Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda declares that health and education are more important than religion. By saying this he precludes the authority of the constitution he has taken an oath to uphold by promoting himself as the superior power mentioned in the preamble. This sua sponte self promotion places Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda to be the supreme authority over the sovereign he has taken an oath to serve. The lawful ability for a judge to opine on a matter of what flavor of state permitted religions are restricted is predicated upon the individual first waiving his right to the preamble through registration. At that point, the individual permits judicial opinion to reign supreme over his life and such state permitted religions can be restricted to the decree of the new ruler. However, such action is only by the consent of the governed. Any act that would prevent an individual from exercising the rights granted by the God of Israel mentioned in the preamble would be an act of open treason to those he has taken an oath to serve.
Interestingly, in most cultures religion determines what form of health and education practices apply. However, this judge determines that statism and United Nations' religion is superior to the God of the Costa Rican constitution and thus breaches his own oath to that constitution. That is the CORE reason why he could not address Birgitte in the flesh. He can ONLY create the illusion that we selected statism over the preamble law so that he may impress the laws set out by the United Nations and practiced by those who have practiced statism by civil contract evidenced by registry.
1) Religion predicates education and health in many cultures, so if he determines that we cannot practice some form of education and health system, the judge is determining what God we are allowed to follow and which God we are not. The pledge the judge made to the constitution is predicated upon his accepting subservience to the God of Israel. Therefore, the judge is in breach of his oath of office.
These are not my words or pledge, it is theirs. I am simply heeding it and evidenced that after twelve years of living in Costa Rica, we never violated anyone else that we have been made aware of as reiterated in our affidavit. So, under the constitutional law, including the preamble, he judge can limit a religious activity such as cannibalism or blood drinking, but he cannot limit an activity that is concurrent with the model that the constitution is founded upon. A judicial opinion is only applicable either a) where the civil law has been entered into by religious contract, or b) where proof of a broken scriptural law can be found. Without registration, the judge is limited to scriptural law in his adjudication. The judge knows this because he refused to see my wife for fear that she would expose the limits of his authority.
2) The fact that we never claimed a religious exemption or made any religious presentation makes the judge outlining religion as the basis of his private home invasion not logical. He certainly did not outline what religion we were not allowed to observe. Israelites are a race, not a religion; 99.9% of Israelites do not practice the laws given to them as they have chosen otherwise. To understand that, one must know who Isrealites are, who they are not and who the law is afforded to. This, blended with the preamble of the constitution may come as quite a surprise for those willing to do the historical research. Quite evidently, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda has decided that he knows the mind of God, yet refuses to allow us to practice those laws.
3) Our issue is not one of religion, but of jurisdiction and adherence to the laws that the judge has pledged an oath to. That preamble ALLOWS for people to reliege and bind themselves voluntarily to state codes, but that remains a choice that is not widely understood and the masters of the judiciary (article 7) prefer to keep it that way. That is the reason he writes the fraudulent orders in assumpsit that he has followed protocol, but indeed has not followed protocol. JUDGE CARLOS MANUEL SANCHEZ MIRANDA is the name of the judge that made the determination that the God of Israel shall NOT be ALLOWED in Costa Rica.
4) The only rights that can be limited are our God given rights when we violate the law of God. For example, if the judge can prove we broke a scriptural health law or a scriptural law dealing with child education, then he would be well within his authority in Romans 13.5. Failing that, he or the other friends of the United Nations or state of Costa Rica attorneys must prove their civil jurisdiction by establishing their rightful claim over us or our property, including the subject matter of jurisdiction over our children. Our affirmative defense, established by affidavits and constructive notices, puts the burden of proof on them. The affiant and judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda knew this and could not provide that proof. However, nothing gets in the way of a narcissist, because such limitation on authority would burst the omnipotent persona they have created for themselves. The narcissist views this as an attack on his persona instead of the correct judicial logic of an affirmative defense. It is widely recognized by psychologists that the narcissist must protect the ego at all cost by eliminating the threat to his power.