9/17/12 American Human Rights Charter, article 19

On August 29, 2011, PANI executive attorneys, Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos, use American Human Rights Charter article 19 in part to prove the obligatory nature of vaccines to be administered to my children. This implies that this article overrides my parental authority. Let's examine this.

Article 19. Rights of the Child
Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.

Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights
1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, "person" means every human being.

In recognizing the primary function of jurisdiction over an individual man, one must define the terms. Terms are used in many instances in obfuscated ways to deceive people into entering contracts whereby an individual gives up something without knowing it in order for the offerer to gain an advantage over his prey. Con men use language mastery to gain their mark's confidence. So let's look FIRST, as always, at the preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights cited by PANI officials as a method to force our children to adhere to their religious rituals.

The preamble makes it very clear the various protections man has from the authors of this treaty. The preamble speaks of these protections as evident truths that apply to man. It is well thought out and logical. Then they move on to the body of the charter whereby the first article defines who the charter affects. ('Who' is within the jurisdiction of the charter.)

1. States party to the convention.

2. Persons (not men) subject to the jurisdiction. Man cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the state without first establishing a juristic persona; a token which identifies a comprehensive agreement between the man and the state. This contract will be identified by title (your given name and family appellation capitalized) and number (ss number, cedula, etc.) This identification does not identify the man, it identifies a token which is subject to the jurisdiction. You, the man, are responsible for the token's activities by your own willingness to contract with the state, which is a voluntary action.

Essentially, the covenant does not apply to man, but applies to personas and, in fact, the preamble exhaustively explains this. Further clarification comes at the beginning in article 1 where the authors of the covenant define what a person is: "For the purpose of the convention "person" means every human being."

This is extremely deceptive speech because it implies that every man is affected, like it or not, which would offend the law of God, which many contracting states (such as Costa Rica) have established in their constitutions. If we exhaustively define the terms, we establish where the slight of hand is really a forked tongue. A human being is not what you think it is.

That is why none of this charter offends the God of Israel in any way. They are stating clearly that none of this charter applies to man, but instead these rules are for players called persons. Persons are juristic creations even if they are natural. A natural person would be a contracted man, a corporate person is a corporation. These personifications are imperative for the system to operate and for us to play sandbox with our invisible masters. However, no one is forced to play.

Article 19 speaks of 'the' child, but does not designate ownership. Due to marriage licenses, the product of the marriage defaults as state property, as two willing players (man and wife) create a three party contract with the state. It is assumed any children of the persons are party to the covenant. Article 35 of the Costa Rican constitution states that, "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." However, commissions and private tribunals (courts of no record or an administrative court) can rule on the matters of private civil law. This convention is private law and it is binding on state parties which, in turn, apply these regulations on their citizens. It moves on to mention when and where and how the participants to this contract will NOT receive these fuzzy, warm guarantees and that any of these guarantees are at the behest of the executive committee. Read carefully articles 29 and 30...in fact, read everything.

So, none of this applies to my family, as we are not registered with the state which, under article 7, contracts with this commission. The government of Costa Rica and its citizens are bound by their contracts and the people obviously love their bondage, otherwise they would rescind their contracts by the civil equitable law of rescission. That's ok by me, I do not decide what others should do, as for me, I choose not to play. (I also do not get any free goodies.)

So, once again, the PANI executive office including Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos fail to establish jurisdiction over my children using this document.

Next up, article 3 on the convention of the rights of the child.