34,000 Petitions sent to Tedros and rising - He will FAIL & any IHR vote is ABSOLUTELY NULL!
34,000 Petitions sent to Tedros and rising - He will FAIL & any IHR vote is ABSOLUTELY NULL!
PRESUMPTIONS are one of your most POWERFUL legal tools - USE IT OR LOSE IT... Humanities LAST shot at putting the WHO on legal notice! HERE IS THE STRATEGY - Share the Petitions & we will ENFORCE IT!
BELOW ARE SERIOUS LEGAL CONCEPTS IN THE PETITIONS ON OUR WEBSITE AND ITS ALL BACKED UP BY HUGE LEGAL PACKAGES WE SENT HHS AND TEDROS.
ITS MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN IT SOUNDS AT FIRST GLANCE. ITS NOT A CONVERSATION WITH TEDROS, ITS A DEMAND FOR HIS DUTIES THAT CAN BE ENFORCED SOON.
BELOW ARE THE LEGAL CONCEPTS IN THE PETITIONS - INTENDED TO PROVE ANY IHR VOTE MAY 22-28 WILL BE VOID!!!
According to WHO’s January 24, 2022 document, with an excessively long title:
“Strengthening of the International Health Regulations (2005) through a process for revising the regulations through potential amendments - Draft decision proposed by Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union”..
Apparently the WHO claims the following REASON is precisely WHY they need the IHR amendments":
“(PP7) Bearing in mind the importance of ensuring coherence, complementarity and communication between different processes that will run in parallel, including the process for developing the new instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and the ongoing work under resolution WHA74.7, and ensuring coordination between those processes in order to avoid creating an excessive burden on Member States.” and “(OP1.1) To note that the WGPR will include, as part of its ongoing work, dedicated time to allow for discussions on strengthening of the IHR (2005), including through implementation, compliance and potential amendments. (OP1.2) To urge Member States to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the IHR (2005), with the understanding that this would not lead to reopening the entire instrument for renegotiation. Such amendments should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the IHR (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner.”
Ok stop the train… Did everyone catch that? These people are promising there will be dedicated time to allow for discussions on strengthening of the IHR (2005), including through implementation, compliance and potential amendments.
We DO plan to hold them to that… hence, why Interest of Justice believes the vote will be INVALID if they dare hold it May 22-28 as planned, in the absence of due process
.
Back to what we sent, and what 33,500 of you and counting are demanding: Lets get into the nitty gritty below:
Please explain the above reason for the alleged necessity of the amendment.
Please be advised we absolutely challenge the WHA and all delegates jurisdiction and authority to vote yes on these proposed amendments at this time while your duty of motivation and substantiation is invoked.
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND A REAL NECESSITY FOR THE AMENDMENTS, THEREFORE WE DENY ANY NECESSITY EXISTS IN REALITY TO AMEND THE IHR.
Interest of Justice invokes your duty of motivation and substantiation to explain in detail why the proposed amendments “should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the IHR (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner.”:
Below we will now proceed to attempt to dissect the loaded statement above that is the WHO’s alleged reason for the necessity of the IHR amendments:
First, the “limited scope” of these proposed amendments is highly debatable. The scope of these proposed amendments is so fundamental and drastic it is tantamount to usurping the sovereignty of nation states, and they are not what Interest of Justice would consider an amendment of mere “limited scope”
Second: Lets break the above sentence into pieces and discuss it:
The WHO: [The amendments ]“will address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges”
IOJ:
1.What clearly identified issues or challenges?
2. Why wasn’t the public given the alleged list of “specific and clearly identified issues, challenges” in order for us to participate in these decisions, so we can substantiate there is a real need for amendments or not?
3. We need the FULL LIST of clearly identified issues and challenges you seek to resolve by amending the IHR, so we can agree or challenge each and every item on the list of “specific and clearly identified issues, challenges” with time and due process.
4. Due process requires notice and the ability to respond PRIOR to your vote on May 22-28th, 2022 - otherwise your vote is in violation of Article 9 right to participatory government, duty of substantiation and motivation and more constitutional violations.
The WHO: “including equity”
IOJ:
5. what does “equity” mean in this context?
6. This part of the sentence is void for vagueness and we require a solid unchanging definition of “equity" and “equitable" to agree or challenge it to have due process.
The WHO: “technological or other developments,”
IOJ:
7.please explain who would be in charge of “technological or other developments”, who gets control of the technological data?
8. What “other developments” are currently being discussed or adressed by this IHR amendment?)
9. Will this amendment prevent or support the fourth industrial revolution?
The WHO: “or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise.”
IOJ:
10. Which gaps could not effectively be addressed without the amendments?
11. We see regulatory gaps where the WHO's definitions supplant local legislation and state sovereignty - would you all finally address that gap or loophole in an amendment?
12. Aren't these alleged gaps much better resolved by local legislation and regulations?
13. Why is IHR the only or best solution - it does not make sense to us - please explain in detail?
The WHO: “but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the IHR (2005),”
IOJ:
14. Why would the amendments be critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the IHR (2005)?
15. It is our understanding that under the current legal system any effective implementation and compliance of the IHR is the states responsibility, mainly, because cultural and other legal differences between sovereignties require the ability to NOT uniformly apply IHR regulations, precisely to protect the cultural differences from nation to nation. You must refute this if we are in error.
16. It is worth mentioning that in the Siracusa Principles (international human rights law) it says that states shall give “due regard” to the IHR, which we take to mean the IHR is non binding when applied in a way that is challenged as violating Siracusa Principles.
17. Please define “due regard of IHR” in Siracusa Principles vs “effective compliance” in the new amendment.
18. Would the amendments affect the Siracusa Principles by negating “due regard" of IHR by an “iron clad enforceable IHR”.
19. Who would enforce compliance?
20. If WHO wants enforcement power of IHR in the national territory, we presume that is usurpation of State sovereignty and treason if you sign that into law.
The WHO: and their universal application
IOJ:
21. Universal application sounds like application to all humans universally, please correct us if we are incorrect and define “universal application”.
22. Universal application of any health policy is inherently antithetical to upholding peoples right to Freedom of choice, therefore, if you vote yes on this it will be akin to treason; acting in violation of the CR constitution.
23. Who would enforce this?
24. Who would decide what needs to be uniformly applied?
25. Would states or the WHO decide what is uniformly applied?
26. Is this a universal application globally or in each state that you are all wanting to vote on?
27. Can you assure us there would be a prohibition on invasive measures such as vaccination being uniformly applied?
notice: Under IHR “invasive” means the puncture or incision of the skin or insertion of an instrument or foreign material into the body or the examination of a body cavity. For the purposes of these Regulations, medical examination of the ear, nose and mouth, temperature assessment using an ear, oral or cutaneous thermometer, or thermal imaging; medical inspection; auscultation; external palpation; retinoscopy; external collection of urine, faeces or saliva samples; external measurement of blood pressure; and electrocardiography shall be considered to be non-invasive;
28. Can you ensure us that this "uniform application" would not apply to personal data?
notice: NO one we know would ever agree to let you amend the IHR to start tracking and tracing them and their personal data.
29. Do you claim the right to vote yes on an amendment that would allow for the uniform application of WHO’s system of QR code, green pass, vaccine passport type of personal data collection?
30. Whilst it is true that data collection is WHO’s constitutional mission, it is equally true that right to privacy and freedom of choice is Costa Rica and U.S. constitutional mission. If you sign an amendment that violates privacy and freedom of choice rights through uniformly applied IHR rules you will both be held liable, possibly for treason, certainly for breach of duty.
“personal data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person;
The WHO: “for the protection of all people of the world”
IOJ:
31. “protection” is not defined - do you mean protection of our human rights from blanket WHO one size fits all health policy? Probably not.
notice: Please be advised that “protecting” us from WHO’s overreach by giving firm procedures to enforce Siracusa Principles limitations would be the only thing we would approve of as far as “protection” in an IHR amendment.
32. Does the WHO mean “protection” by gene vaccines and WHO approved therapeutics and measures only? Please define “protection”
33. Why would uniform application of IHR be required for the protection of all the people of the world?
notice: In reality, governments err and misapply benign laws all the time in a way that causes harm, and the covid response under IHR and WHO’s technical guidance resulted in many lawsuits for harm and violations of local regulatory provisions.
34. Can you assure us that the "uniform application" of IHR would be so beneficial it would actually protect - ALL people of the world - every single person on earth as WHO wildly purports? It just sounds so fantastical it defies logic.
The WHO: from the international spread of disease
IOJ:
35. It is not possible to prevent the international spread of disease, therefore this amendment would give unnecessary power to the WHO to attempt to prevent the unpreventable. Its a fools errand to attempt to play God and try to make highly contentious health policy for the “effective implementation and compliance of the IHR (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease”.
notice: It's simply not possible to prevent the international spread of disease, therefore, the amendments defy the rules of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness and are void ab initio. According to IHR “disease” means an illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans. Disease is a normal part of life and the WHO can’t fix that by amending the IHR or enforcing iron clad health policies.
notice: So far, the WHO issued a PHEIC over an alleged disease, covid-19, still not proved to be isolated by using Koch’s Postulates and existing in reality, even after 2 years, therefore, it is unreasonable to entrust the WHO with unilaterally being able to declare a PHEIC, because they have a history of exaggerating the diagnosis, complicating the treatment, creating alarm situations in response to unproven diseases and spurious interests.
The WHO: in an equitable manner.
IOJ: This excessive use of the undefined word “equity" and “equitable" must be defined immediately to avoid being void for vagueness under the common law. please see #5 above.
Interest of Justice protests the following amendments in “SEVENTY-FIFTH WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY A75/18 Provisional agenda item 16.2 12 April 2022 Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies Proposal for amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)” for the following reasons:
36. The necessity for the amendments is not yet substantiated and approved by the people of the 194 member states. Frankly, the necessity appears to be wholly illusory.
37. As far as the amendment to Article 5 we have no idea what “The Universal Health Periodic Review mechanism” is, or how we participate in this periodic review. Do us civil society stakeholders get to meaningfully participate in order to review and agree or contest the Director-Generals science in “the Universal Health Periodic Review mechanism”? We cannot even begin to imagine how a single review mechanism would be needed or wise. It seems like the WHO wants to make their own rules and then control a single review mechanism, which is a violation of common law to be their own judge in their own matter of “universal health”. Interest of Justice is Universally domiciled and we do not agree to allow this imbalance of power over the universal jurisdiction of the world.
38. As far as the amendment to Article 59 please be advised that 6 months for a state to disagree with an amendment to IHR is far too short because it places an undue burden upon member states. This short time frame to reject the amendment also unduly burdens us marginalized stakeholder's who will be unable to sue and resolve any contentious matters within 6 months. 18 months is barely enough time. WHY would anyone want to make this amendment to shorten 18 months to 6 months to reject an amendment, which would unfairly entrap member states who were still in a state of due process? We filed a case in our Costa Rican contentious administrative court and it still has not even commenced. Our system is slow and Costa Rica requires the original agreed upon time frame of 18 months. This particular amendment (Article 59: Entry into force; period for rejection or reservations) is outrageous and unreasonable because it will cause undue burdens on civil society groups, protestors, member states and will absolutely result in a denial of due process by creating an excessive burden on Member States by NOT allowing the promise of dedicated time to allow for discussions on strengthening of the IHR (2005).
39. As far as Article 12: Determination of a public health emergency of international concern, public health emergency of regional concern, or intermediate health alert. Please be advised the Director-General is put on notice May 4th, 2022 to substantiate his science for covid-19 PHEIC. Its unreasonable to give one man who has not yet substantiated his previous actions are based in science so much power to unilaterally declare an emergency and its dangerous to remove the only checks and balances of “and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination” to allow one man, the Director-General, a decision to declare a PHEIIC which affects the world. By removing the reasonable clause, “and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination” the amendment is antithetical to health and state sovereignty by creating an imbalance of power away from the sovereign states and toward the quasi sovereign WHO, an untenable and unreasonable situation doomed to failure.
40. We need to discuss a lot of legal problems with these proposed amendments.
41. Instead of write you a very long treatise about each problem with these proposed amendment's, under Article 9 of the constitution we invoke our right of meaningful participation in all health policies under Article 9 of the constitution, which requires the WHO and you delegates to include us in these discussions before you all make biased rushed decisions affecting existing legal and human right norms by amending the IHR.
To Xavier Beccara,
The amendments you sent the WHO are manifestly illegal to vote on May 22-28, 2022 because you announced them on April 12, 2022 with no real publicity to make people aware, and all people worldwide have the right to participate in health policy creation and implementation as part of universal right to health. This is very problematic because you know, or should know that Federal law gives you 60 days to respond. People need time to learn of these amendments, draft their questions or protests, write you, receive a response and be able to protest or agree in order to give the public due process.
You did not give enough time for meaningful participation or due process, therefore any vote you make on May 22-28, 2022 in regards to your proposed amendments will obviously be absolutely null and void for violating human rights to heath, to participate and due process.
We presume you know this and are barreling forward recklessly and very quickly in order to evade public scrutiny, because if there were a real participatory process the people would reject these amendments.
We reject all proposed amendments at this time out of principle that we are excluded, and for good cause that they are not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, among other issues of unconstitutionality and usurpation of national and individual sovereignty.
There is a historical cause for concern about treaty making and good cause to invoke your duty of accountability, probity, motivation and substantiation in regards to these proposed amendments:
"This Senate attitude hasn't been overlooked by crafty men who would stoop to any device to get their thoughts and ideas inflicted on the Nation and made the supreme law of the land. When men like Alger Hiss and other Communist and Socialist sympathizers wormed their way into positions of great influence in the State Department and took over the job of drafting up our treaties and agreements with international organizations some rather strange and dangerous clauses began to crop up in these documents. These clauses for the most part went unnoticed by Senators who seldom have either the time or the inclination to wade through voluminous treaty agreements prior to voting on them. But other people were perfectly aware of these clauses. They knew full well that treaties automatically become the supreme law of the land upon ratification and thus take precedence over the Federal Constitution and all our State laws." (Congressional Record, 1953, page A422) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1953-pt9/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1953-pt9-1.pdf
U.N.’s documented history of unbroken communism raises concerns, especially in context of Agenda 2030, with the WEF’s threat of the abolition of privacy and property rights by 2030, a communist ideology inherent within U.N. & WHO that joined with WEF in 2017 according to Tedros.
"Now let us look at the record. According to Trygve Lie, longtime Secretary General of the United Nations, he stated flatly that there was a secret agreement between Alger Hiss and Molotov to the effect that the head of the United Nations military staff should always be a Communist. That agreement has never been broken, and we have had a succession of Communists filling that post, the present one being Mr. Arkadov. As a first consequence of this treasonous agreement, this country lost its first military engagement in Korea at a cost to this country of more than $20 billion and 145,000 American casualties ...This was the first war in which we engaged not as the United States military force, but as a United Nations force. ...How convenient this was to the Communists to have one of their own men as head of the United Nations military staff, who reviewed all orders going from the Pentagon to General MacArthur and gave them to our enemy before General MacArthur received them."(Congressional Record, 1962, page 215) https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1962-pt1/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1962-pt1-3-2.pdf
Last but not least, please be advised that the entire world is watching and we are very concerned that “The aim is to give - in the event of future pandemics - the WHO de facto governing power over the Member States.”
We will leave you with the wise words of Christine Anderson, UK MP a real champion of the people.
“Dear fellow citizens,
In yesterday's video, I informed you about the current renegotiation of the WHO treaties. The aim is to give - in the event of future pandemics - the WHO de facto governing power over the Member States.
The official answer of the EU-Commission to my parliamentary question, to what extent it would take care that the principles of the people's rule would be respected, was:
NOT AT ALL !
Find out now in the 2nd part of my video, which possibility still exists, in order to prevent the hostile takeover of our democracies by the international background elites. It can still be achieved, but now requires the personal commitment to freedom and democracy of all our fellow citizens. The more people raise their voices now, the greater our chance of a last-minute victory.”
Document links:
My Request:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-000921_EN.html
Reply of the EU-Commission:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-000921-ASW_EN.html
Formal Notice and Demand:
To the WHA, Xavier Beccara and all delegates, we firmly DEMAND you RETRACT the proposed amendments and do not vote yes May 22-28, 2022 on any IHR amendments.
You do NOT have the right or authority under WHO’s regulations, WHA procedure, U.S., Costa Rica’s and all nations current legal system to vote on a long term health policy that will affect all nations and peoples, without the participation and agreement, with full informed consent of all stakeholders, especially us marginalized primary stakeholders.
We are a large body of relevant stakeholders, yet at this point, as you are about to vote, we don’t even have basic words defined and agreed upon. At this point it is clear there is no proven necessity for the amendments agreed upon or topics agreed upon, which must come first. We have a very serious claim that you are conspiring with the WHO and UN to omit what is required for informed consent and participation in order to make an unnecessary amendment to the IHR for the benefit of the UN and WHO, in violation of our legal system and at the great detriment of Costa Rica and her peoples.
Furthermore, we hope we are mistaken, but on and for the record, we do presume the illegitimacy of the current WHO IHR amendment process. We conclude the process does not withstand strict scrutiny of necessity, and constitutional limits, because this is an unprecedented health policy deliberation which takes PHEIC discretion from the sovereign nations and gives sole discretion to the WHO, a private body, funded by a majority of private-public interests, which unilaterally claims sovereignty and supreme power of health policy decision making.
While the goal of the WHO may be noble in wanting to protect global health, our organization Interest of Justice alleges that these IHR amendments which enact “universal application to all peoples” and “universal compliance”, with enforcement power by WHO is a “violation of the legal principle” whereby “only through a formal law issued by the Legislature, according to the procedure established in the Constitution for the enactment of laws, is it possible to regulate and, if appropriate, restrict fundamental rights and freedoms.” This is very problematic and must be addressed by WHO, otherwise the WHO may proceed in ways that could incur prohibition, if not liability for usurpation of sovereignty, a problem raised by nations repeatedly over the WHO’s history.
These IHR amendments will have the effect of overreaching law & policy that unconstitutionally suspends rights and affects the dignity of all peoples by limiting freedom of choice.
Executive emergency power should be sparing and temporary to be constitutional, however, the concept of a globally binding treaty is overreaching. It is appropriate to mention that cumulatively and consecutively enacted every 90 days, the WHOs declaration of emergency is now established as long term policy. Any amendment would obviously be required to limit and not expand this overreach by WHO into the realm of policy making that regulates dignity and freedom, among other ergo omines human rights conspicuously left out of the IHR.
Based on the foregoing, Interest of Justice concludes that the WHO’s attempt at amending the IHR is an attempt to regulate just about every aspect of the “right to life and dignity of the human being,” and therefore “[t]he non-temporary regulation of these rights by the WHO acting as a global health policy regulatory private monopoly is wholly incompatible with Constitutional law of all nations!
We do not consent to your vote on IHR amendments until our questions are answered, our presumptions rebutted and your duty of motivation and substantiation is met for each question.
You must rebut every presumption herein according to law, otherwise all undisputed facts will be taken as true.
Sincerely,
Dustin Bryce
Head of Public Relations, Interest of Justice, Global Health Civil Society Participatory Research Project
SHARE THE PETITIONS - WWW.INTERESTOFJUSTICE.ORG
Its up to 33,500 and counting - it is to build a record to use against them after they vote yes in their predetermined scheme of global dictatorship!
IT IS A LEGAL NOTICE THAT WILL WORK TO REVERSE THE VOTE LATER!
ITS ALREADY ON THE DESK OF TEDROS AND THOUSANDS OF YOU THAT SIGNED THE PETITION ARE ACTUALLY TELLING HIM YOU AGREE WITH INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
ON MAY 2 WE DEMANDED THAT TEDROS NEEDS TO PROVE HIS PCR TEST IS A VALID DIAGNOSTICS TOOL AND OTHER PSEUDO SCIENCE OR BE FIRED NOT REHIRED.
WE ARE LEGALLY CHALLENGING EVERYTHING.
IF WE ARE WRONG TEDROS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE WHY WE ARE WRONG.
www.interestofjustice.org
www.stopcrimesagainsthumanity.org
Thanks for reading Interest of Justice! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
✓
Our Substack and legal work is free for all to access due to the generous support of donors.
It is you, the few donors we have, that singlehandedly make our ongoing legal work against WHO, FDA and Wrongdoer States possible.
