11/29/11 Constructive Notice

The following constructive notice was submitted to the court in Puriscal, Costa Rica by our friends on September 5 ,2011 the day after our friends were given the citation to appear in court.

I, the bearer of this notice, in the flesh and blood, hereby make the following declaration of truth, acts, testimony, and understanding of circumstances for the purpose and intent of seeking a remedy and cure for any tort, complaint, allegation or breach of contract presented to me. Matthew5:25; CR constitution article 30.

I am of sound mind and although I may seek council of my choice, I do not seek, require or demand a state licenced attorney, nor will I accept any appointment of representation nor waive any rights.

In no way should the intent of this notice be vitiated by way of lack of form, lack of state approved notary signature, lack of state approved stationery as I wish to recieve no state benefits nor create reciprocal obligations for recieving any benefits. As such, this notice will be made as any common man can state his truth. Just as any judicial writ does not fail through defect of form. The intent and facts herein this notice shall not be degraded by clerical error or use of form. 'Breve judicial non cadit defectu forme'.

Although I have made my best effort to offer clear translations; any mistranslation or nebulous term shall not be used to semantically alter the substance of my intentions. 'Mala grammatica non vitiat chartum'.

I speak for my family in this document and as such may use the term "we", being myself, my wife and my children where appropriate.

In this notice I make many references to Biblical Law as we have been made aware by public official that the Laws of Costa Rica respect the Law of God. Thus I recognise the Laws of God to be antecedent, thus supercede the laws of the state unless I expressly consent otherwise to re-liege. 'Nunquam res humanae propere succedunt ubi negliguntur divinae.' Acts 5:29; Constitution CR Article 75.

Although I do make many references to the Constitution of Costa Rica, these are observations and merely corelative or coincidental and for purpose of cognitive awareness only, as I make no constitutional applications or claims nor desire to use the constitution as protective mechanism as the constitution is not a covenant made by me but made by and for its authors. 'Leges suum ligent latorum.'

I make many references in Latin as this language is immutable and not subject to semantic manipulation, thus offers a clear undertanding and path

My children are my property and their lives are entrusted to me. I am charged with the responsibility of protecting those lives that they be as I train them in the ways of proper service. C.R. Const. article 45; article 21; U.N. article 17(2); Psalm 127:3-5; Genesis 33:5; Isaiah 8:18; Proverbs 22:6.

Any actions of the state to damage those lives either physically or psychologically will be viewed as a tort. CR article 45; article 21.

In no way do I relinquish authority, custody of my children to the state and in no way is the state to assume my children or other properties and chattles are salvage or maritime prizes for the purpose of confiscation. Any such act will be viewed as an unlawfull taking. Article 45; Ephisians 6:1-4; Exodus 20:15, 21:16.

Any use of my children for the purpose of coercion or enhancing the state's bargaining powers will be viewed as an act of terrorism. Article 11

We ask NOTHING of the state.

I do not purport to be a 'sovereign'. CR Article 3

I recognise the sovereignty to the state of CR as well as the sovereignty of the God of Israel. CR article 2.

I am attempting to conduct myself and arrange the conduct of my family in such a way as to follow the rules of both sovereigns for the purpose of being in accordance with rules of peaceful conduct and submission to well behaved government as well as faithful servants to the God of Israel. 'Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam.' Acts 5:29.

I do not vote or seek to be involved in political issues.

We do not practice idolatry nor seek involvement in religious assemblies and/or controversies. Exodus 20-3; article 19.

We do not seek/demand the state to be responisble for our health care, education, pensions, insurances, security, for these are matters of strict liability. As such the state shall make no assumption that they are to force us to limit that which God gave us as positive Law responsibilities. As such we are strictly liable for these social imperatives under the Laws and guidance of the God of Israel. Galatians 6:5, Timothy 6:5.

I, in no way purport to be in perfection of following all law, for I am in constant state of learning new facts. Although ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law favors the ignorant of facts. 'Lex succurit ignoranti'.

I have no knowledge of any contracts or quasi contractual obligations that were not made out of duress, coersion, or uneven bargaining power which bind me lawfully. 'L'obligation sans cause, ou sur une fausse cause, ou sur cause illicite, ne peut avoir aucun effet'.

I have no intention to make CR my permantent residence or permanent habitation.

I have no intention to make covenants with, or beome contractually obligated with the state's social programs which limit my liabilities and responsibilities by way of article 25 of the Consitution of CR. 1 John 5:21.

I am an Israelite practicing Israelite law as permitted by article 75 of the constitution of C.R.

I do recognise the requirement to submit to the government and Laws of CR when they are in accordance with God's Law for the purpose of peace and order. Romans 13; Acts 5-29.

I do recognise my obligation to follow God's law over man's law when government statute are not in accordance with God's law. Acts 5:29, Daniel 6:13

To contract, or make covenant (pledge alliegance) with a foreign god to engage in activities such as usury, is prohibited by the God of Israel and considered idolatry, thus waives His protection. However, I freely submit to authority on matters criminal and or civil/private contract law. 1st Corinthians 10:12-14, Romans 13:1, Proverbs 22:26, 1 Samuel:8.

We would be in violation of Gods idolatry laws (First commandment) if we were to pledge allegiance to a new liege (King or rule maker) or contract with a new sovereign which would in effect replace God's social covenants with new political social policies that burden other men by shifting my responsibilities to other men. Galatians 6:5, 1 Timothy 5:8, 1 Corinthians 3:8.

If any man or officer of the body politic is damaged by my application of Law, please allow that individual to make claim and that any writ of habeas corpus be satisfied, so that I make immediate offer to re-concile voluntarily, for I am unaware of any such complaints or charges. If any corporate entity, juristic artifice, group, or association of men is claiming a breach of contract in equity, please allow that entity to bring forth the contract in question, that it may be examined, and that I may offer voluntary opportunity to respond for the purpose of just reconciliation. If such claim is made, but not volunteered to me that I may understand, and observe the lawfullness of such claim, a subponena duces tecum and plea in abatement and general demand for a bill of particulars will be my only recourse. Article 48.

Be it known that we have acted in accord and attended promptly to any charge, citation or summons presented to us. In any controversy present ourselves voluntarily and with out prejudice that the matter may have a swift resolution. No undue force will be required in any dealing with us. Article 37.

I have no knowledge of damaging any entity, real or artificial.

I have no intent to damage any entity, real or artificial.

I object to any summary judgement that damages me and/or my family prior to my making first opportunity to excercise a reconciliation through due process, in the form of verified complaints, writ of habeas corpus, knowledge of jurisdictional venue (civil/criminal), and the just examination of any presummed contracts.

I understand the State of CR is a man made association empowered by the consent of the people of this nation to carry out the laws of the state and such an organization cannot have more power than that of its individual creators. 'Derivita potestas non potest esse major primativa'.

If no damages to a man in the flesh are presented, then I can assume only damages to an artificial entity are available to pursue and that such damages are civil damages and the result of broken covenants.

I understand that the government is charged with the responsibility of adjudicating both criminal and civil breaches.

I understand that damages to a man in the flesh or violations of God's Law are crimes 'mal en se' and no contracts may be involved. However crimes 'en prohibita' or crimes against stautes where no habeas corpus is evident, result in civil (private law) adjudication. If a breach of a public code is the case, then such application requires that contract is involved.

If the public code is in violation of Gods Laws, then the code must be consented to by way of covenant and agreement, allowing the creation of a superior covenant with a new sovereign understanding that the state codes may be in effect. Article 75, 19, Acts 5:29.

I recognise the residency contract violates several of God's Laws, primarily the first Commandment as well as God's laws involving social security, health, surety, usury, and theft via limited liability.

I recognise the general use of undue influence by the state to 'encourage' foreigners to re-liege or waive exisiting rights for no consideration. 'Nullus jus alienum foris facere'. Article 19-20-25.

I recognise the state may use the constitution as an 'illusory' consideration if indeed the constitution is unaccessible by a foreigner if the constitution is waived. 'Nuda pactio obligationemnon parit'.

I recognise that article 19 has limitations set by other laws, which in effect may nullify and make 'illusory' the constitution for practical purpose of the intent of the document, yet article 20 has NO such limitation prescribed by law.

I recognize the state and officials are under prior constitutional duties that cannot be construed or sold as consideration. They exist as law prior to the creation of an immigration contract. 'Omnia quae jure contrahuntur contrario jure pereunte. CR article 11.

The immigration/ visitor visa contract is summarily a naked contract. 'Nuda pactio obligationem non parit'. There is no apparent consideration that is not already a constitutional right to which immigration officials are previously bound, article 11, article 19.

Any contract that voids a right (particularily under color of law) by virtue of duress does not create equitable consent. 'Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus'.

Hence the recipricol duties in the visitor visa contract that do not detract from law such as forcible exit every 90 days beome an exercise in vanity as the contract lacks consideration. 'Quad vanum inutile est, lex non requirit'.

To freely reject association with any assembly does not suffer restriction as any forced association might imply coersion which the state regards as 'illegal'. Article 25, article 11.

There is presumption prior to entering CR that the constitution of CR applies to foreigners as there is reference to foreigners receiving said rights in article 19 and that vitiation of article 19 by limitations set therein that have in effect the diminishment of said article, violate article 20.

Understanding that slavery (involuntary servitude) is phrohibited with no limitations, voluntary servitude via covenants and agreements are a normal everyday activities limited only by the rule of contract law. Hence if the state immigration authorities claim limitations inside article 19, such limitations reflect back to the validity of the originating entry covenant and consideration therein. Articles 19, 20.

Any action of the state to force performance of an invalid contract created out of deciet and duress would be INVOLUNTARY servitude or slavery and tantamount to theft of life, time, liberty, and pecuniary interest. Article 20, deuteronomy 24:7.

If indeed the state understands its own rules, then a foreigner has both the right to practice his religion and reject association, particularly one that both offends God and is not law properly given to government except when authorised by the consent of the governed via contracts. Articles 11; 25; 75.

It is presumed that there is an pre-existing duty that officials of the state are bound to their constitution and thus cannot use the constitution as an 'illusory' benefit.

If indeed the constitution is illusory, then this in not disclosed in any evident methods for the ease and promotion of clear understanding such as at the borders and immigration windows.

In the event the constitution, which binds the officials of the state to Gods laws, is rendered ineffectual by virtue of immigration contracts, then several other points of law come into effect to ensure state power is not morphed into something larger than what constituted it as clearly given in article 25 so that the power of the individual is not subjugated beyond what has been ordained by God in Romans 13:1. Article 11.

A contract cannot be enforced which forces another party to waive constitutional rights.

I believe it to be a fact that the constitution of Costa Rica is not subject to random manipulation or exclusion by officials under article 121(7), when the issue does not involve "crimes in se", or breach of Biblical law, but conversely, the adherance to Biblical Law. Article 11.

I believe it to be a fact that the functionaries and officials are bound to obey the rules set forth in the constitution as a prior condition to any subsequent new agreements or contracts. 11;18.

I believe it to be a fact that I cannot be randomly deprived of a pre-existing duty owed to me by officials under article 121(7) without a public dissemination of two thirds the vote of the legislative assembly. Articles 11, 18, 19, 25.

I do believe it to be a fact that I will suffer a loss of undeterminable magnitude if these duties are denied.

If indeed a prommisary estopple is granted and I am indeed denied the law as purported, the resulting damage to me would be of unconscionable loss.

If indeed the claimant (immigration officials) is damaged, please make that damage known, for it would appear as the lack of contract performance does no harm to the claimant. 'Actio non datur non damnificato'.

Based upon the gravity of the consequenses, it would seem reasonable that the immigration contract must disclose and express clearly that every contractee waives constitutional laws and God given laws to which all public officials are bound. 'Deceptis, non decipientibus, jura subveniunt'. Constitution Article 11.

The constitution of CR and laws of God make it impossible to follow certain immigration statutes and codes. One law is inconsistant with another. 'Impotentia excusat legem'. Articles 11, 19, 25,75.

The immigration contract and subsequent visitor visa statues presume to negate the preordained Laws of God and preexisting duties to the constitution by a fraudulent principle of causality. 'Post hoc ergo, propter hoc'.

The fact that these immigration codes are imposed in virtually all situations and are considered the 'normal' modality of enforcement suggests that the implied force is due to impunity. 'Impunitas continuum affectum tribuit delinquendi'.

If the continuous normal operation of a governmental department is the only reason for a decision in favor of prommisory estoppel, then the adjudication is inconsistant with law. 'Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia'.

I made no waiver of judicial contract enforcement and , although the state would have to take notice of such waiver under articles 27; 11, no such demand to take notice or act accordingly was made by us for fear of creating a reciprocal obligation as the state (or officials) would have to expend energy and time on behalf of my notice. I have no expecation for the state or state officials or citizens of this country to be burdened by my actions.

We rigidly adhere to non-political , non religious activities espoused in articles 28, 19, 75 and a notice of the aforementioned doctrine may have been construed as having an agenda or political influence on other people. As such, we made no prior notice to avoid demonstrable political /religious agendas.

If I err on these issues, please I beg of the court to bring forth the error, for I insist it is not an error in law, but an error in fact and my ignorance is not any form of negligence or lack of adhereance to laws and duties and I wish reconciliation based on correct facts. Matthew 18:15.

No comments:

Post a Comment