The final tool PANI executive attorneys Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos use to attempt to prove their control over my children is the United Nations Rights of the Child, article 3. This is an enabling clause that instructs parties to the covenant to police the 'parental duties.' Take note of the important terms used to define "duty." We can define duty through the civil equity principles of the Law of Obligations. Duty cannot be ascribed to anybody without their acquiescence, lest there is a violation of law. A criminal will owe a duty to pay a fine, for example, and his consent is not required. However, any law that does not follow the preamble of the constitution must be adhered through civil contracts. That does require consent. That is why 13.3 discusses the 'will' of the parent. It is at this point where the parent consents to the jurisdiction of the government inside of limited liability schemes, which then falls under further contract with the United Nations. If the child is not registered, the state may attempt to use marriage license to assume control of the child. The state will attempt to do anything to get control of that asset (the child) because the asset can be used as surety for debt. That, by the way, is prohibited as a 'crime en mal.' It is kind of surreal because the United Nations is worried about selling children and prostitution and such, which is exactly what the state is intending to do by selling the child into surety for loans to pay for the lust of the state today.
For the sake of brevity, we will not go any further here than to examine, once again, the preamble. State parties to the present convention...have agreed as follows. Everything in between and following is irrelevant because this covenant deals with state parties. Not men, nor their children. Thus, if you have a contract with a state party evidenced by a SS number, SIN, or cedula, now this applies to you. You are a contracting party to the state and the state has the power to give away your political rights to the United Nations. The United Nations is private, civil law conducted by contract just like it says here.
You see, my good friends, this is how we control government. We simply do not participate. We cannot tell others to stop participating, but we cannot be forced into any association what so ever. If indeed a law is involved, it must be adjudicated in either a civil or criminal setting.
This means we are not 'above the law' as some legal illiterates believe. No, we can be held under Romans 13 when indeed there is a tort, trespass, or civil crime. We simply have to define the terms and recognize that much of that which is called law are civil statutes and contained in civil procedure which is spoken in the language of equity. Simply put, if it is not in accordance with the preamble of the constitution, then it must be consented to.
If any such statute or code is offensive to you, measure it against Acts 5:29 to see if it is compulsory or simply obligatory. You may be surprised at the number of laws that require you to re-liege so the authorities do not offend the preamble of the constitution. The simple perfection of this is realized that we are afforded a choice. Even the idol worshippers are given a choice to worship what they wish, but equally , those wishing to worship nothing more than the primary law are equally afforded that choice.
To find the truth, we must define the terms.