On October 26, 2011 we entered this document for the record to the court in Puriscal, Costa Rica. However, unlike our other affidavits and notices, this document was rejected because the clerk said that Birgitte must enter it in persona propria because Birgitte's signature may have been forged and as such the testimony is void. We initially gave the notice to Gustavo, a licensed lawyer, but he refused to deliver it because he said we would be 'going to war' with this statement. I submitted that the war had already been declared by the Judge, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda and his United Nations masters. They launched their surprise attack on September 6, 2011 and struck us deep in our heart. They committed an act of genocide against protected people with a civil action that lacked subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction in persona. We had suspected that Gustavo would be reluctant to risk himself by delivering this, so we had a back up individual. Whether it was rejected or not, since we were rejected by every other bureaucrat, including Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, we submit this to the public record as our testimony which the court refused to let us enter.
October 26, 2011 Constructive Notice:
For the purpose to enter into the public record, this notice and subject matter shall serve as the instrument of intent for the purpose of lawful reconciliation to the parties involved to
Functionaries involved: Juez MSC. Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda; Ministerio de Salud director Dr. Cerdas; Master Norma Fernandez; Lic. psicolaga PANI Christina Vidal Espinosa; Lic. Lorena Duran; Master Monica de la Fuenta Mora CCSS; Dra. Ana Gabriela Mora Rojas; MSC Patricia Mesen Arroyo de PANI and many other interested parties world wide.
This notice has been created to establish the following facts:
1) That the jurisdiction over the persona is absent because no persona has been created.
2) The cause of any grievance in this issue lacks habeas corpus, mens rea or a valid contract.
3) That several ministry officials listed above have stated that they are subservient to the constitution of Costa Rica.
4) That several officials listed above refuse to answer questions that have been made repeatedly in writing because of my lack of state identification.
5) That my lack of state identification in any way halted above listed officials from threatening and coercing me and my family in the flesh and blood.
6) According to law passed March 11, 2002, and Gazetted, that government officials, including autonomous entities such as PANI, must answer to inquiries within a reasonable time of two months or the law of tacit consent becomes the established fact.
7) That a time of 2 months has elapsed from the time of 2002 whereby the officials must have:
a) responded to or accepted our response as a lawful position.
b) observed a newly gazetted law that annuls their requirement to respond.
c) responded to or accepted our various declarations of truth to the ministry in 2005, 2008,
8) That the lack of responses and that Dr. Cerdas and PANI, to this date, have not responded to our requests of information can lead us to believe that:
a) PANI and ministry officials are not bound by the constitution.
b) The officials and PANI are bound to answer my questions, however, they have decided
personally to disregard the constitution and the rule of God.
9) That the judge's decision to allow police to break and enter my home through a locked gate to search for vaccine documents and state identification was unreasonable search and seizure since I had identified that to whom the plaintiffs made their threats. (Me, the flesh and blood with no cedula or valid state contracts.) I presented myself, in persona propria, as the same individual whom threats of child confiscation were issued to answer to any charges and complaints to be in honor of the court's request. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda refused to see me and refused to give me the charges or case file in order to make full and complete answer. Instead, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda elected to sign an order to break into my property and confiscate family photos amongst other valuables. This order was for the purpose of ascertaining documents regarding the vaccination and giving orders to forcibly vaccinate with restraints if necessary. The judge made the determination that my children had been denied health care and education in his statements which we were able to obtain later.
10) That although, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda had been presented with all my previous affidavits and constructive notices regarding the status of me and my children in good faith that he would recognize the jurisdiction failures of any such claim or charge, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda proceeded to empower himself above his restricted mandates created by the Uniform Commercial Code of contracts, the political constitution of Costa Rica and the rule of the God of the Holy Bible.
11) That Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's refusal to hear me in the flesh, when the plaintiff in the flesh was present and could identify me as the tort feasor leads me to believe that he could not hear me as there was no civil nexus whereby he could prosecute me. Thus he refused to hear the flesh as no contract (cedula) existed as I have previously stated in other declarations.
12) That Dra. Ana Gabriela Mora Rojas claims that I refused to allow them to vaccinate my children, whereas in my affidavits, promptly and respectfully given to her officials, I am clear that we are not refusing vaccines, but that we are prohibited by the Law of God of the Bible. No requests or rebuttals have been made by Ebais #4 or previous officials.
13) That constitution of Costa Rica is a treaty between the authors of the treaty, the government officials it speaks of and those who are a party to the contract via consent. I recognize that random manipulation or exclusions of articles 11, 27, 25, 19, 75 because of international treaties under article 7 apply to applicants of the constitution through registration (cedula).
14) I do recognize that registration also waives all constitutional rights by virtue of article 7.
15) I do recognize that all 'free' health care and school programs are 'entitlement' programs given to those to register.
16) I do recognize that registration with the state jointly and severally contracts that individual with the state through a persona called a cedula, but that at this time no such contract exists between me and the state of Costa Rica.
17) I do recognize that the United Nations is likewise a legal artifice which requires adhesion contracts in order to assume jurisdiction over the subject matter.
18) That lacking such adhesion contract is not a violation of any law.
19) That the immigration contract forces a foreigner to waive his lawful, God given rights as stated in previous constructive notices.
20) That a contract that forces someone to waive the right to association by consent by the implication of forceful intervention is a contract that lacks proper consideration, as such is no contract, but the exercise of coercion.
21) That the Costa Rican Government does not own, nor has filed a UCC claim on my children as I have never given, registered, nor taken any benefits that would quasi contractually obligate me or my children to the state of Costa Rica or the United Nations PANI child 'protection' schemes.
22) That no cestui que trust instruments or other obscurities exist that would presume that my children are entrusted to a legal artifice or collective of men such as a governing body or group of elite.
23) That the presumption that my children are subject to United Nations edict, when they are not indebted, nor registered, nor have accepted benefits from other indentured subjects such as the government of Costa Rica, has been repeatedly quashed by my various declarations and notices.
24) That because I have reserved all of rights, (which Dr. Cerdas refused to allow me to do on video,) I have not waived my rights to NOT associate with vaccine companies and other man made legal corporations, trusts or artifices.
25) The use of force to register, vaccinate, confiscate and mentally manipulate my children is a clear expose of instability, lack of education and incorrigibility of the above stated individuals.
26) Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda states article 51 as the enabling article to enact all the sub adhesive codes involving United Nations rights of the child and state public health codes.
27) These rights stated in article 51 are 'entitlements' to those who subscribe to them. Rights cannot be forced upon anyone without consent.
28) If any officials claim that, I or my family has or have inadvertently entered such an adhesion contract, I object to any such allegation, assumption, opinion or implication as no evidence of this adhesion contract has been produced creating contractual obligation to the state of Costa Rica or the United Nations.
29) That the state of Costa Rica is a man made organization made by and for those who consent to be contracted with it in matters outside of civil and criminal disputes.
30) That any consent generated under duress is a contract that lacks proper consideration, and as such, totally invalid to establish bonafide civil nexus.
31) That if the state claims adhesion contracts are valid for the application of article 7, by virtue of jus solis, we have no such applications with the state in accordance with articles 13-18 including law #7514 that meets the requirements to create entitlements stated in article 51 into obligations.
32) That any claim of jus solis is also nullified by the fact that these children already have a nationality and are registered. My children are Israelites and they are registered in the family Holy Bible. The God of Israel (same God as the catholic church purports to follow.)
33) The God of Israel has already made claims to the earth and the land in psalm 24.
34) That the people of Costa Rica have been given the option to elect a body of men to govern them and that a body is capable of adjudicating in civil and criminal matters.
35) That all matters that mimic liability or transfer responsibility given by God must be consented to and that such consent is made by way of cestui que trust agreements consecrated by a contract identified by a number widely accepted as a 'cedula'.
36) That we practice strict liability and take full responsibility for our children and do not shift this burden to others or future generations.
37) That due to statements made by PANI officials and Dr. Cerdas, Sra. Fernandez and others, that they have no belief that the rule of God has any bearing on this matter.
38) That affirmation made by court official Sra. Charpentier and witnessed, her statement to us in 2002, that the government of Costa Rica and its laws were subservient to the God of the Bible.
39) That government services such as public school and vaccines are not 'free' as proclaimed by Dr. Cerdas and although the recipients may not be charged, the companies that produce this product, the doctors and nurses and technicians all get paid.
40) That if we were to receive such free 'entitlements', that we would be in violation of God's moral principles regarding theft and strict liability.
41) That the case file received by me contains decisions made by Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, that my children shall be forcibly vaccinated with restraints if necessary in order to:
A) force a private company's products into my children's body.
B) force association via registration with a legal artifice.
C) force my children and their parents to steal from other people by shifting the cost of the
vaccines and all the technicians and police required to other people via taxes and debt.
42) That on July 30, 2011, Dr. Cerdas used threats and coercion to send fear of official intention. This fear is real and established by witnesses and testimony of other officials named above.
43) That ministry officials responded to our questions and statements of fact with force and fiat edict, rather than intelligent evaluation of facts, evidence and law.
44) That such use of naked, lawless power and abuse of process of the Ministry of health and officials of PANI and the judiciary , force us into the only real logical conclusion that PANI, Ministry of Health and the Judiciary are not bound by the constitution by virtue of the same constitution articles 7 and 55. However, that even AUTONOMOUS entities MUST respond to requests.
45) That such lack of concern and ignorance for higher moral laws have been the basis of the lack of responses from these ministries.
46) That the disposal of constitutional articles 11, 19, 25, 75, 27 under the auspices that international treaties in article 7 enable article 55 and 51, insist that such international treaties include my children through adhesion contracts.
47) That I object that any such evidence of such a contract exists.
48) That we have no adhesive contracts or obligations to United Nations.
49) That I, to this day have never been presented with an actual charge, civil or criminal by which I could give the opportunity to remedy and cure.
50) That no valid contract exists between my family and the state of Costa Rica.
51) That no damaged party has presented themselves with claims of tort or trespass.
52) That we have no intent to damage any man past, present or future.
53) That we are not part of a religious cult.
54) That we do not practice religion nor establish ministries in our name.
55) That the etymological definition of religion means to:
re- (to make a new)
liege- (king to rule over)
56) That the word religion is a transitive verb and the important aspect is not the result, but the ACT of creating a new law maker to rule over the individual in question.
57) That we have not exercised that action in order to receive the bounty of free services of a different king or governing body.
58) That since no evidence of such re-lieging has been produced as evidence as our consent to shift the sovereignty from God to the state in matters of strict liability, that we have not consented to state entitlements.
59) That although we recognize the state of Costa Rica's lawful ability to adjudicate over us in matters, both civil and criminal, that in matters of insurance, limited liability, education, debt and general welfare, we remain under the rule of God where no such act of divorcing ourselves from that God can be produced.
60) That where no adhesion contract can be presented as evidence, there is no civil opportunity to litigate or adjudicate.
61) That where no habeas corpus and no mens rea is evidenced, that there is no criminal opportunity to litigate or adjudicate.
62) Article 2 of the constitution states that the sovereignty exists 'in the nation', not the state. The nation is a reference that historically refers to a people of similar persuasion, not idols of their creation.
63) That if the sovereignty of the nation resides in the people of that nation, and those people's moral beliefs are based on conformity with the laws of the God of Israel, that the system to rule over them that they erected must include consent of the governed when insurance, or limited liability schemes are created by the government.
64) That such consent is evidenced by a contract that is evidenced by a number entitled 'cedula'.
65) That no men or group of men can force us into a contract.
66) That if such a group of men claim that they can force us into a contract, or proven by action that they will force us into a contract, which violate the constitution and the law of God of the Holy Bible, that such actions are lawless, naked power without proper authority and only prescribed by the men who prescribe such actions.
67) That the action of forcing anyone to associate by contract is not by the authority of God, the people, the constitution, the government, therefore comes from personal edict of the men involved.
68) That such men operate not by the authority of law, but under the color of law.
69) That any man who has been reminded repeatedly the protocols of law through questions, affidavits and notices, yet chooses to ignore operates not out of lack of facts or law, but full and complete understanding of their actions.
70) That Such men or group of men who arbitrarily usurps the power of the sovereigns by making a petition in the name of the people by way of 3rd party association (PANI), are in violation of article 4 of the constitution.
71) That PANI lawyer, Patricia Mesen Arroyo has stated to me that she is subservient to the constitution of Costa Rica, Yet article 55 states that PANI is an autonomous entity. This incongruency has not been addressed.
72) That Patricia Mesen Arroyo, despite all of my information, still assumes my children belong to her master, the United Nations, by virtue of either:
a) adhesion contracts with the United Nations or the state of Costa Rica
b) incorrigible insanity.
In either case, the merits of civil contracts or criminal infraction lack the necessary elements to support a claim.
73) That the United Nations has NO consent to rule over me or my children.
74) That the government or officials therein cannot confer or take away my consent.
75) That if the Costa Rica government has made a UCC claim on my children in commercial equity law, then the following deficiencies are present:
a) identity of the collateral in question
b) a valid claim in equity
76) That for the record, my husband and I are the sole guardians of my children.
77) That we do not give consent for our children to be used as collateral for commercial debt relief.
78) That officials claiming to be operating under the purpose of child and family protection have made actions to destroy my family.
79) That PANI lawyer, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, would consider "allowing" my children to leave the country with the grandmother IF:
a) They were vaccinated
b) That PANI Official lawyer Patricia Mesen Arroyo was personally guaranteed that grandmother was not of the 'same religion' as the mother of the children.
80) That Dr. Cerdas response when I asked him if the Costa Rican government was subservient to the God of Israel, his answer was, "I don't see what this has to do with it." leads me to believe that Dr. Cerdas and the above named officials have no cognitive basis in Law of what he is empowered to do and that which he is confined to. Ignorance of such integral facts about the history of law and even the hypocratic oath leads me to believe that nothing confines these officials but their own decree.
81) That understanding the reason for law is to understand the intent of the Lawmaker. Article 51 clearly states that the family is a natural element and foundation of society and is 'entitled' to state protection as well as mothers, children and elderly, yet all actions by above names have resulted in the absolute obliteration of a family and in no way does this reflect the intent of the law maker (sovereign).
82)That I made all reasonable attempts to allow the above stated officials to recognize the fullness of the law, yet these same officials made choices in full cognitive awareness to refuse, ignore, lie, subvert, omit and deny opportunities of fact and law to produce an amiable and lawful reconciliation.
83) That if these above stated officials observed the Law, including the intent of article 51, then my family would not have been chased into exile where we were met with dangerous perils that resulted in the death of my daughter.
84) That these above stated officials act with complete knowledge and awareness of their actions and that the attitudes of these officials display complete and total mens rea and contempt for family in favor of state power.
85) The issuing of the search warrant for my place was based upon the PANI's claim that I never told them about the status of the children's vaccination.
86) That in 2002 I told the court that we were not going to vaccinate the children, and in several of the affidavits entered in 2011, I clearly state that we are prohibited from vaccinating the children.
87) That this notice stands as motion to quash all further inquiry and initiate actions against the above officials for malfeasance and sedition.
88) That the intent and subject matter of this notice is not degraded by lack of form, stationery or grammatical error.
89) That my children or I will not present our flesh to the court, as the court refused to hear from my flesh and that condition has not changed. Additionally, my trust of all above mentioned officials has left me truly believing that no such family protection has been intended, and we shall receive the same lawless treatment.
90) That once again, as always, we ask for the charges that have been made against us as none of these officials have offered to give us a valid charge in either criminal or civil venue.
91) To remain in honor of this court, I ask that the charges be presented to Gustavo Rojas as our representative.