2/4/2013 We only wish to open dialogue.
Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda knows by our testimonies that it was never our intention to evade the health officials, but by our many inquiries, we establish a critical issue that blocked their desire to take control of my family that was never answered. In fact, when asked why they do not answer, in accordance with article 27, they said they are not obliged to because we fail to identify ourselves with state ID. That is the self proving irony. If YOU cannot identify us as a beneficiary in your trust, then what gives you the power to terrorize us with threats and coercion? You see, the constitution, as pointed out in our constructive notice, is not a document that restrains us. It is a document that restrains those who agreed to its contents. We are restrained by the first law established in the preamble. Dr. Juan Miguel Chaccon Cerdas and Patricia Mesen Arroyo were quite correct when he told our witnesses that he has no obligation to answer to our questions and notice. He has no obligation to us. He has the same relationship to us as Pizza Hut. If we walked in their place of business and demanded that they answer our questions about corporate internal procedure, they would query about their obligation to answer such questions. Of course, if they want to continue to threaten us, they would have to have the evidence of civil breach of contract, (like a sales receipt) and a credible witness who can testify that we did not fulfill our obligation to that association. The irony is that we cannot make a constitutional demand, which is what we recognized and told the court in our constructive notice. Dr. Cerdas and Patricia Messen Arroyo both admit they have no jurisdiction by saying they have no article 27 obligation to respond. In essence, they have as much power over us as our neighbors. All association is voluntary, anything hostile is criminal.