Patricia Mesen Arroyo makes her conclusions (Por Tanto) and demands based upon all the previous incorrect citations and specious, out of context statements. She returns to article 55 of the constitution which, of course, I no longer need to belabor, rights vs. entitlements.
Then she erroneously cites article 25, which of course is our primary protection from them. These constitutional articles precede her stated codes. If invalid, or she is unable to prove civil jurisdiction whereby these codes apply, the claim fails.
She begins with United Nations contracted children's rights (mandatory obligations) as if those children are under the registration of a sheltered regime, PANI codes, children & adolescent codes and civil health codes. In fact, she states we are in violation of 17 codes.
Without proving the civil jurisdiction, she might as well state K-Mart parking regulations.
Patricia Mesen Arroyo ignores the first step of jurisdictional proof, and assumes that because we do not have any such documentation identifying a civil contract, we are refusing to give it to her. She cannot comprehend the laws that govern process. Instead, she assumes that she must protect our children from us according to her religion, the Humanist United Nations. That is a leap of psychology that indicates narcissism. A conflict of principles that can only be resolved in one's head by believing you are superior to another human. As such, she now solicits the court to aid her in creating a SEARCH WARRANT for registration, identification and health documents. This search warrant is based upon her allegation that we refused to give them health documents and identification, but we cannot produce what does not exist. Her application for search warrant is also based on Dr. Cerdas' perjury that we refused to receive his sanitation order.
We have told them why the health documents and registration do not exist, and incredibly, this incorrigible woman cites article 25 in her summary. Article 25 does not support, but destroys her claim. Arroyo lies when she says we will not receive their health order. That is an issue for another post. We are not in defect of this order, because we did not refuse to receive the order. We conditionally accepted that order and that was witnessed by the police man, the driver and Dr. Cerdas.
Patricia Mesen Arroyo also makes the startling statement of error when she claims in her notice that the country is "ours." That is semantically incorrect by virtue of multiple articles of the constitution, particularly the preamble, articles 2, 4 and 75. In fact, Costa Ricans themselves own no more than what they personally own, and collectively, they own no more than what they own individually. Collectively, they are the sovereigns over their government. However that does not give the people more power than they have as individuals. IE: two neighbors cannot get together and legalize the plunder of a third neighbor. As such, constitutional protections to prevent such plunder are in place so that law illiterates cannot make 2+2=5. This means that the collective cannot own more power than that of the individual. This is the prime reason for law and constitutions to exist. That, by the way, is not my opinion, it their writings found in the preamble of the constitution, article 75, and finally in Psalms, Exodus, Genesis and Corinthians. I did not write any of those words, others scribed these principles and the corporate government of Costa Rica, via their officials, agreed by civil contract to abide by these adhesions (preamble and article 75) for fear of consequences in articles 2, 4 and others. It ensures that the masses cannot strip the minority of their rights, even if 99% agree with the plunder.