6/8/12 PANI Affidavit, Part 9

In part 9 of her, affidavit PANI attorney Patricia Mesen Arroyo confirms the lack of jurisdiction of the action by stating "agreed arrangement." This either refers to the agreement between us and them through the order (orden sanitario) which we agreed to accept conditionally, or the agreement between the United Nations and the government of Costa Rica under article 7 which places PANI as an 'autonomous trust' which falls inside of commercial law (contracts.) Arroyo goes on to mention many articles of the United Nations rights of the child which are irrelevant unless she had until she first established that we had given our children to the United Nations through registration with this nation via article 13.3 whereby PANI authorities can control children through contracts.


Let's deal with the obvious errors. She states that in article 51 of the Costa Rican constitution that entitlements are rights. That is semantically incorrect. An entitlement has prerequisites such as registration.


Patricia Mesen Arroyo uses non sequiturs and takes legal citations out of context in order to make the illusion that our children are mistreated and state intervention is required. Remember, Arroyo and other state officials refuse to answer to our queries so that we cannot defuse their false assumptions. She points out that if parents do not consent to allow their children to be hospitalized or treated by authorities, then PANI, under its contractual obligations to the United Nations, can force the State of Costa Rica to take actions to intervene under their contractual obligation with the United Nations to take children by force just as PANI official, Annia Lorena Duran, said they could. However, in no place does she actually accuse us of anything. That is because she still needs our consent because our children are not registered.


Her use of non sequitors is evidenced when she speaks about all different ministries and agents agreeing with their internal civil (contractual) codes that state we must be in accordance with their regulations. However, once again, she fails to prove her jurisdiction over us. If she could prove we are involved in a crime or a civil breach, none of this song and dance would be necessary. She would show us their proof of registration and that would be followed by immediate forced vaccination. Then it would be perfectly legal AND lawful, end of story.


Seeing that she still has not brought forth the information required, Ms. Arroyo determines to go after the immigration angle. Now, it is quite ironic that those who do become residents are 100% subject to these internal health (and other) codes. Just like any other contract, it becomes a legal document adjudicated in courts of equity under commercial (civil) law. That is why the constitution exists, particularly article 25. She cites articles 41, 42, and 43 of the Code of Children and Adolencias  where it discusses the rights of the children if they have no regime that shelters them, the state would take care of them. However, in article 43,  the children would have to under go the rituals and regiments of the ministry. Would (deberan) is future tense. When in the future? Once they are registered with the new regis or regime. Arroyo quotes 144 of the family code which negates parents ability to object to medical actions of authorities. However, 144 is an amended code from 131 which is describing the objections of the relatives of ADOPTED children. Arroyo's use of 144 is totally specious.


She refers to Capitulo 3, articulo 147, 180 and 152 of the 'Ley General de Salud.' There is no Capitolo 3 in this law and if she refers to the Family Codes, Article 3 includes issues regarding Catholic marriage. Arroyo rants about things that either do not exist as codes in her own books, or have no relevance what so ever.


However, she returns to the Ley General de Salud with an actual correct citation, 154, regarding the fraudulent use of vaccine records. Once again, this has no bearing on any of our actions.


Nearing the end of part 9, Patricia Mesen Arroyo attempts a new angle regarding immigration law. Arroyo points out that foreigners who solicit residency status are subject to the vaccination regulations (code 172.) This is of course a primary reason why we do not desire res-idency status. Then Arroyo misquotes article 173 which states that anyone entering the country without  acredited vaccine records may be quarantined. Of course we were not entering the country during their threats and coercion. We entered ten years ago and nobody asked anything of vaccine records at that time. Besides, my boys were born in Costa Rica so this has no relevance whatsoever. Regarding 172, when you register for resident entitlements, you waive constitutional rights in favor of receiving entitlements. The constitution exists prior to civil jurisdiction. Civil Law and the jurisdictional venue of such is predicated upon permission (consent) of the governed because if government forced anybody to associate (register)  it would be violating article 25. We do not recieve the free benefits.Ms. Arroyo makes the reasoning that since government entitlements equate to rights, then if these entitlements are not accepted, the children should be separated from the parents so that they are forced to receive their state entitlements. First they would have to be registered, just as Dr. Cerdas told our neighbor. Of course, that would be unconstitutional (13.3.) Arroyo continues her out of context, off point discussion when she cites article 151 (she calls it 152,) where once again she states only part of the article. The article goes on to discuss 'those persons who solicit the services of the health officials...' If you read the entire atricle, it reflects back on the fact that these sercives must be applied for by some form of registration.

6/14/2012 PANI Affidavit, POR TANTO

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.

6/17/2012 Missing Signatures

Re-enter Dr. Cerdas. Patricia Mesen Arroyo was determined to affirm that we refused their 'orden sanataria' (vaccination order.) However, as seen on You Tube, Dr. Cerdas in fact conspired with the driver to agree to commit perjury by stating falsely that we refused to receive the document. This is done with full intent and even the poor cop has to be implicated, because at first he believed it was wrong as he witnessed that Dr. Cerdas refused to give us the order. The reason why we could conditionally accept the offer is so we could have the chance to examine it with counsel before agreeing to it. Dr. Cerdas blurts out that it matters not because we can either accept it, and make our appeal (which will fall on deaf ears as per article 144 which Arroyo states,) or he will simply write we refused, under the assumption that we have personas (cedulas) or titled, numbered contracts with the state, allowing a civil process under a tribunal to proceed. Very clever, but illegal, unlawful and an abuse of process, Mr. Cerdas. And I say Mister Cerdas because any doctor has the preordained agreement not to harm people. Mr. Cerdas' perjury is on film and his only retort was, "I did not alter your document, you cannot alter mine." This is sand box politics. We did not change the subject matter, nor intent of his message. He told us that he was sent to deliver that message. However, his hidden job was to trick us into accepting the subject matter of the contract. That's why he needed us to sign both the receipt and the contract. We immediately saw errors of fact on the face of the document. Mr. Cerdas attempted to gloss this over by using dialogue such as "don't worry," "no problem," and "you can appeal." This entire stage play was done to trap us into making a legal agreement, which at this point, did not exist.


You see friends, government servants cannot do whatever they want as most people assume. The people are the sovereign, not the servants. 


Returning back to the 'orden sanitario,' Mr. Cerdas was not at our house to deliver a document. He was there to load an agreement. That is a cardinal example of abuse of process for the purpose of unjust appropriation of jurisdiction. We conditionally accepted the receipt of the document. However, we could only agree with the obligations and subject matter of the order after first examining the order with counsel. This is well documented in our 'conditional acceptance.' 


HOWEVER, Mr. Cerdas aims to deceive for the purpose of abuse of process by OMITTING our conditional acceptance, in part, from the case file. This official record only contains the first part of our conditional acceptance, BUT OMITS the final statements as well as Cerdas' signature. Fortunately, disposing of that is of no benefit to him because we have the original. We wrote the document in the 15 minute hiatus when they waited at the top of the our driveway.


That was a short sighted play, Mr. Cerdas, because although the court, and officials involved, did everything to prevent us from getting a copy of the case file (expediente,) we were eventually able to get it through other leaks in their system. To omit official SIGNED documents, Mr. Cerdas, which illustrate your perjury of a document used to establish civil jurisdiction could be used as a law exam example of abuse of process. The You Tube video exemplifies the mens rea and pure intent to abuse process for the purpose of damaging my family, the law and our rights. Mr. Juan Miguel Cerdas Chacon acts as if our constructive notices of constitutional process requisites mean nothing to them. I would encourage them to hire a good lawyer.

6/22/12 Notify Yourself

 In her final digression, Patricia Mesen Arroyo says, "NOTIFIQUESE," twice. Notifiquese means: 1) In the vernacular, 'make yourself known.' 2) In the literal translation: 'notify yourself.' 3) In legalese it means, 'Be it well known' as in a judicial decree or legislative Gazetting of a new decree.

In either claim, she is incorrect. 1) She knows who we are and knows we domicile ourselves, therefore can present us with their documents. 2) She is intending to make us aware of this notice of warning that we should ask for information. 3) That is a legal decree in the sense that it has been decided based upon her status to make that decree.

That decree falls flat in many areas, but first lets understand that the entirety of their legal basis falls into one area called civil law. The law of contracts. Unless the constitution has been manipulated, Arroyo's decrees lack Gazetting and, of course, she has the power of decree as much as an attorney for K-Mart.

If she is determining that we must be FORCED to accept a contract marked by title and number (cedula,) then that is an entirely seperate issue that again flies in the face of the constitution. We will observe more non sequitur decrees from the judge at a later date, but we'll get to him later.

Patricia Mesen Arroyo is correct when whe says she cannot engage with us lest we show our state identified civil nexus. In this way, she is exercising her protection within the precepts of civil process. Unfortunately for Ms. Arroyo, she has failed to understand that this same protection applies to unregistered people. The first premise of a civil process is that two entities AGREE to contract. Agreement infers willingness (Art. 13.3.) Without will to contract, the civil process is moot. The entire principle of governments set up as civil institutions is that the civil process is a contractual arrangement. This establishes a legal prophylactic ensuring one party cannot force their decrees upon another party out of sheer force. In other words, before Arroyo activates a civil action through the courts to apply physical force, she must furnish the agreement we are in violation of. Giving our children to the United Nations through the registration with the civil government of Costa Rica has been addressed by us through various negative averments.

Arroyo's superior entity, The United Nations, uses the same civil law format as any other civil government. If it were not that way, it would be a dictatorial, totalitarian regime, which of course most people are quite convinced it is not. We should remind ourselves once again, that Costa Rica is a Republic under law, not a democracy. The civil government may be elected by popular vote, but the nation's Law remains restrained by a republican format; i.e.: the government is under law that protects human life from government. That preordained Law is referred to in the Preamble of the constitution and supported by article 75, law 5703 for those who wish to see the detail of the ammendments.

Coincidently, public servants proselytizing people with coersion and force to assimilate them into a doctrine not concordant with article 75 must be considered contrary to law. This goes to show the illogic of legal illiterates so warped by their utopian ideals.

6/27/12 First Things First

As we were not provided with any information regarding our requests and constitutional queries, we were not aware of any of this internal paper work sneaking around behind our backs. Remember, when we asked, we were arrogantly told they did not have to respond to our questions. All they wanted was the information to prosecute or process. This politically motivated, grotesque breach of law was first found on Friday, May 13, 2011. My wife and daughter were met by the health Nurse, Christina Vargas Rubi. Already 200 meters from home and heading up to Barbacoas, my wife was stopped by the health Nurse, Christina Vargas Rubi who explained that they were coming down for a visit. Being that we have dealt with these issues on several occasions before, my wife simply told them that we did not need any of their services. Rubi explained that this was a right of the child and a duty of the parents. She said she would need us to sign their paper saying that we refused the vaccines and my wife said she would not sign anything, but would go to the health office on Monday and speak with the supervisor and sort it all out then. Christina Vargas Rubi agreed with this and my wife and I returned on Monday to listen to them. We simply told them that we understood everything they said and we would draft an official document for them. That document was my affidavit dated May 16, 2011.

In that affidavit, I was very attentive to protect Christna Vargas Rubi and Rolando Aguilar Diaz from any reprisals in this event and complimented their efforts because we believed they were workers just doing their jobs and quite innocent. Little did we know that Christina Vargas Rubi had returned to the office Friday, May 13, 2011, after agreeing with my wife to address the issue on Monday, and THAT afternoon entered a document with her supervisory body in Puriscal Center, the CCSS, saying that we had refused vaccines in spite of the fact that she had agreed with my wife to meet in the health office after the weekend, rather than on the road when my wife and daughter were in transit. During that entire meeting on Monday, May 16, 2011 we were not aware that a process had already begun against us on Friday 13.

Our only witness to this street side conversation is dead. However, the most damning thing national socialists ever did to themselves was keep immaculate records. Understandably, they did not want us seeing any of their inside communiques, as they repeatedly refused to talk to us. Well, Christina Vargas Rubi, the paper work that we were refused is now available to the world. Poor Rolando Aguilar Diaz signed, although he was not present to witness the roadside encounter. Christina and Rolando, your signatures make you culpable of initiating an action without due process. That's abuse of process carrying malfeasance. 

6/30/12 Forensic Examinations of Dr. Cerdas' Words Reveals Mens Rea

Dr. Cerdas claims our children as 'his' children when he did not conceive, deliver, raise or even know the existence of OUR children. That is quite a statement of presumption because the ONLY way he can claim my children as his must be through some form of transfer from us to him and his child protection racketeers at PANI. On his notice to PANI director, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, he refers to my children as his children by using the collective word, "our." Furthermore, he continues with his UN speech as he speaks of the future of the country as if my children have some quasi contractual obligation in the form of conscription. These government servants are malfunctioning. The public workers believes in this language with a fervor so extreme that cognitive dissonance is the only way to deal with the breach of their prime directive. They believe the law must be broken for the good of all. In their brainwashed religion, they assume all children to be theirs. What is even more frightening is many people actually agree with this Clintonian dementia; "It takes a community to raise a child." No, Hillary, what children need to be conceived, raised and brought up as responsible adults is independent parents, not state Humanism. Humanist statism is the latest flavor of religious idolatry established in the past few decades of United Nation utopian ideals. We'll look at that and who is behind that later.

Dr. Juan Miguel Cerdas Chacon actually admits that he is in FULL knowledge of the fact that our children are unregistered. Dr. Cerdas knows the jurisdictional failure, but proceeds anyway, so when the cards fall, he cannot plead ignorance. His smooth talk and deceptive loading techniques were a cover for a seriously deranged and dangerous religious zealot. He knew that to assimilate our children into his religious body, the United Nations, we were required to willingly allow our children to be 'baptized' via registration.  This ceremonial legal shift in status is the willing consent and consideration in a contract which identifies the new persona.

There will be books written about this and the people in the future will wonder why everyone sat still and watched. The people in Nazi Germany were similarly paralyzed as they were hypnotized by the words coming out of their religious body. Incredibly, very intelligent individuals, like Dr. Cerdas, can get swept up  in to the narcotic and become a believer, particularly when there are rewards for exemplary service to reinforce the behavior of the servant, that other lower level inductees emulate similar behavior. This is something that cannot be reasoned with. These people are suffering from a serious psychosis. Unfortunately for us, at this time, we were unaware for the most part of the civil conspiracy and incredible disdain for their prime directive and those prime directives of the United Nations. We simply believed they were ignorant and their attention to the constitution would bring them in to accordance with their prime directive. However, their refusal to open dialogue and answer any questions should have come as an early warning. However, as Isrealites, we are commanded to walk a mile in the offended party's shoes and make amends by the way, which is what we were attempting to do when we answered to their requests with points of law.

As no case file or internal communiques, or any dialogue was permitted, we were completely unaware of the dangers that were in our future. We believe Costa Rica has a constitution and that it was in force and effect. They cannot even understand articles 51, 55 and 25 which Arroyo cites in her application for a search warrant. These people cannot realize this because it creates a car accident in their heads. It does not compute, therefore the prime directive must be ignored. Their zombie like continuance of assimilating my children into their world religion must be completed, constitution be damned.