3/8/12 Slight of Hand

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.

3/13/2011 Is it Mandatory to Have State ID?

After the interview with Dr. Cerdas on You Tube, we followed up with an affidavit and request for information. This is where things get REALLY interesting, because these public servants begin telling us something quite astonishing. 'We do not have to answer any questions unless you provide identification amongst other information.' However, they did not require this ID (identification of a contract or registry) in order to threaten us in the flesh. So that is how we answer, in the flesh. Obviously they had no trouble identifying us in order to make their threats, so why do we need state issued ID to defend ourselves?

It is the catch 22 of every government that practices civil or common law. No number, no joinder. No joinder, no contract. No contract, no action. Since there is no body of crime (habeas corpus) criminal proceedings are also impossible.

Never the less, we do want to help these misguided bureaurcrats find the proper process for a remedy. As such, we offered the following notice:

Answer to Petition

Patricia Mesen Arroyo's response was, 'We do not have to answer to you unless you have state ID, amongst other information.'

WHY is that so important? The public servants did not need our ID to threaten to take our children. This is an action in assumpsit. They are ASSUMING we are numbered subjects of the state, with their jurisdiction. However, we have told these people that we are not registered. The judge should instruct the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction by either:

a)Presenting our registration through public records. (of course they do not exist.) OR

b)Presenting a bonafide complaint such as that we have abducted someone's children.

The reason the judge does not do this is because he is heading an administrative tribunal under the treaty powers (article 7) of the state that allows Costa Rica to subcontract out certain administrative duties. As such, he is not a constitutionally recognized judge, but a tribunal arbitrator. In other words, what I arrived at on September 6, 2011 was not a court of record (constitutional court.) If it were a court of record, there would be charges to answer to. On September 2, 2011 PANI lawyer, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, told us (with great reluctance) that there were no charges. 'The citation is only to collect information about you.'

Now we see the clarity of why Dr. Cerdas needed our signature. You see, we neither have contracts with the state of Costa Rica, NOR do we have any contracts with the United Nations. A position VERY uncommon.

Some people may believe erroneously that jurisdiction is based solely upon geography, IE, 'anyone living in this country has to follow codes and statutes,' however, jurisdiction encompasses far more than that. The government does not own the land and neither do the people own any more than which they create. That includes idols and democracies. Those idols and democracies can own nothing more than that of the individuals who erected them.

Patricia Mesen Arroyo admits that amongst other identification components, state ID is necessary for her to engage in dialogue. She admits that she is unable to legally converse with the human identification by which we freely present ourselves. For the state to make an action, we must be identified as a person, under contract. The number is simply identifying not the human, but the personification of a legal fiction. It is a comprehensive insurance contract with the state. Without such, they cannot converse. Also failing that, since there is no body of crime, they cannot make charges or act. Without first identifying that the individual is under contract, these public officials are assuming that a contract exists. Using threats and coercion under assumption is purely criminal. The officials, to this date, assume that all children belong to them. This is a seriously misguided concept that has been repeated in history by those practicing idol worship. This is what my jurisdiction query is all about.

To force me to register my children with the state is a violation of article 13.3. To force anyone into an association with any entity, real or artificial, would fly in the face of article 25.

Patricia Mesen Arroyo and her accomplices fail to establish jurisdiction over my children. More on Patricia Mesen Arroyo later.

3/21/12 Who Are These Israelites Anyway?

Dr. Cerdas busied himself on July 26, 2011 when he told our neighbor that he and his cohorts were going to return, break in the gate, take our children, register them, vaccinate them and place them in public school. That is a serious threat coming from a religious ministerial sect working in coordination with another religious order, the United Nations. The United Nations is a body that countries contract with and they have some extreme anti Semitic values. Let's have a look at some of the ideals promoted by the United Nations and their various appendages. The actions of the public officials run contrary with the standards listed in the United Nations Prevention of Genocide of 1948 and Codigo Penal of Costa Rica, 127.

Dr. Cerdas' threats reinforce the fact that Dr. Cerdas intends to carry out his threats WITHOUT establishing jurisdiction over my children. This jurisdiction is established through contract which is identified by public registry.

Few people understand that when government appears to have smashed their constitutional rights, that in reality, they voluntarily entered a system whereby they waived their rights. Many wish to receive benefits from the state's varied social schemes, and for such, they must waive their constitutional rights.

Of course, my family would never interfere with other families' decisions on what they think, what they worship, what social policies they adopt, how they discipline their children, what car they drive or how they do their hair. It simply is not our business.

It does seem the business, however, of faceless bureaucrats to involve themselves lawlessly in my family's life in order to impress upon us their religious dogma called 'Humanism.' As Israelites, it is not our desire to be missionaries. Our beliefs do not require recruitment of others. The nation of Israel is a nation of people and IS NOT to be construed as the state of the star on the East coast of the Mediterranian Sea. That is a geopolitical zone established by contract under a ruse called the Balfour Declaration and has little to do with the Nation of Israel and has more to do with Zionist bankers.

Israelites are a nation of Law, not religious dogma. Religions typically require recruitment and involve commercial contracts and registration. In their inception, religions tend to be innocuous and give ephemeral releases for populations in their stressful existence in a complex world. When these programming agencies, arranged by a few elite men who suffer the same greed, fear, lust, vanity and jealousy of all men in the flesh become megalomaniac in their utopian dogmas, Law is the only recourse for Israelites to find shelter. Israelites sojourn throughout the world existing in lands of others who have also adopted the God of Israel as their foundation of Law. Costa Rica is one such nation as the constitution prescribes.

The concept of the nation of Israel is a critical understanding in the coming posts, because we must be able to discern the difference between Law and religion, morals and dogmas.

We will return to the concept of jurisdiction, artificial personas and how that affects our relationship with governing bodies under Romans 13, but for now I suggest the readers of this blog and the enemies of my nation begin by defining the following terms:

Israelite, Jew, Zionist, proselyte, semite, liege and regis. We must understand that deception is in the words and our enslavement is cast by our own hand or mouth. You may be surprised what you find in Oz. With no understanding of history, you will never know who you are. If you do not know who you are, you will never know where you are headed. It will all tie in soon.

For those who have so vengefully desecrated theLaw and, with full intent, damaged my harmless family in return for shallow gains in your ephemeral world, you will reap what you sow. Brick by brick, my friends.

3/25/11 Understanding This Identification

Before we delve into the case file (expediente) that was denied to us on September 6, 2011, it is useful to define terms and get a proper understanding of state Identification. This identification (called a cedula in Costa Rica) is similar in use and effect as the social security number in the United States. This SS number was created in the 1930's as part of Roosevelt's 'New Deal.' The number was simply an identification of an individual's registration to participate in government entitlement programs. The number was a tracking number for an account with the government which had now expanded beyond its original purpose and had entered the world of commercial insurance.

This tracking number was required for the recipient to recieve the bounty of government entitlements. In many countries this number has become a universal commercial tracking number for engaging in commercial activity.

It should be well understood that this number is not mandatory, but voluntary, and understandably many people are lured into 'free' entitlements. Also understand that the need for such a system was surreptitiously compelled onto the nation in times of financial duress. We must recognize that the financial duress was promulgated by the implementation of fiat currency and private banking which manipulated volumes of money available to the nation.

In 1933, Roosevelt initiated a ban on gold as a monetary system claiming that this was the cause of the demise and collapse. Roosevelt allowed the private banks under a national reserve system to own and control the volume of money. This money (Federal Reserve Notes) became the new fiat currency and being privately owned, interest (usury) needed to be paid. These social security numbers also became tax ID numbers whereby the people were then compelled to pay the usury through a graduated income tax (established in 1917 as a provisional war tax.) The government could borrow as much as it needed for its maintenance, social programs and interest in new wars and then simply pay the interest (usury) on the volume in circulation to the private money owners.

Nations that claim the God of Israel as their moral basis protect that moral base with a constitution as Costa Rica does in article 75. This allows protection for those who do not wish to participate in comprehensive government schemes which limit personal liability. It allows for people to pledge allegiance to other kings or democracies yet protects those who do not wish to pledge new allegiances with gods foreign to that spoken of in the constitution.

Responsibility is the corner stone of freedom. When government servants insist that participation is mandatory, they have given leave of their oaths of office to remain as servants and drifted into totalitarianism. When such occurs, we Israelites (homeless soujourners for 2500 years) find our shelter in Law.

We are prohibited from receiving such entitlements or registering with foreign and alien gods to receive 'free' entitlements. Israelites are also prohibited from practicing surety for the debts that accumulate on these fiat loans which eventually bankrupt the nation whereby it falls into national captivity by commercial contracts (debt enslavement.)

The constitution and law support this philosophy. Certain people mistakenly think this means we are 'above the law.' No, in fact we can still be brought to penalty in matters both civil (commercial contracts) and criminal. However, no one may be complelled to participate in entitlement programs. Such entitlements are available, just like any other commercial insurance making a tender offer.

Roosevelt may have dealt the people a new deal, but they did not have to pick up the cards. They voluntarily accepted the new comprehensive social insurance contract.

It is also critical to understand this: We do not advocate others do as we do. I believe people should engage in what ever rainy day insurance activity makes them feel secure, so long as it does not affect me. As for us, our choices are simplified. We do not practice religion or idolatry and as such, do not re-liege or create registries with such systems because we, as Israelites, are compelled by Law to be responsible for our own selves and that of our families.

We are now testing this in court, for either the public servants intend to be subservient to their oaths in the constitution (art. 11) or not. The United Nations entry into this equation via contract is irrelevant as are their declarations. The reason is simple. The state of Costa Rica contracts with the United Nations. We have no contracts with either and article 25 prevents forced association, whatsoever.

This is why the question of jurisdiction is absolutely critical. We either gave our children to the state through registry, or we did not. The judge and all involved refuse to acknowledge our jurisdictional challenge, and as such refuse to acknowledge their oaths to the constitution. The trouble the public servants now find themselves is that their actions have adversely affected my family in a criminal manner. Not only are they in violation of the constitution, they have violated the United Nation laws that they are a tribunal to.

3/31/12 The War Against the Family

As we merge back into the case file, we find complaints, but no actual charges. The PANI (child protection agency in Costa Rica) has no ability to make a charge as there is neither a civil (contractual,) nor a criminal basis for a charge. However, they do make their desires well known to the United Nations tribunal headed by the Judge.

Costa Rica, under article 7 of the constitution, can make treaties and otherwise convert any social policy to the control of an outside entity. Such was done by the creation of PANI which is an autonomous industry which article 55 has its internal policies driven by the United Nations and backed up by ministries of the Costa Rican government.

But what could possibly be wrong with such a holy, world governing, philanthropic organization that is so concerned about impressing its ideals on nations worldwide? The United Nation's power is founded in contracting with bureaucracies of those nations in order to follow the dogmas promoted by the United Nations. Without further belaboring the legal mechanics, lets have a look at the fundamental thinking that drives this international governing body.

George Brock Chisholm (1896-1971,) head of the World Health Organization, Psychiatry (1946) describes what must occur:

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas...The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives...for charting the changes in human behavior."

Here is another link which illustrates the philosophies that mold United Nations.

PsychQuotes

One goal is to eliminate children's dependence on parents in favor of dependence on the state (or the elite that run the state.) The following link does not necessarily share the same religious philosophy as me, but his research on United Nations engineers is worth observing.

The War Against the Family and Parents Authority

'Every Child is OUR Child' Observe the exploitable hubris of the international youth involved in this United Nations sect. This is a group of young malleable minds at the hands of sophisticated adepts claiming 'every child is our child.' This is reminiscent of Hitler youth movement of the 1930's. Who in their right mind could even think that, let alone kick in people's doors and steal their children, force chemicals into them and place them in state coerced mind warping centers for the recruitment of more system soldiers. This is not conspiracy theory, this happened, to us.

Marta Santos Pais, Unicef Director, claims that the unregistered child is 'marginalized.' The question is, marginalized by whom? When the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7 says, "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

"...AS FAR AS POSSIBLE the right to know and be cared by his or her parents." Just what and who determines this?

The people who believe we must be our brother's keepers over and above his objection are a mutual admiration cult that reaks of psychotic idiocy.

Whether an individual favors the United Nations philosophies or not is up to the individual, but it is always notable that any such religion or philosophical body that insists everyone must participate or it will not work, is indicative of Totalitarianism.

The bureaucrats that hatched the United Nations are determined to take control of my children. However, I decline the United Nations and their various appendages' offers of health and education. Any refusal by the United Nations and their appendages to acknowledge by declination and jurisdictional objection is simply an action by a group of self appointed men deciding to steal what they have no claim on. If the United Nations tribunal believes their religion is so fantastic that they being our zoo keepers is nonnegotiable, then they are simply thugs masquerading as law.

I have no contracts with the United Nations, nor do I have contracts with the state of Costa Rica. To be forced to practice United Nations Humanist religious principles is in violation of their own charter. Just as it is a violation of the Costa Rican constitution.

None of these Humanist public servants have proven their jurisdiction over my children. The most proactive validation they came up with was, "We do not have to answer to you." Remember the words of Dr. Cerdas in the You Tube video, "Para servile." What insolence.