Timeline To Tackle The WHO Treaty & Tyranny
Learn More about the Interest of Justice W.H.O. Saga
2022-2023
April 28, 2023 Dear Friends,
We have not heard back from the relevant WHO departments you notified.
give 8 days for notice and right of reply. The WHO relevant departments are late and non responsive as usual. As you recall, this is regarding non responses to multiple FOIA requests, attempts to communicate as an interested relevant stakeholder and even multiple non responses to serious charges with right of reply in the WHO Ethics / oversight department.
Please inform us precisely which departments were notified of the omission and breaches of duty, the date, exact message you sent and to whom, as well as the contact information for the Superior of each of those relevant departments you notified.
The WHO Rules
Thank you for your prompt assistance in this serious matter. We appreciate all of your help in working with us to provide the requested information regarding the questions presented and communications in order to protect the public health and safety.
January 23 2023, Ethics Complaint to WHO INB
In regards to the pandemic Treaty
Uploaded Files
1. Marginsalized stakeholder Annex E Request June 16, 2022 copy.pdf a Letter to the INB, but not the only letter we sent also.
A disciplinary measure listed in Staff Rule 1110.1 may be imposed only after the staff member has been notified of the charges made against him and has been given an opportunity to reply to those charges. The notification and the reply shall be in writing, and the staff member shall be given eight calendar days from receipt of the notification within which to submit his reply. This period may be shortened if the urgency of the situation requires it.
February 19, 2023 IOJ requests GBS-INDICO WHO to participate
We would like to make a friendly request for a space for our organization at todays Second meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) - WHO Headquarters - 20 Feb 2023
February 4, 2023 Request for print files of the WHO Ethics guides due to being behind Microsoft Account Paywall
Out of 26 links in the code of ethics and professional conduct document, our Organization IOJ:
* Only able to access 6 documents.
* There were 7 broken links which lead to a “404 not found” error message.
* 13 links are unable to access because we refuse to have a “Microsoft account to access the “Code of ethics and professional conduct”
January 23, 2023, sent to the INB, DG WHO, Kenneth Piercy head of legal in the WHO. Notification of charges and reply - URGENT.
Dear INB,
We kindly asked for extra assistance to participate in the design of the pandemic treaty as a marginalized primary stakeholder
November 29, 2022 IOJ submits a complaint through the WHO ethics complaint office, a third party HR company funded by the WHO. The complaint was directed to the decision makers Soumya Swaminathan - Chief Scientist
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Director General
Kenneth Piercy - Senior Legal Officer Office of the Legal Counsel World Health Organization
September 9, 2022, IOJ receives a letter from the INB. IOJ writes followup directly to the INB,
W.H.O. second public hearings to support the intergovernmental, negotiating body to draft and negotiate a W.H.O. convention, agreement or other International instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness in response
Dear Friends Secretariat and INB,
We have written numerous letters with no response in regards to our International Organizations desire to be included on Annex E for the 2nd hearing September 29-30, 2022, and beyond.
Both Canada and USA have placed their input on the record wishing to open participation to a wider range of stakeholders in pandemic preparedness and response, however the World Health Organization has made an arbitrary rule to only include stakeholders that are recommended by a member state on Annex E.
On June 6, 2022 IOJ wrote to the governing bodies INB, WHO DG, and head legal of WHO Kenneth Piercy to kindly ask for extra assistance as marginalized stakeholders and include IOJ as interested stakeholders and launched #ifnotusthenWHO campaign
Many people, citizens from around the world, from approximately 160 member countries, signed our petition and sent it to the head decision makers.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Xavier Beccera, Kennith Piercy, WHA, HHS, Delegates
This is an URGENT demand for your duty of substantiation. The law requires your duty of substantiation and I have the right to invoke your duty of substantiation prior to any vote on IHR Amendments proposed by Mr. Xavier Beccera. Your vote affects all nations and peoples of the world, but at this time the proposed amendments lack the substantive elements of due process and participation, as well as lacks a factual basis for the necessity.
May 14, 2022, Comment in preparation for the 75th world health assembly no IHR amendment
Dear Partners,
This is my written comment:
I DEMAND the proposed IHR Amendment is withdrawn immediately because the U.S. Delegate and WHO Director-General has failed his duty of substantiation that the proposed amendment is necessary, proportionate and reasonable.
There was not enough time for us marginalized stakeholders to agree or disagree with any of these proposed amendments, and we are defenseless for being unable to exercise our right to health, which includes the right to PARTICIPATE in the design, implementation and execution of all health policy which may affect us!
I do not believe the amendment is necessary and I really think the ability to declare a PHEIC should not be centralized in WHO to enforce without the states ability to agree. Six months is not enough time for the states and civil society groups to make a legal argument against any amendments, 18 months is barely enough time. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the amendment and procedure to adopt the amendments deny due process on its face and this entire process to vote on May 22-28, 2022 is void ab initio.
You have a DUTY to immediately withdraw and suspend the May 22-28 WHA vote on the proposed IHR amendments and I invoke your duty. You shall not adopt the proposed IHR amendments as a matter of law.
Sincerely,
May 14, 2022 IOJ had a technical issue behind the scenes while sending out the notice and demands to the HHS decision makers. The servers got overloaded and we had to send 14, 587 comments manually by email, which were the from the people around the world signing the notice and demand
Sent to DG of the WHO and Office of global affairs, Xavier and Kenneth Piercy, Loyce Pace, Department of Justice USA, Colin Mciff and many others in HHS
Thank you for the invite we sincerely appreciate you listening to us marginalized stakeholders. we really need your assistance to be able to participate in a more meaningful manner in the future in regards to WHO reforms please write us back to make an appointment to ACTUALLY participate so we can discuss all of these details. 2 minutes is not enough because we did not have time to prepare a written statement with such short notice
Sincerely,
Dustin Bryce Public Relations
Interest Of Justice .org
May 12, 2022 Written comment HHS virtual stakeholder listening session May 13, 2022
Dear Partners,
This is my written comment:
I DEMAND the proposed IHR Amendment is withdrawn immediately because the U.S. Delegate and WHO Director-General has failed his duty of substantiation that the proposed amendment is necessary, proportionate and reasonable. I do not believe the amendment is necessary and I really think the ability to declare a PHEIC should not be centralized in WHO to enforce without the states ability to agree. Six months is not enough time for the states and civil society groups to make a legal argument against any amendments, 18 months is barely enough time, therefore the amendment denied due process on its face and is void ab initio.
May 12, 2022, comment sent from the notice and demand - Demand to suspend proposed HR amendments pending due process and legal challenges sent to DG WHO Kenneth Piercy head of legal WHO. Office of Global Affairs, Colin Mciff, Xavier B and others within the HHS.
May 9 ,2022 IoJ enters application for the 75 WHA stakeholder listening session
May 11, 2022 the HHS OGA responds with RSVP instructions
May 8, 2022 sent to Xavier, ministry of health, ministry of foreign affairs, defender of human rights, president of Costa Rica and the prosecutor
Dear Friends,
My name is Dustin Bryce, head of public relations from InterestOfJustice.org. Please see attached formal notice and demand in regards to the IHR amendment about to take place this month.
There are many considerations that our organization, a large number of international and Costa Rican civil society groups, top attorneys, worlds top scientific experts, citizen journalists and concerned citizens worldwide as well as within the nation, would like to bring to your attention that are very important to keep the integrity between government and citizen participation and to bring transparency to the front of the subject matter at hand.
Attached is a formal notice and demand for due process and the duty of substantiation and required informed consent, as well as a formal rebuttal as to why it is even necessary to have an amendment to the IHR.
IOJ emailed the WHO DG, Soumya Swaminathan, WHO head of legal, almost all of the legislative assembly in CR, The ministry of foreign affairs of Costa Rica, the Defender of human rights in Costa Rica, The ministry of Health, the vaccination commission CNVE, the president of Costa Rica, the office of the attorney general prosecutors called Fiscalia
August 12, 2022, Kenneth Piercy, Head of WHO Legal Dept. Writes IOJ during the Stakeholder pandemic preparedness and response global hearing
As a marginalized relevant stakeholder, Interest of Justice feels we are being denied our rights to meaningful participation. We tried to speak a second time at the hearing on April 12, but was denied by WHO's chief legal officer, Kennith Piercy, during the presentations. Two minutes to speak one way with no actual engagement or dialogue is insufficient for us and two minutes to speak once is clearly not adequate as a mechanism to uphold peoples right to a participatory health governance system.
