courts are concerned.

Speaker 4 (22:05):
Ah, yes, but not that it's in so many different areas.
The problems that we face here are exactly what other
Western nations are facing. And it seems to me that
instead of our governments realizing there are better ways through
some of these issues, they just carry on banging on

(22:27):
trying to make it work here, when really.

Speaker 3 (22:30):
Others have shown the way.

Speaker 2 (22:32):
I just pulled out Roger Partridge's article Who Makes the Law?
We did a podcast interview on that, and it was
fascinating and it got a lot of attention. The question
that comes to me is why is it that, not
just here, but in other places, that the courts are
getting away with things that they have no right to

(22:54):
get away with, But they're establishing themselves in a position
beyond their borders, beyond their status, and nobody seems to
be there's no rise up. If this country was paying
attention way that it should be, then surely the number
of lawyers and law companies in this in this country

(23:14):
would have would have voiced an almost universal opinion to
battle this. Am I wrong.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
I think there's a few things going on here.

Speaker 4 (23:27):
First of all, we have to be a little bit
careful because New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution. We're
one of the few countries in the world where parliament
is supreme, and many other countries where they are battling
bad things happening with their court system. The court system
actually stands above, you know, very equivalent.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
Of a parliament. And so in New Zealand.

Speaker 4 (23:54):
We've got these different branches of governments, and you have
politicians steadfastly trying to avoid criticizing the judiciary, which is,
you know, another pillar of our democracy. But the reality
is parliaments, it's supreme of the court system, and so
when the court system does something wrong, then our parliament

(24:19):
should be resolving it. Now, this problem has been coming on,
the particular problem that affects the Marine and Coastal Area
Act has been coming on for some time. And this
is where the judiciary or the justices of the Supreme
Court are pushing for decolonization and Maori law to be

(24:43):
incorporated into our common law. And of course it's talking
tease latent.

Speaker 3 (24:51):
You think about it. One of the things, one of
the strengths of.

Speaker 4 (24:54):
The law is that it's predictable and it's certain. And
you look at the word tea kunger which I mentioned earlier.
Teacunger is Mari custom number one. It can't be defined.
So how on earth can you put something that can't
be defined into the middle of our common law and

(25:15):
expect the rule of law to work.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
It can't.

Speaker 4 (25:19):
And so right from the beginning, instead of people standing
up and saying, you know, stop stop, you know, we've
got a problem, they essentially just turned a blind eye.
And now it's got worse. And the Supreme Court is
leading this charge. Justice Joe Williams, who was the former

(25:40):
head of the Waitangi Tribunal, of course, is one of
the key people in there that's leading the charge.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
And it needs to be stopped.

Speaker 4 (25:50):
And what Roger Partridge has done is he's put out
a number of measures that should be taken that will
help to reign in this court. I mean, he's a
you know, a lawyer, and he's done it in a
perfectly legitimate legal way. People like us, we say, just
bantieking it, you know, don't let it be part of

(26:12):
the law, but one way or another it has to
be stopped.

Speaker 3 (26:16):
Otherwise you may as well kiss goodbye to the rule
of law. And look.

Speaker 4 (26:19):
The other day I saw a case. It involves some
dispute within Maridom with the Crown, and they wanted to
go straight from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
And I bet the reason is that they expect if
they go to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will
find in their favor.

Speaker 3 (26:40):
Well, blow me down. What do we do about this?

Speaker 4 (26:43):
If the Supreme Court is now biased in favor of
mari sovereignty, How the hang do we as a country
work this out and go forward? We can't. So something
has to be done. And if it's not done by
reigning in the Supreme Court, then we damn we'll need
to reopen our ties with the Privy Council in England

(27:05):
or something. We need to do something now.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
I'm glad you mention that, because I was going to
bring it up. It was two thousand and three, I think,
wasn't it. Yes, yeah, I think when the give or
take when the Privy Council was dumped by Helen Clark
and her Attorney General, and I certainly argued against it

(27:29):
as much as I possibly could, and raised it on
radio at the time. Not many other people cared about it.
There were some very good lawyers who were very concerned
with it. There are other lawyers who you know who cares.
I question now whether what we're experiencing was part of

(27:50):
the goal of the perpetrators of the disappearance of the
Privy Council from our legal system.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
That's hard to tell, right because so many.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
It is it really? I mean, if you're as clever
as Helen Clark is reputed and their Attorney General, if
you're as clever as they are, what's your goal in
doing away with the pretty Council? Is it really just
to give New Zealand independence. We're talking about people of

(28:22):
the left here, and in some cases some extreme left,
and it doesn't take too much to look down the
road a bit to see the path that would likely trend.
And I'm suggesting in the form of a question that
maybe that was the goal, or part of the goal
at least.

Speaker 4 (28:42):
Well, I mean, there's no doubt about it that if
the left can capture the highest court in your land,
then you've got no comeback, have you? You have to
change the law, and that's in fact, you know what
we're seeing now happening. But we've got a government that
hasn't figured that they're going to have to do this
a lot if they're going to keep on top of

(29:04):
these issues, and so you know, that's the dilemma. So yes,
perhaps that was always the goal, that you end up
with a captured High Court, highest Court of Appeal, and
then you really are upsetting the apple cart, aren't you,

(29:25):
because they know that governments are loath to change the
lord because of what the courts have done. And so yes,
so you end up capturing the law changes in the future.
If that was the case, that very clever, very long

(29:45):
you know, strategic thinking, long term plans.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Yeah, isn't that what not that I'm necessarily suggesting that
this was directly connected, But isn't that basically what Marxism
is all about? Yeah, long, long term, the long march
through the institutions.

Speaker 5 (30:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
Now if they weren't, if they weren't thinking along those lines,
then one might accuse them of not being very bright,
because if you know your Marxisms, et cetera, then you
know how they think.

Speaker 4 (30:24):
So well, when you think about it later, you know.
They Yes, they do definitely appear to have captured our
court system, and they've definitely captured the media. They've captured
the education system, they've captured the arts to a large extent,

(30:45):
and so they've keptured all the institutions of culture in
New Zealand, and the fight back against.

Speaker 3 (30:53):
It all is quite limited. It's a very sad state
of affairs.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
It is so parliamentary sovereignty hangs in the balance. The
title of your current article writtenublished on the fourteenth Valentine's Day,
Now that's a great day to publish, that, isn't it.

Speaker 4 (31:14):
And listen, we all know soon enough whether which way
this country's going, because soon enough the government will have
to make a decision about what it does with that bill.
I mean, as I said, the courts are wanting to
move on now, and so they will just have to
decide whether they pass their bill, in which case they

(31:36):
will be restoring parliamentary sovereignty, or if they decide to
shelve it.

Speaker 3 (31:43):
Sort of permanently.

Speaker 4 (31:44):
Then we'll know that parliamentary sovereignty is crumbling and that
the courts have actually intimidated them and are now taking
charge of lawmaking in this country, and as I say
in that article, that will be a very dangerous situation
and a very sad state of affairs for New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
So as the present makeup of Parliament is concerned, do
you see any anything standing in the way of a
prime minister, not to mention any names, but a prime
minister from taking the lead and calling on not just
his party or her party, but calling on all parties
on the government ventures to stand up to this.

Speaker 3 (32:27):
No, there is nothing to stop it.

Speaker 4 (32:29):
What they would normally do, of course, is that they
would normally you have a.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
Word with each other and get agreement.

Speaker 4 (32:36):
Because you know, the law change was New Zealand's first
coalition deal part of their deal, and Act was very
supportive of it as well. And so if it's tied,
if the stalling of the law change is tied to
the activism of the Supreme Court, then of course the

(32:59):
leaders of both of those political parties are going to
agree with the Prime Minister that the courts have got
to be brought into line. And so if he may
a speech, a trump like speech, talking about these issues,
he would have the full support of those parties and
the full support of most New Zealanders.

Speaker 2 (33:18):
You think if he did that the Trump like speech,
do you think he'd be castigated.

Speaker 4 (33:24):
Look, this is the problem and I think this is
why we're seeing.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
Happening on a daily basis.

Speaker 4 (33:31):
What is happening, and that is that, you know, I
think the Prime Minister doesn't know how to handle the
hostile media.

Speaker 3 (33:42):
The hostile media is terrible.

Speaker 4 (33:45):
I mean we have never seen anything like it, and
you know, it's got to the point, like many New
Zealanders where we can't even turn on the news half
the time because you just want to throw something at
your television. And so you know, he has to learn
how to bat that off, give back as much as

(34:06):
he gets. They're a good example of people showing the
way how to do that. I mean David Seymour did
it up at Waitangi when you know someone in the
media is getting hostile to him. We've seen Elon Musk
do it, you know, internationally and Donald Tripp isn't too
bad at it, you know, And so there are people

(34:26):
there who stand up to the media, and that's what
we need in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
We need a Prime Minister who can do that. And
when he.

Speaker 4 (34:33):
Gets the chorus of baying about standing up and putting
the court system in its place, or whatever you know,
he decides to do. He's got to bat it off,
ignore it turned to blind eye, because what he knows
he's doing is right for our country, right for our democracy,

(34:53):
right for our future, and right for our freedom. For
goodness sake, all of these things matters more than anything else,
and he is not delivering that sort of message, which
is you know, obviously came back to our earlier conversation
about do we need a Trump here?

Speaker 2 (35:12):
Maybe those things aren't important to.

Speaker 4 (35:14):
Him, Well, maybe they should be important to him because
it's part of being a prime minister.

Speaker 3 (35:21):
And that's the problem.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
He needs to realize that he got elected and his
coalition got elected on more than just the economy. Now,
we don't want him to lose sight and purpose with
the economy, because that is turning around this ship is
a huge job, and he is right to put a
lot of effort there, but he cannot neglect these other

(35:45):
matters which are equally important to New Zealanders.

Speaker 2 (35:49):
I don't think it'll be long before what's being mumbled privately,
and it's quite a bit of it, will become far
more speculative publicly.

Speaker 4 (36:00):
That's the problem, isn't it really, Because once you start
getting leadership murmurings in a party, then they go down
even first either in the polls. The other side gains
strength and power and the media, you know, give it
to them, and so you know, it's a terrible thing.
It would be far better to be honest for the

(36:21):
future of this country if the Prime Minister could take
some good advice and learn a few tricks of the
trade and go on and represent all New Zealanders.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
And not a bit later I suggest, yeah, probably the
ripples aren't aren't there. Look, we spent almost a month
in Australia over Christmas and they gave me the opportunity
to park all the stuff that's going on elsewhere. I
didn't have to worry about it. And when we came back,

(36:54):
I down down the track. You know. Week by week
I picked up that there was this satisfaction and it's growing.
And I'll leave it at that because I don't I
don't know anything. I just I just listen to what
people have to say.

Speaker 3 (37:10):
And it's the same with us. You know, we get feedback.

Speaker 4 (37:14):
From thousands of people every week and it's the same.
You can sense the ripple that's going on, but it
isn't fatal at the moment, and so some strength and
some common sense could help to you know, reassure people

(37:34):
that the coalition is still on track because it is
a three party deal we're talking about here, and that's
what's needed. We need the coalition to be strong. We
need them to be particularly strong going into next year
election year because I tell you what later, and if
the other guys get in with the Maori Party in
tow it will be an absolute disaster for this country.

(37:58):
And so those people who think that things aren't as
good as they could be right now should actually, you know,
have another think about what it would be like if
these guys that are in power now lose and the
other lot eaten, because it will be worse, way worse.

Speaker 2 (38:17):
Muriel on another matter, and it is my favorite. I
have to well, it has been for so long a
dominant aspect of my attention. Why is New Zealand sticking
to UN climate rules when everyone else is walking away.
We've got a supposed Minister for climate change who's refusing

(38:38):
to refusing to even talk to farmers before introducing rules
that affect them dramatically. This was an incredible piece that
I read, not what I'm quoting from here. But he's
just refused to talk to anybody. It's just determined to
go ahead and do what he wants to do. But
I go back to this piece. Nearly every major country

(39:02):
ignored the UN's February deadline to submit newer mission reduction plans,
except for New Zealand at a handful of others. While
global powers like China, India, and the EU delayed or
outright ignored the requirement, New Zealand lined up with just
nine other nations to comply, with most of the world
either backing away from the strict climate commitments or slow

(39:24):
walking their responses. Why is New Zealand still playing by
the rules of the one ninety five signatories to the
Paris Agreement, only thirteen submitted their nationally determined contributions on time.
These are country specific climate action plans under the Paris Agreement,
outlining emission's reduction targets and strategies. Major economies, including China,

(39:47):
the EU, and India failed to meet the deadline, while
others like Canada or Japan are still sitting on the
draft plans. Even the United States submission came from the
outgoing Biden administration, while Trump has already pulled or moved
to pull America out of the deal entirely, and he
has I'm fascinated why we are sitting in a group

(40:11):
of countries like Ghana, Bangladesh, Armenia, while you know, practically
all the other countries are walking away from this. And
I've got a pile of headlines, for instance, from around
the world that are alluding to this. What is it
about New Zealand? And keep in mind that the PM

(40:32):
this quote is not accurate, but it's close enough said
something along the lines of anybody who doesn't recognize in
the twenty first century that mankind is responsible for climate
change global warming is an idiot or something close. Why
are we in this position? Do you think?

Speaker 4 (40:52):
Look, that is a very good question that a lot
of New Zealanders are now asking. I mean, you know,
these climate commitments, it's hugely political, and it's all about
the industrializing economies and you know, bringing countries down to
their knees. Essentially, it's got nothing to do with the

(41:12):
flipping climate. That's what bothers me about all of this.
You know, the climate will do what the climate does.

Speaker 3 (41:19):
It's driven by nature.

Speaker 4 (41:21):
Even the amount of emissions that mankind is responsible for
is about four percent of all the carbon emissions that
circulate in the climate.

Speaker 3 (41:32):
Nature is the biggest driver of the climate.

Speaker 4 (41:36):
And it's not just trees and plants and plankton and
all those other things that you know, put out and
restore or regenerate carbon dioxide, recirculate carbon dioxide. It's you know,
rocks letting off carbon dioxide, volcanoes, it's the weather patterns,

(41:58):
it's just everything. And for people to think that in
New Zealand, trying to force farmers to reduce their bird sizes,
kill off cows and sheep.

Speaker 3 (42:12):
And you know, make.

Speaker 4 (42:14):
Government departments account for their carbon emissions. I mean, how
stupid is that This is the problem. It's got completely
out of control, and the politicians appear too scared of
the negative media who are all on board with this
left wing goal or agenda. They appear too scared to

(42:36):
pick a fight, and they shouldn't be, because other countries.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
Around the world are realizing if they.

Speaker 4 (42:43):
Go down this track, they are sacrificing their economies. That's
precisely what's happening here, and they are not prepared to
do it anymore. And so that's why you've got so
many countries are prevaricating over this, they're delaying it, They're
probably a lot of them going to finally pull out
at some stage. But meanwhile, our prime minister on one

(43:05):
hand talks about the need for economic growth both and
on the other hand he has in place all of
these policies which are causing the price of electricity and
petrol and all sorts of other things to skyrocket. Instead
of saying no, enough is enough, we're putting our economy
and our people first.

Speaker 3 (43:26):
If he got rid of all.

Speaker 4 (43:27):
The carbon levees, all of a sudden prices would.

Speaker 3 (43:30):
Drop, all sorts.

Speaker 4 (43:32):
Of positive things would start to happen. And instead he's
got a blindfold on to what's going on and carries
down this dangerous path.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
I couldn't have matched that little undone better off the cuff.
That was brilliant.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
All I can say is that when you've got people
in power who refuse to look at any new information,
any new theories or statistics, don't want to know about it,
won't explain anything, and refuse to re used to discuss
it in public, you know you've got people in possessions

(44:13):
of power that they don't belong in.

Speaker 4 (44:18):
It's a very very sad situation for New Zealand, you know,
because we're as tiny economy, we rely so heavily on
our agricultural sector.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
I feel so sorry for those.

Speaker 4 (44:31):
People who've been working so hard in that sector to
make a living and do well for the country. All
that's happened over the last probably ten is it fifteen years,
they've been pummeled, beaten up by the politicians for nothing.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
That's the trouble Latin. It's all for nothing. Do you know?

Speaker 4 (44:49):
The other day we were watching something on maybe it
was BBC or something about the new plans for carbon capture.
Huge technology involved, you know, multi millions, if not billions
of dollars involved, and we.

Speaker 3 (45:03):
Sat there thinking, why don't you just ask the trees how.

Speaker 5 (45:06):
To do it?

Speaker 3 (45:08):
Do you know what I mean? It's just so ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (45:11):
All the stuff that they're trying to do is mad.

Speaker 3 (45:15):
And don't get me going on renewable.

Speaker 4 (45:17):
Energy technology and these massive soul of farms and wind
farms that gobble up resources and use huge amounts of.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
Energy and put.

Speaker 4 (45:28):
Out huge emissions in the process, and then they stand
there pretending that you know they're going to save the world.
I mean, it is just wrong what's happened. It should
never have been allowed to get so far.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
It shouldn't but it has, and while it's starting to
dissipate in other parts of the world, all I can
say is that the word insane and idiotic comes to mind.

Speaker 4 (45:55):
Did you know, just something late and sorry to jump in,
but it makes you wonder whether, in fact, you know,
our farmers.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Relied too much on their lobby groups.

Speaker 4 (46:07):
And you know, in a lot of countries the politicians
have been forced to take notice because the farmers have
not given up on their protest. Now.

Speaker 3 (46:19):
I know it's hard for them to.

Speaker 4 (46:21):
Do that because of the work that they've got on
their farms and all the rest of it. But I
think everybody's been too nice about this. They need to
stand up and say enough is enough government, you're going
down the wrong track. And it was very interesting to
hear both I think New Zealand first and Act both
of their leaders have now started to question whether or

(46:44):
not New Zealand should be putting so hard on climate
change goals, and so already the coalition itself is obviously
starting to have second thoughts, and so maybe it is
time for the farmers to get more stoppy and all
the people in the towns who support them, where's groundswell
on this?

Speaker 1 (47:05):
You know?

Speaker 4 (47:05):
We need them to remind us all that this thing
has got out of control, that where the government is
going is anti their own plan to try and get
our economy going properly. And so what they should be
calling for is a pause and some common sense. And
hopefully if the pause is long enough, it will all

(47:27):
go away and we'll get back to being a normal
country with normal goals and doing the right thing again.

Speaker 2 (47:33):
Wouldn't it be nice?

Speaker 3 (47:34):
It would?

Speaker 2 (47:35):
And on that note, I'm going to leave you with
one simple question. What physical evidence supports the contention that
carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal
cause of global warming since nineteen seventy That's it now,
There is none. There is none, none, none, none, none, zero.

(47:58):
And anybody who throws at you some computer figures or something,
tell them they're idiots. But that's a question that are
utilized from somebody who goes on to say I've posed
that question to five climate scientists, professors at the University
of Arizona, who claimed that our carbon dioxide emissions at

(48:19):
the principal cause of dangerous global warming. Yet when asked
the question, none could cite any supporting physical evidence. That's because,
as you said, quite rightly, there is none. On that note, again,
I say, it's been great talking with you. We shouldn't
leave it quite so long.

Speaker 3 (48:35):
Thank you Layton. That's been a real pretty pleasure.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
Thank you, Thanks for real all right. Podcast two one
hundred and seventy two and the mail Room with Missus
producers a very busy podcast this week.

Speaker 6 (49:01):
Great lighton. We like a busy podcast.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
And you've got a clutch full of emails.

Speaker 6 (49:06):
I do as usual. Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (49:08):
One.

Speaker 2 (49:09):
We will reserve a few of them for next week.
So where did you go?

Speaker 6 (49:13):
Laden Joss says is National Party Conservative. In answer to that,
just look at what happened to Simon O'Connor last election.
Simon O'Connor is a genuine conservative. The liberal element wanted
him out, so he was pushed further down the party
list and they didn't defend him from act targeting him
and taking his parliamentary seat. Act as fiscally conservative but

(49:36):
socially as liberal as labor Greens. So no, the National
Party is far from conservative.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
I think that's endorsible. Paul writes at thirty six minutes
into the conversation with Peter Bagotian, he challenges the Free
Speech Union to initiate the process whereby New Zealand Herald
staff of the progressive left mindset are asked to come
forward to debate his writing partner James Lindsay. Having read

(50:05):
James Lindsay's book Cidical Theories, I would guarantee that the
New Zealand Herald's so called journalists would lose any debate
on issues that legacy media have been parroting as being
beyond debate. A prime example is the biology of sex. Therefore, therefore,
if some at the New Zealand Herald is shown to

(50:27):
me entirely without foundation for their argument, that is a
good thing as a step toward truce. Another great takeaway
from the podcast was Peter's unsolicited advice not to let
large numbers of unschooled muslim Men in the country. I
agree with Peter Bagosi in one hundred percent on that
strident but prescient advice. Well that you know you would

(50:50):
have been tagged a racist at some stage and probably
you still still will be by some, but that is
catching on around the world because people are realizing the
stupidity of the past.

Speaker 6 (51:03):
Clayton Jin says an interview between Peter Bagotian and Douglas Murray,
they were both asked what we can do to push
back against woke ideology. Peter's answer was show up. You
have to show up, and you have to pay attention,
and you have to really understand what people are talking about.
I would say the first thing to do is don't
even challenge at all, Just ask questions, what do you

(51:27):
mean when you use the word equity? What does this
mean to have an inclusive space? And Jin says, think
back to the power of a simple question like what
does a woman? From Matt Walsh's groundbreaking documentary And just recently,
I witnessed the power of showing up and speaking truth
to power. And Jade Vance gave one of the best

(51:48):
speeches in recent memory at the Munich Security Conference. Knowing
you late, and I'm quite certain you'd have watched this
in his entirety, and then he goes on. Jing goes
on to give us some of the zingers from his speech,
and then he says, Jadie Vance's courageous speech is a
sign that Trump is also making America gutsy again. Boy,

(52:12):
I wish we have more leaders with such steely spines
in New Zealand. Can only think of a handful currently
in New Zealand David Seymour, Shane Jones and Winston Peters.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Jin Maybe you should give some thought to following in
their footsteps. You are quite erudite after all, so from Dave,
looking at recent polls and the resilience of the left
to retain support is worthy of more understanding. There is
a massive tsunami of young that have checked out of
owning homes and will start to have more and more

(52:45):
control at the ballot box and to change how wealth
is distributed. The younger voting bloc and compliant politicians will
slowly but surely win in their quest to even the
playing field and get back at those boomers and the
lucky generations that have gained unusual wealth by sitting in

(53:05):
family homes. It would be interesting to hear about this
generational divide at how the young will exact their revenge
and then and then includes a YouTube that I haven't
had a chance to look at. Dave. Everything that you
say is relevant is my major comment. But I'm not
sure that it will shake out quite the way that

(53:28):
you've suggested that I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Speaker 6 (53:31):
Lighton Marx says what a powerful and most honest appraisal
by Peter bagoshiin finally someone has spoken truth to truth.
We've elevated Maray to a platform that is false and
based on false pretenses. Think four million dollars for cowie
trees and whale songs. The way Mary have been elevated
is all fake and a huge service to the entire

(53:54):
New Zealand population. Meritocracy. Positive thought with positive action is
the only way forward for any individual anywhere, and yes,
opportunity and good luck have their place, but that only
materializes when one has put in their own effort first,
not from a handout, not from a victim mentality, not
from a grievance they were never part of, etc. I

(54:18):
loved his position on calling out woke corporates that only
reinforce this discrimination that makes all of them complicit in
prolonging and encouraging division based on race. This does not
assist our country in any way and only makes them
complicit in the determined attempt for the downfall of New
Zealand Society inc. They are a lighter to the fire

(54:40):
of BS. Time to name and shame exactly like Peter
has stated, that's from Mark.

Speaker 2 (54:46):
Mark. I'll give you ten out of ten for that
is excellent. Now I'm not certain about how to pronounce
the name that I'm going CM is how I'll do it, ciam. Firstly,
I thoroughly enjoyed your latest podcast with Peter Bagotium, and

(55:06):
I found what he had to say on the culture
being of detriment to itself to be one hundred percent
on Mark. Myself being part Mary, it is unfortunately something
I've had to come to grips with, particularly when listening
to the likes of Thomas Soul or even doctor Jordan Peterson.
There is a lot of victim mentality which seems to

(55:28):
get passed down from generation to generation. Thankfully, in my
family we have never taken to this sort of blame game,
the beggar type compensation mentality, and I promise you my
grandmother will be rolling in the grave. I also agree
with your correspondent that it is time to get doctor
Guy Hatchett back on in regards to GMO and the

(55:52):
deregulation of biotechnology. This is something that I am keeping
a very close eye on, but unfortunately new was coming.
If National and ACT were to be elected into parliament that, unfortunately,
it would be only a matter of time. As for
those of us paying attention saw them campaign and promote
the idea leading up to the election. See I wonder

(56:16):
why you think that some National in particular and ACT
if you like, are so into this in the promotional way.
I wonder why you think that, and I'd love to
hear your reason.

Speaker 6 (56:30):
Layton John says, your guest Peter Bagostian had a very
weakned even hypocritical argument regarding blasphemy laws for Islam and
not for other religions. It's the old adage of rules
for thee but not for me. You were right to
point out that it was a cowardly stance to take,
and that's why we have the problem in the first place.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
That's from John John. I'm going to go back and
have a listen if I get a chance. But I'll
make a chance.

Speaker 6 (56:54):
Clayton Nathan says, countries that have taken advantage of the US,
and why wouldn't they have been doing it for so long?
That it's become normal to them, and often these countries
also hold anti US sentiment and don't hide it. Therefore,
Trump's efforts to realign the measure to balance in US's
favor and why wouldn't he and stop pandering to unthankful

(57:17):
gift takers, will have some international growing pains as the
more fair normal for the US is attempted. That's from
Nathan the end.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
Nathan Well said, there's plenty of people winging about it,
plenty of people don't understand it. I was reading some
fascinating stuff earlier today with regard to Well that the
changing approach or the changed approach in many cases. Now
I've saved this one till last, and it's very good
reason for alegency, but I'm going to include it because

(57:49):
I know that there is an issue here that is
not isolated but deserves sharing.

Speaker 6 (57:56):
See you later, off, I've got things to do. Thanks
for having me.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
You're fired. Don't come back till next week. It starts
this way and missus producer. I hope twenty twenty five
has started off well for you guys. Unfortunately I start
with a winge. My elderly mother ninety three has had
leg ulcers for a year after a skin cancer was removed.

(58:21):
It was benign and only just recently healed. But she
has since had a small tree branch stabbed the same
spot of her leg, which has started heading in the
same direction with an ulcer by the look of By
the look of it, now, this is the reason that
I'm sorry that missus p has departed, because you might

(58:42):
recall that last year she was the year before even
I think it was in November on Melbourne Cup Day.
She was mugging about in the mooching about which is
a favorite term of hers, in the garden and stabbed
her leg on something quite quite sharp. It was a
tree stump and was hidden in grass and it was

(59:03):
up to the al and she was hobbling around for
quite a while. Anyway back to Chris's letter, but she
has since had a small tree branch stabbed the same
spot of her leg, which has started heading in the
same direction with an ulcer by the look of him.
She has a nurse come to her house and dressed

(59:24):
the wound a couple of times a week. They have
recommended to use antibiotics and took photos of the site
to send to the doctor. So she could get antibiotics
and a swab without a visit to the doctors. However,
the home visit nurses can't do the swab for some
unknown reason. They can dress the wound, touch the wound,

(59:46):
but not swab it. So they arranged for it to
be done at lab tests in Brown's Bay. So off
we went to the lab test and after about forty
five minutes we were seen, Oh but wait, they couldn't
do the swab either, and it formed me that I
had to do it and wanted me to go into
the toilet to do it. After letting them know that
this wasn't happening and staying in the blood test room,

(01:00:09):
I had no choice but to undress her wound and
take the swab myself. So the end result is two
lots of trained urses can't do a swab but can
touch blood, et cetera, but an untrained member of the
public can and they wanted to be done in an
unhygienic area like a public toilet. I am flabbergasted. Even
after all my years of hospital stuff with my kids,

(01:00:32):
this is one of the stunning stories for me. Anyway.
That's my wins for the day, take care and all
the best for twenty twenty five. I relate to it,
you see, That's why I wanted to read the letter,
albeit little distasteful. I hope that the leg is healing
better than hoped for Chris, and thanks for the Thanks

(01:00:55):
for the note, and that will take us out for
the mail room for Percus two seventy two Layton Smith.
After a precedent setting seven year legal battle in federal court,
an historic ruling by the United States District Court of

(01:01:18):
the Northern District of California has ordered the US Environmental
Protection Agency, the EPA, to take regulatory action to eliminate
the unreasonable risk to the health of children posed by
the practice of water fluoridation that in itself sounds incredibly condemnatory.
The verdict is a significant loss for the EPA and

(01:01:40):
the promoters of fluoridation like the American Dental Association and
the US Set of for Disease Control, because the court
found that their claims of safety made over seventy five
years were in fact not supported by evidence. Now. The
lawsuit was brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act of

(01:02:00):
nineteen seventy six. Michael Connett, a partner at the law
firm Siri and Glimstad, and the lead attorney for the
group's who bought the lawsuit, said the law now requires EPA,
the Environmental Protection Agency, to take action to remove the
risk of fluoride. Michael, welcome to the podcast. Very good

(01:02:21):
have you here. First question, are you enjoying New Zealand?

Speaker 5 (01:02:26):
I am very much, and thank you Laton for having
me pleasure.

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
This is a very complicated case, I believe for anybody
looking from the outside in to a different legal system
to the way the courts operates, it's complicated. So I
start with how did you get involved in the first
place and when was it.

Speaker 7 (01:02:46):
I got involved actually quite a long time ago, back
in the late nineteen nineties when my town. I was
going to college at the time, and my town was
considering whether to stop the floridation program there, and my
family and I started looking into the issue and we're

(01:03:07):
surprised at some of what we were learning, and through
one thing after another, I ended up getting, you know,
actively involved and doing pretty extensive research.

Speaker 5 (01:03:18):
So I have been involved for quite some time.

Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
So you too, You took a personal position on this,
not just a legal one.

Speaker 5 (01:03:26):
I did.

Speaker 7 (01:03:27):
I felt it was an issue that just wasn't getting
the kind of attention and scrutiny that it deserved. You know,
I you know, I think that you know, with other
environmental toxic ins like pesticides or genetically modified foods, I
felt that there was pretty good representation out there for
for you know, environmental groups or citizen groups addressing the issues.

(01:03:51):
I felt that with fluoride we needed more representation. I
felt it was it was an issue that deserved and
needed more scrutiny, and I felt that I could play
a role in doing so.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
What was the situation publicly in those days? Was there
any interest in it?

Speaker 7 (01:04:12):
Yes, I'm certainly not as much interest as we have
seen over the past. You know, four or five months
since the court's ruling, we have certainly seen in the
United States a degree of media interest that I've never
seen before. It has become a point of national discussion

(01:04:33):
in the country, and so that has been unique.

Speaker 2 (01:04:38):
I'm surprised you found the time to come down here
so quickly afterwards. I mean, this was this decision was
handed down in September of last year, so four months
ago or thereabouts. What else have you done since that
decision was announced? And I mean this in the cibil
vein that you're that you're following here.

Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
I have.

Speaker 7 (01:04:57):
I've actually been I actually just filed some new lawsuits
on fluoride, but this time not against the government but
against some of the manufacturers of floridated dental products. And
to be clear, these lawsuits are not challenging whether we

(01:05:19):
should have Florida dental products. I don't dispute that, because
I think Florida toothpaste can provide an important benefit to teeth.
But the lawsuits are addressing some of the deceptive advertising
for these products, where they are presented as being they're

(01:05:41):
kind of targeted to very young children, preschool children, in
ways that imply that they are like entirely harmless. In
the United States, the products are sort of provided presented
almost like they're candy, with cartoon packaging, bright colors, and
candy flavoring. And what we're seeing is that many young

(01:06:06):
children are you using far more of the products they
than is safe. So that's what I've been focusing on,
is trying to or with the goal being to sort
of change some of the advertising around those products.

Speaker 2 (01:06:23):
There is so much to discuss with regard to this
that we'll move around a little bit. The flu Ride
Action Network's attorney, Michael Connat, said, the court has done
what the EPA has long refused to do, applied EPA's
risk assessment framework to fluoride. It's a historic decision, and
as we await EPA's rulemaking proceeding policy, bakers would do

(01:06:46):
well to well advised to ask, should we really be
adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water? That term neurotoxicant
would strike fear into the the minds of many people,
would it not.

Speaker 5 (01:07:03):
Well, I think it should lead to a real.

Speaker 7 (01:07:10):
Reconsideration of what we're doing with water fluoridation, because when
we started this program about eighty years ago, it was
supposed to be about the teeth and the teeth alone,
and neurotoxicity was certainly not part of the bargain that

(01:07:31):
we the public signed up for. But in this court
case latent, the EPA did not dispute that fluoride is
a neurotoxicant. The EPA accepted that at some level of exposure,
fluoride will damage the brain. And what this case ultimately

(01:07:54):
came down to was a dispute about what is that
level where you go from safe to the brain to
toxic to the brain, and that was ultimately the major
point of contention. But as to whether fluoride damages the brain,

(01:08:17):
there was no dispute. There was an acceptance that it does,
and a chemical that damages the brain is called a neurotoxicant.

Speaker 2 (01:08:27):
Did the EPI do a good job of defending.

Speaker 5 (01:08:32):
I mean, I think they did what they could do.

Speaker 7 (01:08:36):
I certainly don't see a reason why the attorneys, the
Department of Justice attorneys representing the agency. I don't see
why they wouldn't have done everything they could do to
defend the agency's position.

Speaker 5 (01:08:54):
They did.

Speaker 7 (01:08:54):
You know, retain some very high level scientists who have
very impressive credentials to make the case for the EPA.

Speaker 5 (01:09:07):
I think that's.

Speaker 7 (01:09:07):
One of the strengths of this lawsuit is that you
have a situation where you have a independent forum, namely
the court, hearing not just one side of the issue,
but both sides, and in a way where you could
really vet what everybody is saying, and you can do

(01:09:29):
so through cross examination.

Speaker 5 (01:09:31):
You know, there's a saying that.

Speaker 7 (01:09:35):
The crucible of cross examination is a very effective truth
finding endeavor, and so I think the court had the
benefit of extensive expert testimony, and in a context.

Speaker 5 (01:09:53):
Where every expert had to back up what they were saying.

Speaker 2 (01:09:57):
The legal side of this case is the one that
intrigues me the most for for reasons that don't matter,
but I'm wondering. I'm wondering, for instance, in that cross examination,
did the defense did the the witnesses for the EPA

(01:10:21):
did they well? Did they compound at all?

Speaker 5 (01:10:27):
What do you mean by that compound?

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Well? Did they get cornered and have to either admit
or show serious doubt about the stunts that they were taking.

Speaker 5 (01:10:42):
Yes, I think I think they did.

Speaker 7 (01:10:45):
I think that, you know, certainly I had to press
them at times to admit things that they weren't necessarily
admitting upfront, and that includes Florid being a neurotoxicit. I mean,
they weren't going into the trial sort of flagging, hey,
we think florid's a neurotoxican. It was more me pushing them,

(01:11:11):
showing them evidence and then them conceding, yes, you know,
we accept that it is right. So yes, And that
is again the crucible across the the emination and being able.

Speaker 5 (01:11:25):
To really vet what someone is saying on the stand.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
I am I've questioned for a long time. I've questioned myself,
for instance, as to whether the court and the legal
system is the appropriate place to make judgments on matters
of science. And my approach is, my approach was formed

(01:11:52):
specifically through climate change. When judges were making rulings, some
of them some of them didn't the better judges, in
my opinions, announced that they weren't proficient in adjudicating for
for this particular sort of thing. Uh, and and and

(01:12:12):
stood the case on its head uh, without coming to
any conclusions, ruled it out. In other words, this particular
judge would he what sort of bracket would he fall into?
Do you think.

Speaker 5 (01:12:29):
So that? I think it's a very good question. Late
And they.

Speaker 7 (01:12:33):
Let me start by just giving some context here to
the statute the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Speaker 5 (01:12:41):
And Congress.

Speaker 7 (01:12:45):
Was concerned about the e p A not effectively exercising
its authority to protect the public from the unreasonable risks
posed by certain chemicals.

Speaker 5 (01:13:02):
And and there the.

Speaker 7 (01:13:04):
Courts have discussed how the the Citizen Petition Provision that
we brought suit under was established as a check on
bureaucratic lethargy. Where you have an agency that's not acting
on you know, new science, or not not protecting the

(01:13:30):
public from a clear and identifiable risk. And so what
Congress did is they specifically set forth a provision that
says the Court cannot defer to the EPA's position, that

(01:13:52):
the Court has to look at the evidence anew so
without deference to the agency. And again this is because
Congress wanted a check where the agency. It wanted to
check against an agency not doing its job. So if

(01:14:15):
the agency is not doing its job, you know, a
court that just rubber stamps to agencies position, you know,
you're not going to have an effective check, right. And
so what we had here, and this is one of
the reasons why I really was attracted by this by
this statute, is we had an opportunity to have an

(01:14:37):
independent assessment by a neutral tribunal that has no stake
in the game, right, whereas the EPA has you know,
long held policy positions. And it's always been difficult to
get the EPA to take the fluoride issue seriously. And
so for me, as the Plainton's attorney, it was very

(01:14:59):
attractive to have a forum where the court does not
defer to the EPA. Now, going to your question. You know,
it's certainly something that you know I can understand, Hey,
this is a federal judge. Why is a federal judge,
you know, making a decision like this? And shouldn't this

(01:15:23):
be for the agency's experts to decide? And I can
understand that point in principle. But again, the counter veiling
point is where you have, say a captured agency or
an agency that has allowed political references to subvert the science.

(01:15:51):
Congress recognize that you need to empower the court to
second to take a second look and a new look
without deferring to the agency.

Speaker 2 (01:16:05):
So let me test this a little further. I'm not
testing you, testing the system. If there were an activist
judge sitting on the bench, what constraints might have might

(01:16:27):
have been placed upon him that he would have recognized
or she would have recognized as well, restraining that that
particular judges approach to such things. In other words, if
the judge thought this was a lot of rubbish and
there was nothing wrong with flu ride, because we have

(01:16:49):
the same we've had that same situation here, Ah, what
would have what would have restrained that judge from simply
tossing it out or just ruling the exact opposite to
what Judge did by saying the opposite.

Speaker 5 (01:17:09):
That's a totally fair point.

Speaker 7 (01:17:12):
I do think there are judges who would not have
had the type of patience and open mindedness that our judge,
Judge Chen, showed, and I felt fortunate in this case
to have such an intelligent judge as we had. Not

(01:17:35):
all judges are built for this. I think some judges
would look at this and feel intimidated. They would feel
overwhelmed by the sheer amount of scientific data and conflicting
expert testimony. And I think there is certainly a disposition
out there by some judges to say, hey, this is

(01:17:58):
above my pay grade and just want to defer to
the government agency, right. I no doubt that there are
many judges who would want to take that approach. But
we fortunately had a judge, Judge Edward Chen, who is
a judge nominated by Barack Obama, A well regarded jurist,

(01:18:24):
a very grounded, a judge who really took the time
to really consider the evidence. He didn't rush his decision late.
I mean, we had a trial in the summer of
twenty twenty. I felt to win very well for us.

(01:18:46):
I felt very confident that we had prevailed, but the judge,
who did express concern at that time that the evidence
was very concerning to him, he nevertheless wanted to wait.
He wanted to give the government more time to further
consider the evidence on flooryde and IQ before he issued ruling.

(01:19:08):
So we ended up putting the case on hold for
over two years to allow us a separate government agency
called the National Toxicology Program to further way in on
this question of fluoride and neurotoxicity. So this judge really
took his time and gave the government ample opportunity to

(01:19:32):
really provide its input, and it was frustrating at times
for me as the plane's attorney. But I just I
want to emphasize that because this judge did not rush
into this to the decision and really took his time
and was thorough in what he did.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
When was fluoride decided as a neurotoxicity, was it two
thousand and six?

Speaker 7 (01:19:58):
Well, in terms of In two thousand and six, the
National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy
of Sciences in the United States, issued an extensive report
reviewing the toxicology of fluoride and in that report, the
NRC did find that in animal studies, fluoride damages to brain.

(01:20:22):
So if you have a controlled laboratory experiment and you
give an animal, you know, fluoride and you look under
the microscope, you will see changes in the brain. And
based on that animal data, the National Research Council called
for research and human populations to better understand what impacts

(01:20:43):
fluoride may be having. And at that time, there was
studies linking fluoride to reduce IQ in some human studies,
although the studies were methodologically somewhat weak, but the NRC
did call for more research to better understand the situation.

(01:21:04):
And subsequent to that report, there have been many studies
on fluoride and IQ in human populations, including most importantly,
the National Institutes of Health in the United States has
funded what are called birth cohort studies, and these studies

(01:21:26):
have taken place in Mexico and Canada. And what they
do is they get a group of pregnant moms and
they measure the level of fluoride in the mom's urine,
which is a measure of total florid exposure. And then
when the children are born at various intervals ages three, four,
six and twelve, they measure the child's IQ. And in

(01:21:49):
these two NIH funded studies, they have found that the
fluorid levels in the mom are correlated with the child's IQ. Namely,
the more fluoride in the mom's system, the lower IQ
you a child on average. Okay. And so those NIH

(01:22:14):
funded studies were a very significant part of our case
at trial, and we were fortunate enough to be able
to call to the stand the scientists who are conducting
those studies, so the court was able to hear their
testimony directly.

Speaker 2 (01:22:32):
I'm looking at I'm looking at an article on just
that actually, and I'm wondering the the relationship between the
urine level and the child's IQ. How was that done
over what period of time? How is it established?

Speaker 5 (01:22:52):
The measurement of florid and the urine or the measurement
of IQ.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
The IQ or the relate and the relationship between the two.

Speaker 7 (01:23:00):
So they in the studies they would take, let's look
at the Canadian study, each trimester they took a your example,
from the mom, and then they measured the fluorid level
in that urine sample. Okay, And then when the children
turned four, they measured the child's IQ. And the the

(01:23:24):
examiner who is doing the IQ study has no idea
what the child's mom's floid level is. So it's a
blinded examination, which is good. It reduces potential for bias, right.
But what makes these studies robust and methodologically strong is
that the the scientists also collected other data like the

(01:23:53):
parent's income, the parents education. They measured other chemicals in
the in the in the urine or the blood that
are associated with reduced IQ, so they were able to
to control for sort of the other key factors that
we know can influence IQ. So they weren't just looking

(01:24:17):
at fluoride and IQ. They were looking at the other
factors that could potentially skew the association between fluorid and
IQ because they wanted to make the association was not
an artifact of some uncontrolled confounder. So at our trial,

(01:24:37):
the EPA recognized and accepted that these birth cohort studies
were well done and methodologically reliable.

Speaker 2 (01:24:46):
You put out a video, I gether, I haven't seen it,
of ten facts, correct? I did, yes, yeah, And there
is a response to it. Response to Michael Kunnitt's video
of ten facts. Michael Kunnitt is an attorney, not a
healthcare provider or expert. That first line of defense or attack,

(01:25:14):
if you like, marks this whole thing as a failure
to me. He frames the fluoridation issue around the premise
that fluoridation is the process of adding a substance to
water supplies in order to prevent dental disease. It is not.
Fluoridation is based on the observation that a certain concentration
level of a mineral which has been in water forever,

(01:25:35):
the teeth of those ingesting that water are more resistant
to a dental decay. Floridation simply adjusts the level of
this existing mineral in water supplies to that level such
that we will receive that benefit while strictly maintaining that
concentration level well below the threshold of adverse effects. Now,

(01:25:58):
I'd ask you to park that just for a moment.
Take you back to, Well, this was published in twenty eighteen,
so that's something that I must mention because time has
moved on. But a couple of years before that, my
memory serves me correctly, there was a debate going on
here and the Prime Minister of the time, the Prime

(01:26:18):
Minister's chief medical advisor science advisor, actually put on his
most serious face and recorded a short video about the
safety and the advantages of fluoride in the water. Would
he do you think or anybody in his position need

(01:26:38):
to adjust their attitude their position with what's gone between
then and now scientifically?

Speaker 7 (01:26:47):
Absolutely, I mean to me, the answer is clear. I mean,
you now have, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago,
you have the emergence of high quality epidemiological studies linking
the so called optimal levels of fluoride with reduced IQ.

(01:27:09):
That's something that was not appreciated even as you know,
ten years ago, we didn't have that type of data.

Speaker 5 (01:27:16):
So we now do.

Speaker 7 (01:27:18):
And if this is to be a science driven policy,
you know, we need to policy should reflect changes in
the science, right. We don't want our policies to become
fossilized and immune to evolutions in our scientific understanding. And
I think that is what has happened with water fluoridation.

(01:27:41):
You know, we have this, there's been this sort of
entrenched belief that the science was settled. You know, fifty
years ago we know fluoridation is safe. You know, why
are we even bothering discussing this. That kind of attitude
is not is first off. I don't think it's very scientific,
and it's we really need to be open to changes

(01:28:05):
in the scientific understanding, and so we always should be
questioning whether fluoridation still makes sense. And for a number
of reasons, including the fact that we now know that
fluoride does not need to be ingested for the benefit

(01:28:26):
of reduced tooth decay, that the primary mechanism is topical,
I think we really need to start moving away from
water fluoridation and be focusing on other uses of fluoride
to obtain this benefit of reduced tooth decay.

Speaker 2 (01:28:43):
I just want to insert this because it's appropriate your
fact number six for infants fluoridated water provides no benefits,
only risks, and the responses were put together by the
American Fluoridation Society. Their response there is no valid, peer

(01:29:04):
reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects on infants from
optimally fluoridated and there's a word missing. I suspect water.
Somehow it's been left out, probably by AI. So the
point being that you have to have an open mind,
and it is not just in this area, as I've
hinted before, but in numerous other areas where living in

(01:29:29):
the past has become a lockdown to well to development.

Speaker 7 (01:29:35):
Yes, I agree, And with respect to that particular point Layton,
we know today that bottle fed babies who are provided
with where their formula is mixed with fluoridated water, we
know that they have an increased incidence of dental fluorosis

(01:29:55):
on their permanent teeth. And dental fluorosis is a mineralization
disorder of tooth enamel which is marked by increased ferocity
of the enamel, of the subsurface enamel, and it results
in staining visible staining of the enamel. So that is
a biological effect that's occurring, and that is there's notice.

(01:30:19):
I mean, there should be no dispute about that, because
the science is pretty clear that fluoridated water can cause
that for for infants. There's also and this was something
that was discussed at length at our trial, there is
research now from Canada linking fluoride exposure during infancy with

(01:30:43):
reduced IQ, and there's at trial some of the experts
discussed some of the biological basis for concern with fluoride
and and the brain with respect to infants, and that's
that the brain, both in the womb as well as

(01:31:07):
during infancy, is undergoing rapid development, and an organ that's
undergoing rapid development is more susceptible to suffering harm from
a toxic exposure. It can lead to a permanent deficit.
So there there is a vulnerability that comes from the

(01:31:29):
fact that the brain is undergoing rapid development.

Speaker 5 (01:31:32):
And then you have a.

Speaker 7 (01:31:35):
Situation where the blood brain barrier, which is something that
keeps toxic substances from getting into.

Speaker 5 (01:31:44):
The brain, which is a good thing.

Speaker 7 (01:31:47):
We don't want toxic chemicals getting into the brain. That
blood brain barrier is not fully formed until about six
months of age. So a baby that's exposed to a
toxic element prior to about six months of age, there's
a greater ability for that substance to get to the

(01:32:07):
brain and so a potentially greater risk as a result.
And then lastly, and this is one of the things
that I think is very concerning, is with a baby.
A breast fed baby has the lowest exposure to fluoride
of all age groups in the population, and that's because

(01:32:30):
breast milk contains very low amounts of fluoride. That and
which I think is instructive because breast milk is typically
where you see where breast milk typically has what you
need for healthy development. Right, So the fact that it's
missing from breast milk may offer some clues as to

(01:32:53):
whether baby should be getting any fluoride, right, But when
you bottle feed a baby with fluoridated water, you flip
that situation on its head and you go from a
situation where the baby is the lowest exposed member of
the population to the highest exposed age group in the population.

(01:33:15):
And that's because babies get all of their caloric intake
from liquid from the from the formula, and that becomes
a really significant source of exposure for them. And so
I do think we need to be careful about exposing
newborns to fluoridated water in their formula. It's it's clearly

(01:33:39):
a susceptible population, and the core in our case recognize
that and called attention to that.

Speaker 2 (01:33:47):
So, Michael, where does this go now from? From your perspective?
Is there going to be or likely to be an appeal?

Speaker 7 (01:33:56):
Well, the EPA, in the final days of the Biden
administration did announce that it intends to appeal the court's decision,
So at present, that is my expectation that there will
be an appeal. However, Robert Kennedy, who is under consideration

(01:34:18):
to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services, has announced and made clear that if confirmed
as secretary, he would take action to address the risks
posed by water fluoridation. So my hope here is if

(01:34:41):
Robert Kennedy is confirmed, that the EPA could reconsider and
withdraw its appeal because there's nothing about the Biden administration's
decision to appeal that is binding on the EPA now,

(01:35:01):
so the EPA could decide overnight just to let it,
to let it be and to not appeal. And so
then once once, you know, assuming the EPA does not appeal,
then we go into what's called a rule making proceeding,
and under the court's order, the EPA needs to implement

(01:35:27):
a rule or regulation that will address the risk posed
by fluoridation, the neurological risk. And so, you know, my
hope is that the EPA can do that relatively quickly,
although I do have a concern based on past performance,

(01:35:49):
that that process could take you know, some time, but
you know, you know, it's anyone's guess at this point
as to how much time it will take.

Speaker 2 (01:36:00):
I was going to ask you about what sorts you
might have about Kennedy and that position. Would I take
it then that you would like to see him there appointed?

Speaker 4 (01:36:10):
I would?

Speaker 7 (01:36:11):
I know that you know, obviously people have you know,
there's a lot of different policies that you know, Robert
Kennedy has proposed, and I understand some people may not
agree with all of them, but I certainly with respect
to water fluoridation, I think that he would bring some needed.

Speaker 5 (01:36:34):
New thinking on this program, and I.

Speaker 7 (01:36:39):
Think that would be a good thing for bringing about,
or rather in in ensuring that the policies with respect
to flora better reflect the recent scientific developments.

Speaker 2 (01:36:58):
How much attention do you pay to the two shall
we say, a broader a number of subjects, But in
the category.

Speaker 5 (01:37:09):
Broader number of subjects, what are.

Speaker 2 (01:37:12):
You use well, scientific subject scientific matters that are that
are debatable and being.

Speaker 5 (01:37:20):
Debated, like like what like the like vaccines.

Speaker 7 (01:37:23):
Yeah, well I would just say that I'm not you know,
that goes beyond my body, you know, my my expertise,
my knowledge. So I think any comments that I have
on those other types of issues, I wouldn't really have
much of an informed opinion. So it's you know, my

(01:37:46):
my my area of expertise has been fluoride in some
other toxic tort litigation, So I don't have much to
add beyond that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:55):
Okay, So when the fluoride situation is, shall we say, rectified,
on the presumption that it is, what would you be
turning your attention to legally.

Speaker 7 (01:38:10):
Well, good question, I am uh. I have in my practice.
I have represented people who have been harmed by various
toxic chemicals, and something that you know, I expect I

(01:38:32):
will do more of.

Speaker 5 (01:38:34):
I also have. I also represent.

Speaker 7 (01:38:38):
Actually latent right now, a woman who was injured in
a COVID vaccine clinical trial by she was She was
a volunteer in the Astrazenica clinical trial for the COVID
and I represent her right now in a case against Astrasenica.

(01:39:02):
So I am certainly interested in in potential litigation related
to vaccines, and that's something I could see myself doing more.

Speaker 2 (01:39:11):
Of, just as a matter of interest. Let me quote
you from an article that was published today. Science is
one of humanity's greatest achievements. But it's not infallible. That's
why it is science and not dogma, and is sadly
not immune to the virus of corruption. For many decades,
the mirror of sience of science has become increasingly blurred

(01:39:36):
by a storm of vested interests, particularly when research and
the communication of results are linked to large corporations. The
British Medical Journal, one of the leading medical journals, published
an article in twenty two on the illusion of evidence
based medicine. As stated in its introductory sentence, the sordid

(01:39:57):
scientific foundation claimed by medicine quote has been corrupted by
corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialization of academia. In this context,
the authors assert that unconcerned governments and captured regulators are
unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry

(01:40:19):
altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue,
on advertising and sponsorship revenue. We were warned a long
time back. In two thousand and five the prestigious Plos Medicine,
which is something I haven't heard of before. Actually, Plos

(01:40:40):
published one of the most quoted scientific articles of the
twenty first century with the remarkable title why most published
research findings are false? Building on complex mathematical models, the
renowned researcher John Ionidis reached the conclusion that most research
findings are false for most research designs and for most fields.

(01:41:05):
Anything you'd like to comment on with.

Speaker 7 (01:41:07):
That, p LS is the Public Library of Science Journal,
And you know, the first thing I would say is
science evolves and policies should as well, and we should
there should be a degree of humility that we bring

(01:41:28):
to the table with respect to policies. And I think
when we become overly confident that policies which are should
be based in science, and we be overly confident that
the science is settled, we run risk of locking ourselves
in to policies that may be outdated, unsafe, and ineffective.

(01:41:55):
And I do think that is what we have with
water fluoridation today. I think that we should really give
further thought to what has been discovered on the dental
side of this issue, which is that fluoride's predominant benefit

(01:42:16):
to teeth comes from topical contact, not from ingestion. And
now that we know that, I think it's important for
us to really give more thought to focusing on fluoride
toothpaste and not fluoride in the water, because with fluorinated water,

(01:42:40):
you are obviously going to ingest fluoride every day, and
it's the ingestion that poses the risks to health, and
so obviously with our Courk case and the Core decision,
you know, there is concern that fluorinated water can pose

(01:43:03):
a risk of neurodevelopmental harm, of reduced IQ. That's a
serious concern, you know, that's you know, affecting brain development
is a serious matter, especially when the exposure is coming
from our drinking water. And I think we have enough

(01:43:24):
evidence to to today even if you don't think the
evidence is if there is certainty, which and there's always
uncertainty when we're dealing with risk assessment, when we're dealing
with the impact of environmental chemicals, Okay, there's always a
level of uncertainty. But even in the absence of certainty,

(01:43:47):
I think we have enough evidence to want to move
away from sort of this mass fluoridation paradigm where you
have widespread ingestion of fluoride, because it's the ingestion that
poses the risk and it's unnecessary.

Speaker 5 (01:44:04):
We don't need to be swallowing fluoride. So so that
would be my main point here, Laton, is that it's
not about whether your for fluoride or against fluoride. It's
about whether this particular use of fluoride namely adding it
to drinking water still makes sense and and and in

(01:44:28):
my view, I don't think it does. I think we
should be, you know, following the path of Europe, which
has for the most part ended water fluoridation and has
allowed people the right to go to their grocery store
and buy fluoride and toothbased, brush it under teeth and
spit it out. And I think that's the model that

(01:44:48):
the United States and New Zealand should be doing as well.

Speaker 2 (01:44:53):
And I think that that was brilliantly stated. I can
see why you why you succeeded in the case.

Speaker 5 (01:44:59):
Well, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:45:01):
And at that point, I guess some we've we've covered
pretty much everything that we are required to cover. I mean,
we've covered everything that that is appropriate. And I wish
you the very best for the rest of your stay.
And I was going to say it'd be good to
talk again, but well, I.

Speaker 5 (01:45:21):
Would be happy late in anytime.

Speaker 7 (01:45:23):
I've enjoyed our conversation because I enjoy your I enjoy
the intellectual nature of your question. So if and when
you were ever interested in talking about floride again, I
would be happy to do so.

Speaker 2 (01:45:37):
Appreciate it. Thank you kindly, okay, thank you late, Thank
you Michael Well. That takes us out for podcasts two
seventy two. Got to say, I would have liked to
have included some other matters, but you can't jam it

(01:45:58):
all into one podcast. But don't worry. I'm going to
hang on to it and it will find its way
from my microphone to your device in the not too
distant future, like to think next week actually, because it's
it's worthy of it. If you would like to write
later at NEWSTALKSIB dot co dot nz or Carolyn at
news Talks AB dot co dot nz. We we love

(01:46:20):
hearing from you, as you know, and we've been getting
some very good mail. Keep it up for these guys.
So only thing left to say is, as always, thank
you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:46:39):
Thank you for more from News Talks B Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #272 - February 19th 2025 - Muriel Newman and Michael Connett

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #272 - February 19th 2025 - Muriel Newman and Michael Connett