Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda had no possible way to force us into a contract according to his oath, YET continued to terrorize us using the state police. He refused to address my wife in the court on September 6, 2011 in Puriscal, Costa Rica, but proceeded to break the law and chase us into exile with armed force. The reason he could not adjudicate was that the affiant, PANI, could not establish civil jurisdiction and since there were no criminal charges, there was actually no judicial capacity for the judge to opine on anything. That is the reason we were encouraged, continuously, to use an attorney to retrieve documents and make pleadings. It is a simple reason. The use of an attorney establishes the jurisdiction of the court because we voluntarily take a state benefit through the bureau that licenses the attorneys. In essence, when you use an attorney to make a defense based upon the preamble, you declare yourself incompetent and become a ward of the state. That declaration is made by your own consent to use an attorney or accept an attorney by state appointment. That is, of course, why we made the declaration that we did not consent to the use of an attorney. We did not need legal advice. It was the affiant who needed to establish jurisdiction without the judge aiding them with false testimonies and threats.
As such, our use of an Attorney (Gustavo) was for one purpose only: To get the judge to back down by asking for a new hearing. Of course, asking for a hearing alone confers a state benefit which would establish a nexus whereby jurisdictional elements would be met. (That is why we NEVER ask the state for anything. It can be considered a benefit and the judge can establish a quasi contract.) In essence, to be players on their jurisdictional board, we must consent or take a benefit. Lack of the acceptance of any such benefit is why the judge could not see Birgitte on September 6, 2011. His subsequent actions and warrants were illegal by his own rules and protocols.
SO, the document that was drafted was built with losing arguments so that the judge, with hope he could contain the mess he made, would grant us reprieve from the misguided force. It goes without saying that this document, along with the assistance by which it was created, was signed under duress.
The illusion of surrender with those losing arguments were:
A) Located in parts 1-3 was the submissive recognition of the judge's authority over us.
B) That not vaccinating our children were laws written by us.
C) That we ask for a state benefit (a new hearing by which the judge can establish a quasi contract.)
D) That we did not previously use a lawyer and as such did not argue properly.
E) That these beliefs surrounding education and health cradle OUR beliefs, and that those beliefs differ from the state's, when in fact they are the state's beliefs. Our beliefs are irrelevant. We understand Law and follow it. They are laws established and protected by the preamble and the judicial oath. We did not write these laws; we did not write the constitution; and we did not take an oath to protect these scriptural laws. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda took that oath in order that he may wield state force. It is Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's duty as a trustee to protect any people wishing to exercise these laws.
F)That due to the religious latitude in first world countries our ability to choose should be considered. In fact, by law, if we have consented to the state in any way, the judge can then opine on the matter. Thus any facts surrounding the logic can be overturned by judicial opinion.
G) That the obligatory nature of the vaccines leans on public opinion and education. In fact the obligatory nature of any law rests purely on defining the law of obligations and its four elements. That is why the legislature found back with amendment 2000-11648 that there was no article 28 issue regarding the people's free will being infringed, because the vinculum was satisfied by registration. The people already gave their consent, like it or not. Obligations are not subject to opinion, they are consecrated by commercial law contracts.
H) That the obligatory nature of the vaccines may weigh more heavily in favor of the community during emergency measures (like H1N1 for example), where in reality the community and its well being has no bearing on an obligation. This argument enters into the herd immunity principle and is easily debunked. Our being vaccinated or not does not interfere with anyone's decision to receive what ever medication you desire or are obligated to receive.
This inferior platform was established in order to stroke the judge's ego and improve his self esteem and social validation. We intended for this notice to help pause the terrorizing pursuit we were subjected to. There is no winning anything with narcissists who needed to cover their treason. We were forced under duress to use an attorney who entered a losing argument just to get sufficient relief that we may retrieve our daughter's body and escape.
The final points of law (13-17) will be examined next.