Costa Rican group lost their legal appeal to have covid vaccines banned but vow that this is just the beginning

11.11.23 (4)

RHODA WILSON

On 13 September, a Costa Rican Appellate judge ordered an oral hearing in the case of Interest of Justice vs State of Costa Rica.  In a case originally filed a year ago, Interest of Justice is seeking an injunction to have the covid-19 injections removed from the market in Costa Rica and then through a series of steps, globally.

Unfortunately, the oral hearing, which was held on 9 November, did not go Interest of Justice’s way and the judge did not grant the precautionary measure or temporary injunction to stop the covid injections.  However, Interest of Justice doesn’t see this as the end but rather the beginning of the legal action they plan to take.

Interest of Justice (“IoJ”) is a private international law and civics institute headquartered in Costa Rica. Through a series of dedicated and strategic actions including Freedom of Information Act requests and court filings, IoJ intends to reform or abolish “The Health Monopoly” as well as hold them all responsible for cessation and reparations for the many, many covid-19 international wrongdoings. “The Health Monopoly” is the UN, WHO, FDA, CDC, EMA, and strict regulatory bodies that corruptly defraud member states and humanity in public health guidance and procurement international investment agreements.

The oral hearing was set for 9 November and, in the words of IoJ, was to determine whether “Costa Rica and their superiors in WHO and FDA lied about safe and effective publicly, whilst knowing it is experimental, known to be harmful and death is common, which maliciously denies the entire international community its right to informed consent and is a Nuremberg Violation which the court must prohibit in the public interest.”

Before the hearing took place, IoJ noted that the hearing would address the following:

The vaccine as applied with no informed consent constitutes the crime of serious undue experimentation in violation of Nuremberg Code Articles 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, Article 10 of the medical morality code and Articles 78, 79 of the Biomedical research law

The WHO definition of vaccine is illegally applied, allowing for the import of a WHO EUL listing product which authorizes the covid-19 non-vaccine experimental biological agent, omitting the legislative intent and definition, to illegally allow authorization and import of the covid-19 non-vaccine toxic biological agent known to cause harm and administered by alleged “vaccine” delivery system

The DOD is withholding the reports they admit to having on the “experimental biological agent covid-19 vaccine” and asking IoJ for more time to delay and deny the info.

A biological agent is a bioweapon by definition and the definition of a biological agent which is intended to cause harm is incompatible with legislative intent for a vaccine which is to prevent a disease by stopping transmission, not prevent serious illness and death from the disease after it is transmitted. This is illegal.Judge Orders Nuremberg Public Hearing 9 November 2023 For Illegality Of Covid-19 Vaccines, Interest of Justice, 14 September 2023

Although IoJ had lined up Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea as expert witnesses, they were not called to testify.

At the end of the hearing, the judge did not grant the precautionary measure, a temporary injunction to remove the covid injections from the market as hoped.  IoJ reported that their request was denied due to technicalities. This unsuccessful action is far from the end of the story according to IoJ, in fact, it is merely the beginning:  

The court was very clear that’s not that we don’t have a case, we do, it’s just that the court believes we need to file the main case to actually prove the experimental non-vaccine harmful nature of these products.

In the main case, we can start over with a more precise and current request for a precautionary measure to stop the shots. It’s certainly not over and just beginning.The Judge Was Extremely Concerned, But the Court Denied the Precautionary Measure, Interest of Justice, 9 November 2023

After the oral hearing, the IoJ team members Dustin and Xylie spoke with Dr. Joseph Sansone to explain how they got to where they are now and what happens next.

The biggest technical problem with the oral hearing, Xylie told Sansone, was that the original paperwork filed in October 2022 focused on mandating covid “vaccines” for children.  At the time this was relevant.  However, by the time of the oral hearing, the mandates for children had been dropped.  IoJ had adjusted its paperwork to include everybody and thought the judge would expand IoJ’s original filings to apply to all ages, however, the judge did not.

IoJ hopes to file their “main case” in the next few months with the Appellate Court.