5/5/12 Abandoned and Neglected Children

On July 21, 2011, Patricia Mesen Arroyo made a series of statements to the court in Puriscal, Costa Rica which we will examine to reveal  an abuse of process from top to bottom. The officials were perfectly aware that the jurisdiction over my children was in want. To proceed without proving that jurisdiction or even addressing any of our work we submitted was a cowardly act using bully tactics of ganging together to create a hostile team of process abusers. In this affidavit, Sra. Mesen Arroyo states the URGENT need for court action due to the alarming claims made by various health ministerial workers and PANI officials. Those include the claims by Dr. Cerdas that our children have been ABANDONED AND NEGLECTED. For those who believe I am using this media to degrade, insult or villify these public servants, these are their words, not mine. I am simply reporting the facts. What they did to us in blind faith to their dogmatic, humanist, religious body (the United Nations) is simply now becoming a public record. In 1937, the Germans LOVED their system, and those who were not so enthusiastic were afraid to say it. It was all normal and nobody could see that their system was just another form of idol worship.

5/10/2012 Abuse of Process

Abuse of Process is a particularly evil crime. It involves deception for the purpose of using the machinery of law to damage innocent people. Such actions have full and complete mens rea when indeed no retorts are made in response to my affidavits and notices submitted in order to create jurisdictional estoppels.


If indeed the process will continue, as Dr. Cerdas said it would, in light of my explanations of why my children are not vaccinated, then this is a perfect example of abuse of process with intent to damage people. This is a special crime because the action of those seeking to ignore claims for the purpose of maintaining their unconstitutional mandate, not only is a tort, but is in pure vile contempt of the law itself. The law, and taking an oath to uphold it, has a higher level of accountability than the collateral damage that ensues. They speak in their affidavit as if we are ignoring them, when in fact they have ignored our  recognition of their jurisdictional failures. This blatant ignorance is not negligence, it is abuse of process when backed by the agreement of all of the officials involved and is teeming with contempt for the constitution itself.


Abuse of process is located in the ninth commandment. The ninth commandment forbids misinterpreting the truth in our relations with others. Offenses against the truth expressed by word or deed is a refusal to commit oneself to the just outcome of a legal proceeding. Bearing false witness is special, because it is a fundamental crime against justice and, in this sense, undermines the foundations of the purpose of law and justice.

5/13/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 1

PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo made many abuses of process in her affidavit to the judge, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda in Puriscal, Costa Rica. She makes many points that are simply incorrect or she excludes other facts in order to skew the scenario which modifies how it is viewed.


In part 1 of her affidavit, Ms. Arroyo states that we do not provide the necessary information regarding our children including vaccination records, but EXCLUDES in her affidavit the fact that we are telling them that we do not vaccinate our children and further more, why we are prohibited from receiving free vaccines. The ministry of health director has concluded that since we are prohibited by law from 'free' ministerial services, these childrens' health matters have been abandoned and neglected. Patricia Mesen Arroyo attempts to make it appear as if we have these documents but refuse to furnish them, thus being in violation of state codes regarding state entrusted property under the strong arm of PANI and the United Nations. The assumption is that not being registered is somehow unlawful, a tort or trespass is an error. Instead, Mesen Arroyo implies that we ARE registered and REFUSE to give them documents which indeed they should have in their own records.

5/15/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 2

Patricia Mesen Arroyo uses quotes made by health officials that are false or half true. She uses a quote made by low level health officials that "vaccination is a right of the children and a duty of the parents." That is simply false. Vaccines and other matters of health in Costa Rica are ENTITLEMENTS and require registration to receive them and registration is a matter of will of the parents. PERIOD. We have covered rights and entitlements and how an entitlement becomes a 'mandated right' through parental consent via registration contracts mentioned in earlier posts.

5/17/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 3

In part three of Dr. Patricia Mesen Arroyo's affidavit. Dr. Ana Gabriela Mora of clinic #4 in Barbacoas, Puriscal, Costa Rica testifies that we refuse their medical rituals (vaccines) and do not permit them access to our home. That statement is an abuse of process, because we never refused anything and in fact it was us who allowed them to engage in their sales pitch at our home on past occasions. However, on the occasion of May 13, 2011 we met the vaccine technician, Christina Rubi, on the road when we were busy going somewhere. We simply told her we could come to her office in the next couple of days, which we did.


On May 16, 2011 we spoke with Rolando Aguilar Diaz and Christina Rubi and they explained all of the wonderful benefits of the free vaccines. They went on to explain, with great hubris, about their new program. The new program promoted the clinic personnel to come into our home to show us important health skills like how to wash our hands and clean the house and cook and such. We attempted to listen to this without showing our incredulity that such an offensive and intrusive program could possibly be pitched to us. More incredulous was the fact that Ms. Rubi has known us for ten years. The utterly ironic idea that we need their help, whilst stray dogs urinate on trash laying outside their building, was obtuse and offensive. Rolando Aguilar Diaz was candid about this new program, adding that it was not mandatory but recommended. We thanked them for their offer, and said that we would think about it and get back to them if we required such a service. Regarding the matters of vaccines, we simply told them we would draft a statement for them within a couple of days.


Dr. Ana Gabriela Mora, also present, was not enthusiastic, but sat in chilling silence with a look of contempt toward us. That was obviously a sign of things to come. Dr. Ana Gabriela Mora Rojas' statement that we refused vaccines is false. Her statement that we did not permit them access to our home implies a violation of some kind. We demurrer the matter of vaccines and tell them we would get back to them if we wished to receive their other optional programs. Her testimony regarding permission to our home was specious and off point and a blatant attempt to create an appearance as if we were in violation of something other than the vaccine issue. Of course, they never amended their position to check my demurrer. The ball, Dr. Ana Gabriela is, still to this day, in your court. If you cannot return the ball, that does not mean you can break the rules...of course that depends on the referee as well as your team mates to manipulate the collective use of force. Might makes right?


Why, Dr. Ana Gabriela Mora, could you not respond, in any way, to our testimony? Surely you are here as a doctor to uphold the highest sense of humanity. If you were a representative of the wellness of mankind, you surely would have responded to our affidavit rather than make false testimonies in order to initiate a process of harm and destruction. That is an Abuse of Process.

5/19/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 4

Patricia Mesen Arroyo claims the Ministry of Health officials visited us on March 11, 2011. That simply did not happen. Further, she makes quotes of a conversation that did not occur and testifies that we said we vaccinate the children in Denmark, and that the neighbors say we have been in Costa Rica for longer that three years. This information is false.


On or about March 11, 2002, our first instance with the ministerial people regarding their ministerial rituals, we told them that we attend to our health matters in Denmark, not that we engaged in any form of vaccnation program. As well, no neighbor could have attested that we lived in Costa Rica for more than three years in March 2002, as we had lived in Puriscal only since September 2000 (19 months) and in Costa Rica for 21 months. Patricia Mesen Arroyo does not specify which neighbor, but obviously that information is subject to subpoena or the neighbor subject to summons. However, no such opportunity was available as the judge refused to hear our testimony and much of my work has NOT BEEN INCLUDED in the expediente (case file.) We shall examine that soon. 

5/21/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 5

Patricia Mesen Arroyo claims that in our affidavit of May, 2011 we note that the staff are very courteous and professional, as if this somehow aids her case that we are withholding information within the context of civil law. Ms. Arroyo fails to mention that in that affidavit, we have demurred the matter and offer first opportunity to remedy any tort, trespass or breach of civil contract if they can bring forth such criminal or civil matter. For those law academia who maintain that Costa Rica is under  Spanish Civil Law, then obviously what follows is a charge, then a plea in abatement is offered whereby the action becomes defective pending the plaintiff's verification of his lawful claim over the subject matter in question through proof of registration or title. However, no such pleading was permitted as we shall soon see and at this stage no avenue of jurisdiction, be it civil or criminal, has been established. So the demurrer is the proper method to give them that opportunity as a point of proper process and jurisprudence.

5/25/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 6

In part 6, of the affidavit from PANI, Patricia Mesen Arroyo acknowledges that the officials can identify the woman of the children in 'persona propria.' However, after digesting our affidavits and notices, Dr. Cerdas accosts us with an offer that is dressed up as an order. The obvious nature of the jurisdictional failure of the order was the fact that Cerdas needed a signature that would create consent. Thus, our only recourse with such machination is stand at the threshold of law and offer the opportunity to either cure in the event of a criminal complaint against us, which would require habeas corpus, or we ask to review the contract that would bind us in a civil matter (adhesion or otherwise.) Dr. Cerdas' attempt to trick us into giving consent via a signature was with full intent to side step the jurisdictional failure. That signature would stand in place of a cedula number. I do hope the readers of this blog do their own research here. State identification does not identify you; it identifies a comprehensive commercial agreement that you have consented to. Like an insurance policy, this agreement will have a number and title (for easy reference.) The title of this policy will have your given name modified into an appellation, in all capital letters, which is called a nom de guerre, a number for inventory reference and any legal issues surrounding that persona will be adjudicated in an admiralty (civil) court or tribunal. Constitutional restraints have no effect because you have consented to make a covenant with a new rule maker (re-liege.)


With no evidence of an agreement, the public servants are hanging without jurisdictional power. Dr. Cerdas invites us to make an agreement, or suffer the wrath of a civil tribunal under the contracted heavy weight, The United Nations. That is coercion. To continue an action using the illusive appearance of law, as if an agreement with the state exists and has title and registry number is the creation of a legal fiction.  That citation is an abuse of process among other violations and has the element of mens rea considering the mountain of paperwork we entered regarding their jurisdictional failures.


We have not acted above the law as some accuse. We are exercising constitutional restraints against officials who have ideologically morphed beyond their lawful purpose and have entered a zone whereby they believe their system is a deity and beyond the constitution.


The officials' claims of codes or United Nation charters remain a legal fiction, just as any commercial entity stating their internal/contractual codes that mandate reciprocation in order to receive an equitable benefit (entitlement.) This is the reason pensioners in Costa Rica require a cedula number in order to receive their health care benefits. It is a commercial reciprocation and any disputes would be addressed in a civil (contract) court. If The United Nations' power over nations was not contractually similar to that of the state over the individual through the identification of res-ident or citi-zen contracts, it would mean any group of men  could declare themselves king, simply because they have a monopoly on the use of force. This is exactly what the constitution was created to prevent.

5/28/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 7

In part 7 of her affidavit to the judge, PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo states that on June 29, 2011 we presented a series of "manifestations," but not the information they requested such as cedula number, state identification and vaccination records. Of course, she does not state that we included in our 'manifestations' and other communiqués the reason why we could not provide them with no such information as it does not exist. The clear lack of grasp on the principles that the constitution protects are a primary reason why we address Patricia Mesen Arroyo as an attorney and not a lawyer.

5/31/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 8

In Part 8 of her affidavit to the court in Puriscal, Costa Rica, PANI attorney Patricia Mesen Arroyo mentions that we brought more information and requests to her office on July 18. At this point she states that we did not include personal information such as state ID. She recognises the documents we sent in to the ministry of health requesting information regarding their relationship to the constitution. It is the constitution that requires the establishment of jurisdiction over anybody. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed when the defendant raises the issue. To simplify, we ask a few easy questions.  She does not acknowledge any of these questions, but insists that we still do not provide her with the information requested by the ministry of health. The information she needs to continue the process does not exist and the only thing that protects us from being forced into a relationship with this religious body (United Nations and one of their policing arms, PANI,) are constitutional articles 11, 19, 25, 27, 35.  Without registration (13.3,) the commercial nature of this action cannot proceed. That is why we are asking them the simplest thing, 'Are you subject to the constitution?' If they are foreign agents, unrestrained by the constitution, then the constitution is no longer a modality of protection from religious zealots who force people to do things they do not want. In other words, the republic is under a foreign law unbeknownst to the people.


In a situation like this, a court of law is the place where the defendant can make a plea in abatement and demand for a bill of particulars which in effect puts the onus on the prosecutor to establish the facts pertaining to jurisdiction. THAT IS OF COURSE, if the constitution still stands as the primary directive of the government. Patricia Mesen Arroyo, representative of the autonomous entity, PANI, a policing agency of the United Nations, fails to prove jurisdiction over my children.