As we have seen on the You Tube videos, Dr. Cerdas insists that we sign both his order as well as the receipt of it. He insisted that before we examine the order, we first sign not only the receipt of the order, but the actual order he came to deliver. We were not able to first take the order to counsel. If we had signed the order, we would have accepted the order as it was written, thus agreeing to perform what the order stated. Conversely, if we did not sign the order, it would go to the administrative tribunal under the assumption that the ministry had jurisdiction. Dr. Cerdas would state that we refused to follow their order and the process would continue.
If a law had been broken, why did Dr. Cerdas require any signatures?
The reason is that he needed jurisdictional joinder in the form of a contract to proceed with an administrative tribunal. When a crime occurs, no signatures are necessary for the prosecution to initiate an action. Only the elements of habeas corpus and mens rea are necessary to establish an action. If the matter is civil, then agreements (contracts), or breeches of such, come into question and the plaintiff would have to provide evidence of said contracts by the power of a writ of subpoena duces tecum to establish the veracity of the claim. In the order seen here, health office, Ebais #4, states we refused vaccines.
The claim of our refusal was based on the testimony of Dra. Ana Gabriela Mora Rojas, which can be seen here.
However, we never refused vaccines. We demurred the matter of vaccine entitlements, awaiting the ministry to rebut our scriptural position on the matter, as per article 75. A demurrer is not a refusal.
We are prohibited from accepting vaccines from a scriptural health perspective. We are also prohibited from receiving other free entitlements. We are also prohibited from worshipping man made gods and their extra-curricular social redistribution schemes. We are also prohibited from engaging in surety for the debts incurred from such redistribution schemes. Article 75 of the Constitution supports those scriptural perspectives.
My application of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Rather than proceed with reckless coercion and threats, the ministry of health parishioners could have refuted our lawful position. This respectful form of open dialogue would have supported jurisprudence and would have gone far in preserving family, health, life and liberty. Such an attempt for open dialogue would support the spirit of law. This clearly was not the purpose of these religious missionaries.
Dr. Cerdas' document orders that we present vaccination papers (that do not exist) or begin receiving mandatory entitlements (a legal oxymoron.) Dr. Cerdas insisted that we agree to the order before having counsel examine it. That is why we could only conditionally accept the order, as seen in the video. Dr. Cerdas accepted and signed our conditional acceptance as witnessed by his personal driver and police escort, as well as members of my family. However, Dr. Cerdas then refused to give us the order whereby we could take it to council.
Furthermore, Dr. Cerdas noted that we did not want to receive the document and, as seen in the video, counsels with his witnesses to conspire in stating that we refused the document when in fact it was Dr. Cerdas who said, "I cannot deliver this." Our wish to protect a signature by creating joinder with our conditional acceptance precludes the order from being accepted as written. Dr. Cerdas' job that day was to conscript us unconditionally, that jurisdiction may be established. This indeed was clever missionary work.
How can we produce documents that do not exist, particularly when we have explained in great detail WHY they do not exist and why we are prohibited from vaccinating our children. The ministry refuses to refute our affidavits and constructive notices with any proper modality proving errors in our lawful position.
Dr. Cerdas FAILS TO PROVE HIS JURISDICTION over my children, or refute my affidavits or constructive notices.