2 Days Until Nuremberg Hearing November 9, 2023: New Brief Filed Explaining To The Court WHY To Stop mRNA Gene Therapy EXPERIMENTATION

mRNA is a gene therapy but covid-19 mRNA [non] vaccines are not classified as gene therapy-to evade the application of strict controls and regulatory oversight needed to protect health and safety!

IOJ’s Attorney Files Brief To Alert Court & Defendant Costa Rica State What To Expect On Thursday Nov 9, 2023

For those who want more information on the Costa Rica Nuremberg Hearing, below are some of the key points from the new brief JUST FILED (last minute) in the court where we have a public hearing set for Nov 9, 2023 to ask for a precautionary measure to take covid [non] vaccines off the market.

You can read what the lower court gave as their feeble excuses when they denied the measure back in March 2023 and why we think the Appeal court should issue the measure to stop the covid-19 [non] vaccine gene therapy experiments.

Notice to humanity: IOJ is still raising funds to cover the costs of the hearing and subsequent full GLOBAL case, which must be filed in 15 days after the judge rules. IOJ can still use all the support we can get right now to be able to pull this off! Dr. Yeadon and Dr. Ana Mihalcea. are experts are on standby ready to testify and others to be announced. Together we really can stop them Globally!!! No one is above the great pillar of the law. Rule of law matters. Welcome to The Great Reset Of Rule Of Law!

Excerpts from IOJ’s brief to Stop The Fake Vaccine Shots:

This representation considers it essential to communicate that my clients are not really trying to act against the State or its public health institutions. Far from it, what we seek is to alert the responsible authorities that there is an erroneous interpretation of the pharmacological, medical, chemical and technical aspects of the products that were supposedly applied as vaccines to the population of Costa Rica against the disease known as Covid 19 or SARS COV 2. In fact, all the people that make up the Institute of Justice, what they seek is to demonstrate that these chemical products (technically they can also be called GENE THERAPY BIOLOGICS in English) already mentioned several times are not vaccines and that for this reason and for the sake of the protection of the population, their application should be stopped until the existing evidence or the that is necessary to obtain from this moment demonstrates, without a doubt, that said products are or are not healthy for application to human beings, in accordance with the regulations and protocols in this matter.

            In our opinion, the point described in the previous paragraph causes THE WEIGHTING OF INTERESTS to be justified in favor of the actors since the true interest at stake is public health.

            Regarding the resolution that is appealed here, which is the resolution issued by the Contentious Administrative and Civil Court of the Treasury, at 4:30 p.m. on March 13, 2023, with due respect we consider what we set out below:

Regarding the aspect of the danger of delay in the application of the precautionary measure, the same Contentious Court indicates verbatim:

“…In this regard, it is worth highlighting that in the opinion of this judge, valuable inputs have been offered that suggest that the imposition of vaccines In children aged six months to five years have detrimental effects on their health . In this sense, it is worth noting that this judge is not unaware of the reality evidenced by the plaintiff's representation, and it even turns out to be a truism that even in people of legal age, side effects have occurred with the imposition of vaccine doses regardless of the pharmaceutical company where the vaccine comes from . Now, here it must be emphasized that there is no evidence that categorically or conclusively demonstrates that the negative effects of imposition outweigh the positive ones. Furthermore, it should not be lost sight of that this judge, like any judge, lacks scientific knowledge to appreciate the evidence provided in light of the rules of science, so even though the studies determine health risks with the imposition of the vaccine it is not possible to appreciate the magnitude or severity of the alleged damage .” (EMPHASES ARE OURS).

            Consider this representation, said with all due respect that, the Contentious Court recognizes that there is a clear danger in the application of these products and then recognizes that it lacks scientific knowledge to appreciate the evidence provided, which leaves us in a state of total defenselessness, since if it is not the judge who must evaluate the evidence, who then can do it in his place and the obvious answer is that only the judge will be able to evaluate and decide on the evidence, assisted by the experts he requires, especially in a issue as delicate as the one at hand.

            Regarding the aspect of weighing interests, the resolution being appealed verbatim states:

“… it must be clear that in order to carry out this exercise of weighing interests, it is necessary that the existence of current serious harm has been previously demonstrated or potential derived from the administrative conduct that has been questioned, which has not happened in the case under examination...", however, in our respectful opinion the judge recognized in the previous points that:

“…valuable inputs have been offered that suggest that the imposition of vaccines on children from six months to five years of age have detrimental effects on their health …”

and that

"... this judge is not unaware of the reality evidenced by the plaintiff's representation, and it even turns out to be a truism that even in people of legal age side effects have occurred with the imposition of the doses of the vaccine regardless of the pharmaceutical company of wherever the vaccine comes from…” (EMPHASES ARE OURS)

            On this point, said with all due respect, we consider that there are no competing interests, since the interest of the State is public health and the interest of my constituents is the same protection of public health. Rather, we consider that there is a type of assistance in that my clients intend to help the public administration fulfill its functions and purposes in a different light, which is, than the application of chemical products (technically they can also be called GENE THERAPY BIOLOGICS in English) which are supposedly vaccines against Covid 19 or SARS COV 2, they are not really vaccines , but are experimental chemicals (technically they can also be called GENE THERAPY BIOLOGICS in English), which are harmful to public health and that its use is an experiment on human subjects, which is illegitimate in light of our legislation.

            For all of the above, we consider that in light of the appearance of good law, the danger of delay and the weighing of interests, all in relation to the requested precautionary measure, it is appropriate to annul the appealed resolution and decree said measure while presenting the main action that allows the judge to analyze the evidence in a more exhaustive and weighted manner so that he can make a coherent decision in support of public health.

            The same contentious judge in the appealed resolution recognizes several concepts that we consider important, which we quote verbatim:

a.     “…The case under examination has a particularity and that is that all the parties involved advocate for a greater public interest, be it the fundamental right to health. The parties in litigation also raise the flag of the best interest of the minor, since each one from their perspective tries to justify how the right to health of this population sector would be largely protected…”

Regarding this point, we agree with the judge that the parties in this process seek to protect the right to health.

b.     “… Without going into analyzing whether the questioned administrative decision (mandatory vaccination) adjusts or not to the parameters of legality, the truth is that it would respond to the clamor of Costa Rican society (or at least most of it) to implement concrete actions to prevent the spread of Covid-19…”

Regarding this point, we respectfully consider that the clamor of the people cannot be a relevant parameter in making this decision, since it must be based exclusively on scientific evidence.

c.     “… it is considered that the suppression of mandatory vaccination in this precautionary instance by this jurisdictional authority would not only imply ignoring the will of the administration but would also compromise the fundamental public interest associated with the right to public health…”

Again, we respectfully consider that the decision on this precautionary measure should be based only on what is scientifically demonstrable.

d.     “… given the panorama that is presented to us and having as our goal that at an international level, organizations such as the World Health Organization still endorse vaccination against covid-19 as an effective mechanism for the control and mitigation of the effects of the disease , it is unquestionable that the mandatory nature of vaccination is being consolidated as a measure aimed at protecting minors and the Costa Rican population in general, with the understanding that the State and its institutions would not implement this health measure if the negative consequences were greater than the favorable results (or at least that is what is expected in a state that guarantees human rights)…”

Likewise, said with all due respect, we consider that this phrase could put us in danger of a normativist fallacy. We cannot trust that the State will do what is right just because we live in a state that guarantees human rights, since the state can and often makes mistakes because it is made up of people with natural limitations.

            For all of the above, we reiterate our respectful request that the resolution appealed here be annulled and the requested precautionary measure be decreed, which is the immediate suspension of the application of the chemical products (technically they can also be called GENE THERAPY BIOLOGICS in English) wrongly called vaccines to combat Covid 19 or SARS COVID 2 that are distributed in the country while a main action is elucidated in a knowledge process in which an exhaustive analysis of the scientific evidence can be carried out.

     

Notice to humanity: IOJ is still raising funds to cover the costs of the hearing and subsequent full GLOBAL case, which must be filed in 15 days after the judge rules. IOJ can still use all the support we can get right now to be able to pull this off! Dr. Yeadon and Dr. Ana Mihalcea. are experts are on standby ready to testify and others to be announced. Together we really can stop them Globally!!! No one is above the great pillar of the law. Rule of law matters. Welcome to The Great Reset Of Rule Of Law!

---

Related Articles By Interest of Justice: