Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's 430 word sentence includes the following 14 principles:
1) The judge questions if it is viable to give more time for 'the lady' to voluntarily proceed to vaccinate. Time, an element in contract law, as well as any obligation to vaccinate is established under the law of obligations.
2) The fact that the judge notes that she has not volunteered to choose vaccinate acknowledges the civil principles of the law of obligations: Once volunteered, the obligation takes effect.
3) The judge notes that 'the lady' has delayed the process in a prudent manner yet makes no attempt to rebut that prudent manner and once again cites months of time in wait for a voluntary action. This reference to time negates the concept of 'exigent' search warrant status as obviously there is no life or death status witnessed by the fact that they would have broken down our gate on July 26, 2011 which they refrained from due to the consent required under civil search rules.
4) In defense of his decision to apply for and authorize a new search warrant, as the old one expired at 6 PM on July 26, 2011, the judge suggests that his actions are not arbitrary. This would be obvious if protocol is followed so why suggest it? Of course, proper protocol with any new search warrant would require probable cause of a felonious action. Not volunteering to obligate yourself is not a felony.
5) The judge implies that if 'the lady' had not volunteered in the time given a process would be set in motion, which again suggests is beyond his control.
6) That as the time elapses, the ability to locate the children diminishes. This implies that there is some criminal action afoot. Thus any action of movement with our children at this point is assumed to be evasive even though no due process has been followed.
7) The judge claims that 'the lady' is separating the children from PANI and the Ministry of Health from their assignment of administering the obligatory entitlements.
8) The judge claims that the mother does not take care of the children's health needs because we seek to not subscribe to pharmaceutical vaccines as an intelligent, proper health requisite.
9) The judge notes that the children are at risk of getting deadly diseases (chicken pox, measles, whooping cough, polio, tetanus) infers that the judge (self imposed prosecutor) is prepared to prove that claim as a fact both scientifically and statistically and that there are not other remedies and preventative measures that are not more effective. Further to this that his apparent statement of fact lacks any proof of a criminal activity or civil breach and further that the risk assessment has been voluntarily given to the state via registration for said entitlements. Without the registration, the prosecutor's (judge's) claim remains opinion, lacking jurisdiction.
10) He suggests that 'the lady' is not actually the mother and that these children maybe illegitimately in her charge,. This is, of course is a serious matter and an issue that was never ascribed in the original charge, but now that the new affiant, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda makes the claim that 'the lady' is not the mother puts the burden of proof of that charge squarely on Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda.
11) The judge observes that 'the lady' is aloof regarding state identification of the children which is somehow unlawful. In fact we made very clear, in the "prudent manner" noted by the judge, that the children are NOT registered accordingly as per 13.3 of the constitution.
12) That 'the lady' has not given any documentation describing her legal status in the country which is a)incorrect as we entered into the court a document that described in great detail our position regarding our status as well as our INTENT, and b) irrelevant to the subject matter originally presented by the ministry of health compliant regarding vaccines.
13) The judge infers that this migratory status burdens the children because our status is a requisite to the obligatory nature of the vaccines (cannot disagree with that). Here he admits there is an obstacle of jurisdiction.
14) That the obligatory vaccines govern the Costa Rican State. When in fact the constitution governs the Costa Rican state and the vaccine/health statutes govern those who subscribe to those entitlements.
That we are negating the entitlemens by way of using a constitutional imposition. (cannot disagree with that, but somehow inferring this is wrong.)
There is more to this search warrant application/justification, but these points were included in a single sentence which required deconstruction for clarity.