Submitted to the courts in Puriscal, Costa Rica in March 2012:
In respect to honor the law and parties involved in case file # 11-000756-278-PE, the following affidavit establishes facts as well as my wish to assist the PANI in resolving their complaints as per the laws of God and the Constitution of Costa Rica. I will honor the plaintiff by making full and complete answer to any charge. However, based upon the biased nature of Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, his incompetency and refusal to acknowledge my various affidavits and notices as well as my testimony in flesh and blood, I have a real fear that the judge as well as the PANI will continue to break laws in an effort to unlawfully cover their malicious prosecution and criminal actions against my family and the constitution of this nation. We respectfully offer the following facts as we know them.
In a statement to the PANI, dated the 3rd of October, 2011, (page 63 of case file # 11-400185-0197) Judge Sanchez Miranda claims that I knew full well what measures his office was going to take with respect to my children. He does not specify how I came to have this knowledge, nor what these measures were. Judge Sanchez Miranda declares that protecting my children from a lawless home invasion is abuse and omission of parental authority. This home invasion was masquerading as judicial process with intent to force religious rituals (vaccines). It was commissioned without probable cause due to Judge Sanchez Miranda ignoring any of our inquiries or notices of jurisdictional failure. In a resolution written on October 25th, 2011 (page 12 of Sentencia 190-11,) Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda orders forced vaccinations of my children, the removal of same from my care, and an exit ban from Costa Rica for me and all of my children. In other words, he is holding us hostage in Costa Rica. We are being held prisoners here without charges.
In the following affidavit, I will list a number of events leading up to Sept.6th, 2011, and the subsequent results.
1. On the 27th of June, 2011, Norma Fernandez of the Ministry of Health, Lorena Duran of the PANI (child protection services) and others visited me. Mrs. Duran informed me that the PANI could take my children away if they considered me unfit as a mother. My subsequent letters of jurisdiction queries to the Health Ministry and the PANI remained unanswered.
2. A "Health Order" was presented to me on June 30th, 2011, by Dr Cerdas. Upon a quick examination of the order, I realized that statements therein, made by public servants, were false. I conditionally accepted the order upon receiving counsel and clarification of facts before agreeing with the order. Dr Cerdas refused to let me conditionally accept the order. In his statement he claimed that I refused to receive the order. He made his witnesses attest to this refusal. This is false. This document is proof of perjury and abuse of process. I have a copy of Dr Cerdas' signature of my conditional acceptance. (Pages 18-20 of case file) A video recording of Dr Cerdas refusing to let me conditionally accept his offer is available to view on YouTube: Costa Rica Health officials visit. June 30, 2011. #4 of 4
3. On July 26th, 2011, Judge Sanchez Miranda issued a warrant to search my house for information about vaccinations of my children and confiscate this information if found. The judge was present at my house along with Dr Cerdas and representatives of the PANI, as well as of the OIJ (criminal police.) As they did not encounter me, Dr Cerdas proceeded to address my neighbor, Mary Holmes. He told her to warn me that next time they would come to my house, break down my gate, seize my children, register them, forcefully vaccinate them, and put them in school. At this time they did not enter the premises.
4. After this, further letters from me to the Ministry of Health and to the PANI remained unanswered. These letters are part of the case file.
5. On September 2nd, 2011, I was summonsed to a hearing to take place at the civil court on September 6th, 2011. The PANI against me. Before the hearing I visited the court house to get specifics of the case, however, the clerk would not let me see any information pertaining to the case without me presenting any state issued ID. I then went to see the lawyer of the PANI, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, at her office. I enquired about any charges against me and she explained that the hearing was merely a means to get information about me and my family and that there were no charges.
6. On September 6th, 2011, I presented myself at the court with the citation in hand. Again the clerk would not let me see a copy of the case file without my presenting state issued ID. Nor would she let my witness, Connie Sandlin, see the case file even though Connie did present her cedula (ID). The Judge refused to hear me. Dr Cerdas was present and I offered that he could identify me as the person in flesh and blood to whom he had presented the 'Health Order' in June of same year. There had not been any number associated with me, on that occasion, cedula or other, simply my name and body with which I also presented myself at court on Sept. 6th, 2011. The judge refused to let Dr Cerdas identify me. His assistant dismissed me, telling me that the judge would inform me of further decisions.
7. Health and PANI officials throughout this process over the years never addressed me as a ward of the state. They addressed my flesh and blood, not a number. They intimidated me to my face or through a neighbor. Never was I presented with any written proof of a law that states, that I must have a state identity, nor that my children have must such. The state officials assumed that we are wards of the state with state identification numbers. I have, in a clear and unequivocal manner, informed them on various occasions in writing that I do not have state identification, nor do my children. The above mentioned officials have repeatedly neglected to provide me with proof of their jurisdiction over the lives of my children.
8. Two hours after the judge dismissed me from his court without giving me any charges, he showed up at my house with a coterie of officials who broke through my locked gate. Among those present were Dr Cerdas, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, and several representatives of the OIJ and local law enforcement. The police proceeded to ransack my house and in the process confiscated my computer, my cell phone, a video camera, family pictures, documents, and more.
9. For fear of what damage the officials might lawlessly do to me and to my family and their failure to answer even one of my written requests, and based on their previous use of threats and intimidation and their lack of proving their jurisdiction over the lives of my children, I was forced to physically protect my family from such lawless behavior and leave my home and sanctuary to seek refuge elsewhere. My only knowledge of what the court's intentions were up until then, consisted of the threats and intimidations provided by Lorena Duran of the PANI and by Dr Cerdas of the Ministry of Health. I had not received any communication from the courts other than the citation calling me to the hearing earlier the same day, which I had responded to out of respect for the court.
10. Chased away from the safety of our usual surroundings by the judge's unfounded and lawless home invasion and searching for a safer location, my daughter was swept away by a river we were attempting to cross on horseback. She died due to this circumstances.
11. The home invasion was based upon false testimony by Dr Cerdas, claiming that I refused to receive a 'Health Order'. (The judge had written proof in the case file that I had been willing to receive the 'Health Order' upon conditions). It was based upon Patricia Mesen Arroyo's wish to know my identity and that of my children. A mere wish from a public official is not probable cause and does not justify the issue of a search warrant. The home invasion was based upon Dr Cerdas' and Patricia Mesen's claim that I refused to provide them with vaccination records. I did not refuse, however, I could not do this as none exist and on several occasions in my notices to same officials do I state that I am not permitted to exercise such practices.
12. The home invasion was not based on any proof of the judge's jurisdiction over the lives of my children. Nor was it based upon any intent to prevent the commission of crimes or their impunity and the warrant was not issued by a competent judge as required by Article 23 of the Costa Rican Constitution. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda should have listened to me in the flesh and blood at the prescribed hearing earlier that same day. I was not given a chance to address the queries included in the search warrant which could have preempted such a drastic step. The speed with which the home invasion was organized leads me to believe that it was prearranged even before I presented myself to the court at 11 am that day in the flesh and blood.
13. In shock over my daughter's death and in an attempt to make life safe again for my four remaining children, I was persuaded to contact a lawyer, who would be my intermediary with the court since my witnesses had been told by Dr Cerdas that he did not have to answer any of my questions. In light of the judge's previous refusals to hear me in the flesh and blood and the failure of Dr Cerdas and Patricia Mesen to answer any of my queries, at the time this seemed like the only way to open dialogue with the judge.
14. During talks with the judge and the PANI's lawyer, Paricia Mesen Arroyo, my lawyer intermediary was told by the latter that if he could guarantee that my mother was not of the same religious persuasion as my husband and myself and if my mother would let the children be vaccinated, then Patricia Mesen Arroyo would be willing to consider leaving the children in my mother's care.
15. At this time I was able to procure a copy of the case file. Up until that point I had had no factual knowledge of the judge's intentions or of any charges against me. As it turned out there were no charges.
16. From the case file I learned that another reason for the home invasion was to find proof of formal schooling of my children. In at least one letter to the Ministry of health I stated that we were not permitted to receive "free" services such as "free" schooling or "free" vaccines. Not once was I requested to inform the Ministry nor the PANI of any proof of formal schooling, neither in writing nor orally. As such, one of Judge Sanchez Miranda's excuses for the home invasion had no basis.
17. In various notices and affidavits I state that my family and I have no contracts (cedulas or other) with the state that would give the state authority to force me to accept any such "free" services. I also ask the different officials to please provide proof of such contracts if they have any knowledge of their existence. They have yet to do this.
18. Judge Sanchez Miranda has not provided any lawful reasoning for the search of my home. The doubts stated in the search warrant could easily have been cleared up had the judge chosen to see me in the flesh a few hours earlier when I presented myself in his court with witnesses.
19. Judge Sanchez Miranda set a new hearing date in October where I was to show up with my children.
20. Realizing that this was to entrap my children and myself and that once in the confines of the court house I would be subject to more hostile actions, I decided to stay away from the hearing. Instead I sent a notice with the lawyer stating why I could not go and that the court still had not proven jurisdiction over the lives of my children nor mine. As it turned out, my fears of hostile actions were real as nurses from the health ministry were there, ready to take action against my children and against my will and over my objections.
21.When I failed to show up at the hearing, Judge Sanchez Miranda issued a sentence. I only became aware of this sentence one month ago, when somebody went to the court house to get a copy of the case file. My intermediary had not been notified. (The court had attempted to do so only twice without success according to an updated copy of the case file, which I received on Feb.15th.)
22. According to the sentence, the judge orders that my children be forcefully vaccinated, that they be forcefully interned by the PANI, and he orders that an exit ban be put on me and my children. I am also described as totally failing to cooperate. My presence in the flesh and blood on September 6th, 2011, contests to the contrary, as well do my continued responses to public officials' queries.
23. In the sentence the judge talks of my children as though they may not be mine because I have not proven with state ID that they are. Nobody else has laid claim to them or has presented any proof that they might not be mine but somebody else's.
24. According to the public prosecutor, the reason for the search warrant to be issued was for authorities to investigate the possible crime of "failing to comply with a health order". I have not been charged with such a crime, not before nor after the home invasion!! This alleged crime is not mentioned in the sentence # 190-11. Search was not only unsubstantiated but also an unlawful search lacking probable cause on behalf of the judge and Patricia Mesen Arroyo of the PANI who applied for it.
25. Neither, Dr Cerdas, Patricia Mesen nor the judge has bothered to get any information about who I am or who my children are from people who might know us. Only one person, who knows me and my children personally, has been contacted in this matter by the OIJ who performed the search of my home. Police officer Willian Astua Mora of the local police force was contacted after the search of my home. He describes us as a family who never has had any trouble with anybody and my children as very well educated and hardworking. (See OIJ report DM-115-11-ORP of September 13 2011, point Two in case file)
26. Neither Dr Cerdas, Patricia Mesen, nor the judge has bothered to contact the CIMA hospital about my son's visit there in July. If they had, they would have learned that the reason for the visit was a suspicion of appendicitis that turned out to be just a case of painful gas. If they had asked the doctor there, they would have been told that the findings of high levels of eosinofilos may have different reasons, one of which could be, but not necessarily was, a propensity for allergies.
27. As a basis for the claims of my in-cooperation, Patricia Mesen Arroyo refers to health inspectors' visit to my home on March 3rd, 2011 (page 2 of case file). She claims that I on this occasion stated that my children get vaccinated in Denmark. Patricia Mesen states that according to neighbors, I had been living in my home for three years and never traveled to any other country.
28. The visit in question actually took place on March 3rd, 2001, (page 11 of case file). At this point we had been living in the country for less than one year. I referred to the fact that we were going to be travelling to Denmark within two months and that my father there, who is a doctor, took care of our medical attention. I did not claim that they were to get vaccinated. I did not lie about the trip either, as we did travel to Denmark in May and returned in June.
29. Patricia Mesen Arroyo's allegation that I had claimed to get the children vaccinated in Denmark is false.
30. According to article 11 of the CR constitution, public servants are subservient to the constitution, yet all actions of the public officials in this case are contrary to their subservience. Dr. Cerdas and other public servants refuse to answer our questions stating they ' do not have to'. This is incongruent with article 27 of the Costa Rican Constitution.
31. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda has assumed the role of prosecutor and judge at the same time. He is completely incompetent as per the rules of competency (article 23) and has no probable cause of a crime. The judge has in his possession the entire case file and refuses to acknowledge the jurisdictional failures. Judge Miranda continued as if he had administrative powers over us involving contracts or other state registration. However, as pointed out repeatedly the prosecution or plaintiff LACKED jurisdiction over the flesh in question.
32. The representatives of the state refuse to prove jurisdiction over my children.
33. Dr. Cerdas told us that a Tribunal would make the decisions regarding the health order. According to Constitution article 35, ‘No one may be tried by a commission, a court or a judge specially appointed for the case, but exclusively by the courts established in accordance with this Constitution.’
34. We have not waived constitutional rights through registration or contract. This tribunal, failing to have a prosecutor prove jurisdiction, suggests that the process is an administrative tribunal operating under the assumption that the jurisdiction has been proven.
35. Judge Sanchez Miranda’s actions have frustrated my ability to respond with the principles of subpeona duces tecum or coram nobis (writ of error). A prosecutor did not exist in the civil process against me, to enable the judge to issue the subpeoena duces tecum and a trial did not occur for a coram nobis to have validity. The absence of a prosecutor did not stop Judge Sanchez Miranda from prosecuting, sentencing and annihilating my family and our lives. Judge Sanchez Miranda elected to use an administrative tribunal rather than a court in accordance to article 35 of the constitution to determine the fate of my family. Judge (Sanchez Miranda) has compromised his competency and as such we have no venue to establish any defense motion. The judge of this tribunal has been made aware of and has possession of all our notices and averments. Judge Sanchez Miranda has full capacity to comprehend that the plaintiff has not negated nor made any rebuttals to our averments surrounding the issue of jurisdiction over the person(s) in question. In fact the plaintiff has made no opportunity to open any dialogue to rebut our testimonies.
36. Judge Sanchez Miranda has these affidavits and constructive notices in his possession. These notices make multiple references to constitutional law, biblical law and maxims of law for the purpose of clarity and reason, regarding jurisdiction over my children, yet Judge Sanchez Miranda dismisses these testimonies as ‘evasive’. Understandably, our ability to actuate constitutional rights is uncommon, but constitutional rights cannot be construed as evasive.
37. Judge Sanchez Miranda continues to favor the wishes of the plaintiff in the face of jurisdictional failures and with the full knowledge that not one public servant involved, had the honor or the courtesy to acknowledge our attempt to resolve their grievance. This contempt of the constitution is vandalism of law and reminiscent of the same malevolence of the judicial defendants who were tried in the Nuremberg trials in 1945-46.
38. The application of Coram Nobis, writ of error, or corpus non judice has been impaired by the court of Judge Sanchez Miranda as this judge has assumed the court as an administrative tribunal of the United Nations over and above my jurisdictional averments and as such is in violation of article 35 and article 23.
39. Questioning the authorities’ jurisdiction under articles 11, 27 and 35 cannot be converted into a crime or be considered evasive tactics, lest the authorities refuse to recognize their servitude to the national constitution. Instead of any form of open dialogue for the purpose of clarifying our multiple constructive notices, Judge Sanchez Miranda chose to prove his jurisdiction by using naked force. Had it not been for the judge's coercive tactics of invading my home without probable cause added to Dr.Cerdas and PANI official’s threats, we would have remained in our secure surroundings of Barbacoas and never had had to travel on unfamiliar horses in unfamiliar terrain and under unfamiliar weather conditions.
40. As this affidavit and general statement of truth and facts is public record, it should be well understood that the constitutional and Biblical vandalism mentioned in this document has been perpetrated by a small coterie of malevolent bureaucrats. This group purports to be the law contrary to their subservience of the law. These people do not make law. These bureaucrats are obligated by article 11 of the Constitution to follow the law and the hierarchy of law, as they are servants of the nation (the people).
41. It is our duty to our friends and neighbors to protect the law and the constitution as per article 18 and 19. It is widely misunderstood that the law and the constitution protect people, while in fact it is the nation (people) who must protect the law and the constitution. Our resistance to unconstitutional acts by the plaintiff and judge shall not be construed as a resistance to legitimate constitutional authority. The authority must be valid and not stem from foreign tribunals that lack jurisdiction over the subject matter in question.