Cutting out the superfluous legalese we can reduce the matter to this:
The new addition of 'OBLIGATORY' to the law (civil code or contract) interferes with the nature of free will in article 28. This then conflicts with article 18 which states that the people must adhere with the constitution. Article 129 establishes that laws passed shall be adhered to as law IN ACCORDANCE WITH OTHER LAWS THAT GOVERN THE LAW PASSED.
All law is contract, even the law of God was given to us as a choice. No man or group of men can arbitrarily deprive anyone from this choice, without consent. That is observed in the preamble of the constitution.
The court examines whether the new amendment to 'oblige' all clients of the law interferes with 'autonomy of freewill' adduced in article 28. A simple dilemma with an even simpler answer that cannot be divulged lest the keys to the system be revealed.
I agree with the court's conclusion that states the new amendment to 'obligate' citizens and other civil clients under the code does NOT interfere with their right to autonomy of free will in article 28. The clients have already enthusiastically agreed to the obligation by registering to receive their entitlements. The issue is moot as the obligation exists as the people have consented. The cedula (ss#) is the highest form of evidence of that consent.
However, the path of logic that the court follows to make this conclusion drifts away from law and into supposition and non sequiturs. Very clever, very subversive. The judge's rationale to throw a red herring and keep the public in a state confusion where conversely the key law in the focus of constitutional rights is rooted in scripture and cited in the preamble of the constitution. The assembly redirects its rationale so that the source of all rights do not come from the scriptures, but come from the United Nations which believes it is the highest power in law. The United Nations does not subscribe to any entity more supreme than itself. The United Nations is claiming to be the source of all supremacy and the judicial body involved in amendment 2000-11648 agrees. The implication is that the lack of infringement of article 28 is not based upon the law of obligation established by consent in article 13, but instead by virtue of the omnipotence and self evident values imposed by the United Nations.
This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the following. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." No one, therefore, shall have any rights if the enjoyment of them conflicts with the United Nations' desires.
What the Costa Rica national assembly omits in 2000-11648 is that the entire strength of the United Nations is predicated upon contracting nations and those nations achieve their power by the consent of the governed and that consent is encapsulated in registrations. The reason the ecclesiastic nature of the preambles in constitutions around the world is they make reference to the God of Israel as the supreme word of law. The God of Israel gave us a choice whom to serve, and the United Nations (a small coterie of rich men) impose their dictates as they emasculate all religion under one guiding counsel of men.
The shift from the Law and entry into the legalese zone for purposes of hiding the truth begins with a dissertation on privacy of the client in the health care system being breached in favor of protecting the public from infectious diseases. Further shift occurs when the claim that there is injury to the deputies as they cannot perform their mandates to protect the public of the law remains facultative to the obligation of vaccines. IE, how can the deputies guarantee the health if vaccines are not obligatory? The deputies claim injury for the lack of clarification due to constitutionality of the idea of obligatory.
This blurring of rational almost appears credible as similar issues have come up in the United States. IE 'what about the people's privacy in the medical records? A ridiculous precept, because who wants to keep their medical info private from a doctor or the government anyway? The fact is, if you have a Social Security number, you are a 14th amendment citizen and you are in, both feet, so their is NO privacy, and that is logical, legal and lawful. That is also a red herring for people to not see the keys to understand their relationship with a civil government system. Article 24, like the 4th amendment indicates that there must be a reasonable expectation to privacy and that expectation must be viewed by the public as reasonable. So how can you worry about withholding information from the health ministry after you have contracted with them to play doctor? You can have your privacy. Rescind your SS number.
There is no law in Costa Rica, or the United States or any other Mosaic law system, that forces anyone into a contract that limits their God given responsibilities. This is elucidated in the foundational statement of the preamble of the constitution of Costa Rica and further recognizes which God they are talking about in article 75. They are not talking about mother Gaia, the sun god, tree god or any other pantheistic hallucination.
The legislature further discussing 2000-11648 goes on to introduce more non sequiturs into the decision to blur the real jurisdictional connection. He mentions that these international treaties create duties and impositions onto the citizens in order to protect the health of others. This precludes the principles spoken of in the preamble and essentially pitts the United Nations as the new god of Costa Rica, because the God of Israel is not in favor of such collective schemes. The judge continues the non sequitor by suggesting that no right of the individual is so limitless the the necessity to protect the interests of another are restricted. Therefore, since there is an assumption is that they are dealing with obligees, post hoc ergo propter hoc, this ruling is used in our case, insinuates we are treading on the rights of others by not being registered with Costa Rica which in turn registers with the United Nations putting us in an assumpsit jurisdiction.
Accordingly, by virtue of the assumption, we have an allegiance to the United Nations, the collective interest is superior to the freedom of the individual. Association with the United Nations appears mandatory according to 2000-11648. This association limits liability and offers entitlements. Now that's quite a statement since the collective is another non self-referencing entity and someone must speak on its behalf to claim injury.
That is the way to subvert law, yet be in accordance with it. Non sequitors and post hoc ergo propter hoc rational.
Lets recap why obligatory vaccines have been passed by the legislature. The obligatory vaccines do not infringe with the right to privacy or the right of autonomy of will because the United Nations have created treaties that impose obligations and duties on all citizens that they must receive health care for the health of others.
These duties, imposed on the individual, allow the collective to become a superior entity in importance, a very popular United Nation mode of thought today. However, it does not hold any capacity as these conclusions are non sequitors, because of the law of obligations. Any and all obligations stem from a duty which stems from a debtor, creditor relationship that has subject matter in law and a vinculum (legal reason.)
What does this mean and how does this apply to us?
It means that despite the national assembly coming to the correct conclusion, it has no rational position in claiming that one contracting entity contracting with another entity can dictate over a third entity when no obligation arrises.
However, what judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda avoids is the simple truth that creates the lawful constitutionality of obligatory vaccines not based upon the obligation arising from the consent evidenced by registration with the entity making the offer, but by unilateral declarations made by an entity by which all people are assumed to have assumpsit obligations. The fact that they are using this amended law 2000-11648 in part to prove jurisdiction over us is tantamount to saying the obligation is due to our duty to the United Nations. I require proof that we are debtors to the United Nations. I will accept any obligation to the United Nations pending proof that a debtor, creditor claim with subject matter and vinculum exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment