The idea that it is a civil search is best illustrated by the fact that the search warrant of July 26 was not an actual search warrant, but a civil search that has the requirements of A) strong prima facie case, B) that this alleged breach of contract caused serious damage to the plaintiff (PANI), C) that the defendant has the evidence in his possession, D) there is a strong possibility that the defendant will destroy the evidence.
Every one of these must be apparent. In our situation, not one of these is apparent. A) There is no prima facie evidence of a crime or a breach of contract as they have zero evidence of B) actual damage to PANI or the ministry of health, or anyone for that matter. C) The only location this evidence would be is in the registry of the trustee. After all, when someone wants to apply for a driver's license, for example, before applying for that entitlement/privilege, no evidence of the license exists. The card the driver receives is NOT the license. The license is a comprehensive contract located in the registry. The card is merely evidence that such a contract exists in the registry. So, if the plaintiff claims we have a contract, they are in possession of it, not us. All we would have is evidence that a contract exists in their registry. They are the trustees of the agreements, not us. D) How could we destroy what they have in their possession?
The evidence of any civil fraud will not be found in our house. Any evidence of a civil fraud would have to first be established in their registry. The fact that Patricia Mesen Arroyo uses conjecture by alluding to a contract that does not exist is an abuse of process due to the fact that they refused to refute our affidavit and constructive notices that elucidate the fact that such a contract and registry does not exist.
The big question is dealing with the competency of the court. The search of July 26 which was never consented to and they turned back was still lawful. So then, what was the difference between the civil search on July 26, 2011 and the home invasion of September 6, 2011 ordered by the judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda judge of civil court in Puriscal, Costa Rica?
A nisi prius court is a court that was never objected to. As such, the court must be in session in order to be objected to. The entire process is conjecture and in assumsit that jurisdiction has been met on September 6, 2011. The process never even got started on September 6, 2011, otherwise we would have had the opportunity to object.
The question of judicial competency becomes paramount. Article 23 states that everyone is protected from unreasonable search and seizure and that such may only be issued by a compentant judge. What does judicial competency comprise of?
Competency is based upon conduct more than position. Impartiality is based upon action, not position or declaration or opinion. When a question of impartiality arrises, it is correct process that determines the value of the impartiality. For example, when the plaintiff is a NGO and is subcontracted and has political/economic ties with the same entity the judge draws a paycheck, immediately the question of judicial bias becomes paramount.
Understandibly the judge draws his pay from the state, but in order to extinguish any glare of impariality to this obvious UN/state/judge/plaintiff inside relationship, the judge may simply follow guidelines of procedure. Is there a higher predisposition of siding with the state's contrators and UN contractual relationships that affect 99% of the population over the rare and typically unpopular minority such as my family which the judge has no finacial relationship, nor internal ties to? If the answer is yes, which of course it is, then correct procedure is the only way for the judge to move forward. Protocols must be followed, and the judge makes it clear in his resolution that he, "knows the law," which means he is accepting responsibility for his faults in procedure. We shall examine those guidelines as established by internationally accepted norms in tri-parte republics such as the US and Costa Rica.
After all, in order to order a search warrant Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda must satisfy the rules of competency.
We shall examine:
That jurisdictional venues are satisfied as one.
That the judge is cognitive of the criminal or civil venue and such knowledge is available to the defendant.
That any negative averments of the defense are attended to by the affiant.
That decisions are not arbitrary and capricious.
That no improprieties are used.
That the tribunal is an actual court of record and not a private commission subcontracting court officers to double as presidents over private ad hoc tribunals.(article 35)
That a judge cannot omit a duty via dereliction of duty.(penal code 332)
That a judge does not advantage or harm a party to a controversy.(penal code 344)
That the semantics of the law are as exact as the spirit of the law as found in exact meanings of every word in the law.
That international law of non derogable rights is not infringed.
That the judge does not frustrate or impede the process of entering testimony by making impossible the testimony of the defense particularly when that testimony affects the status of the affiant/defense relationship.
That no appearance of impartial process is evident due to lack of process.
That the defence is allowed to establish the affiants standing via bill of particulars before action is taken against the defense.
That the court is not acting under 'color of law,' by making believe that codes and statutes are applicable in assumsit that we have given consent to those extra constitutional/scriptural laws.
That the judge has no religious opinion that would subjegate another religious issue.
That the judge is not ruling/acting in ways contrary to the international rules of impartiality by excluding any possibility of doubt.
The calm before the storm can be the loading of ordnance and is indicative of a preparation of war. This war has little to do with law or the health, wealth and happiness of my children, but is a conflict of principles, lieges and regis. In a conflict of principles, the one with inferior moral ground will eventually succumb to the other, regardless of what collateral damage they do to the innocent on their way to defeat.
The outcome of the war is always decided before the first ordnance is deployed. On September 6, 2011 our family won the war. The judge and his allies, losing the war and possibly fearing their masters, lost control and went on a last ditch attempt to gain control over this bleeding situation with a lawless assault on our family. They had inferior moral ground. Now it is simply a matter of clean up, healing and restitution and reflection. I do not expect to see any form of restitution, nor repentance from judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda any more than the jews fleeing Germany could appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 1940.
Naturally, after the failure of the civil search of July 26 and the coercion and other threats by Dr. Cerdas, we followed up with our own form of pre-emptive surgical strike. Inquiries by phone to Dr. Cerdas (as he demanded), and offers to seek proper remedy and cure were sent to the local public prosecutor, the Ministry of Health and PANI. As we were to find out, months later when the case file was leaked, the Public Prosecutor was never actually involved.
Naturally, I couched my language in fashion, preparing for another attack. Since the matter was civil and we were willing to seek remedy, if they would simply open dialogue without using force. They refused to reply and retreated back to the drawing board. The plans laid out were far over the head of the incompetent PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, who intentionally omitted facts regarding our status in order to create an assumption that all jurisdictional matters, in this now evidently civil court, were met. Obviously the jurisdictional matter had been divulged July 26, 2011 and the sole reason why Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda issued a civil search rather than an exigent criminal search warrant which would be the case in the event of truly abandoned and neglected children, registered or not.
IE: the judge was aware of the jurisdictional failures. If we had not consented to his Anton Piller civil search, he could have placed us in contempt, but that would open a court of record, which is of course what we wanted. Since we reported back to Dr. Cerdas within a few hours on July 26, 2011 (as requested) they became aware of the danger of putting us in contempt. They tried that in 2002 and it failed then as it would have again in 2011. The reason is simple. If a true article 35 court of record was opened, we could establish the failings of both civil search and criminal search warrant by simply making a motion of sopena duces tecum ordering the plaintiff to furnish the basis of their criminal or civil action (open a dialogue). Thus, putting us in contempt would frustrate the agenda of the plaintiff.
They needed to re-think this and after our inquiries and requests, it was clear a constitutional decision was what they needed to load their next cannon with. That ordnance would be deployed in such a way that the controversy would be opened in the manner of the constitutionality of the claims made against us. This is a judicial trap that I have watched judges use for years. No, in fact the entirety of their codes and statutes are 100% constitutionally correct as we shall see. It is not, nor has it ever been a question of constitutionality of the codes and statutes of the various commissions cited by PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo. They fell into that trap as we shall see in the coming posts. The reason I use this tactic is not in order to taunt or meddle with these extremely dangerous people. I have spent many years protecting people from vexatious attacks from public servants and I do recognize one thing: When defending yourself from any aggressor, it behooves oneself to be aware of the methodology and tactics to defuse their superior physical force. When defending yourselves against wolves, be a lamb, but use wolf's clothing if necessary. After all, that's how they capture us.
What is important to see, at this point, for those who want to research the law, is the five week reloading phase. Behind closed doors, they were building a serious arsenal of constitutional decisions to bomb us with. What they could not foresee was my delivery into their court and planting my own ordinance before they could deliver it. After they issued a citation to my wife, I entered a document on September 5, 2011 to the court which rendered their ordinance useless as they would have no ability to navigate and deliver their blow. My document checked theirs. Being the day before the supposed hearing, they had to proceed and play in hopes that we would make an error. Unfortunately for the judge, he was hopelessly unprepared for our document. This led to his narcissistic fit of pique and his use of the sacred power of the judicial appointment for private purposes. PANI is not a government agency. It is a private, autonomous artifice entity like the central bank or K-Mart, or the TSA. IE: it is non self referencing and not a physical man, thus can only be harmed via breach of covenants. As such, when an artificial entity has a complaint, the complaint will be civil in nature and a contact must be involved, even if it is adhesive or quasi in nature. Either way, any obligation must have the elements of a debtor and creditor, so that the court can adjudicate lawfully. Any attempt to jump over protocols that would benefit one side of the controversy would be a breach of justice and an unlawful action on behalf of the judge and in fact in contempt of the very court he is the president of. Remember, the judge is not the court. He is an officer of the court and must follow protocols, lest he modifies these protocols by legislating from the bench which is a complete subversion of the Republic and the very sovereign he is there to serve.
I will expose this, one document at a time, for clarity and purpose of creating a case file, for that is the purpose of this information. This the real court room where, for once, we can be heard. The aim and purpose of this work is to elucidate a path for the very few who are searching for a method to re-gain control over their own creation. We were told well enough some three thousand years ago not to pledge allegiance to any man as ruler, but who listens to good advice anyway?
Before we get started on very heavy, voluminous documents, it should be well understood that:
The people do not own a nation anymore than they can own a race.
Their servants do not own a nation.
The people own that which they create.
The people own their government.
The government creates citizens and residents.
The government owns that which it creates.
This underlying principle, found in constitutional preambles the world over, will ring very clear as I bring forward the true meaning of their words.
On August 29, 2011 a communique from the Executive Director of PANI in San Jose, Costa Rica arrived at the Puriscal PANI office, whereby they confided that the laws making vaccines obligatory have been passed and referenced in the body of the text. It is indisputable, but along with this comes their own admission by the selection of their words that the matter involves civil contracts.
1) sala constitutional mediante constitucional 2009- 01963
2) mediante sentencia 2000- 11648
3) mediante sentencia 2007- 836
4) article 55 of the constitution
5) article 19 of the American convention on human rights
6) article 3 of the convention of the rights of the child
PANI concludes that we (the parents) are violating the rights of state property (our children) and that since they believe an entitlement is a right, and that the right must be forcibly pressed upon the recipient, that indeed we the parents are violating that right.
For example: you have the right to remain silent... but what if you choose NOT to remain silent. Are the police going to silence you in order for you to receive your right?
There is a difference between entitlements and rights and we will reiterate that.
Rights exist before government was ever a glint in the collective eye. Entitlements are commercial in nature and exist at the expense of other participants with that regis. We'll get to that as we examine their documents.
For now, we should seriously wonder one thing: Why is it so imperative to get these vaccines over our objection and over our consent? We have the right to religion, does that mean we must be religious? I ask this because the PANI officials make note that we have a religious objection, but they fail to point at what that religion might be. The fact is we are NOT religious, evidenced by the fact that we have never re-lieged (an etymological fact for those who care to do the research.) Of course they also assume we are registered with their regis even after our statements to the contrary dismiss this error of conjecture.
Israelites do not practice religion. We practice law. We are well within all of the laws and not in offense of any of their codes as we have not given that authority away.
It is true this protection is unavailable to 99.99% (maybe more) of the population, but that is because they gave their consent under article 13.3. In a nut shell, they do not want to take the responsibility of rearing their children and bearing all costs. That decision to limit liability is done via registration in 13.3 and relieves the costs of schooling and health, but also removes the parents ability to make any decisions regarding any codes involving children such as the type of schooling and health care.
For the most part, people love that. Government gives stuff for free. Amazing.
For those who do know how to count and are not subject to this Marxist drivel, they will know one maxim of all commercial law, 'There is no free lunch.'
Government cannot, never has and never will produce anything. Simply put, government is an artifice, a club or association by which we must register to receive its limited liability larceny based gifts. The club is made up of men who can no more force you to register for club benefits that are not congruent with scriptural law than you can be forced to eat at McDonalds.
Costa Rica's 2011 budget boasted that 55% of all expenditures would be met with raising new taxes and 45% would be met with further borrowing and long term international loans. Who better to charge your 'free' entitlements than those without a voice. The unborn. Anyone participating outright theft from the unborn will have to answer. The public school is the only place we could learn how to give credibility to larceny. Well, I cannot be forced to steal using limited liability government schemes. That biblical prohibition cannot be converted to civil crime against PANI or some ministry lest they provide the contract we are in breach of, since they are private NGO. The only way they can have a grievance with us is via contract directly or indirectly implied.
By the way, anyone who does know us knows that we do not tell others what to do or how to live. We respectfully live around people who practice what ever they believe.
However, no one can be forced to steal under the obtuse guise of a right. No one can be forced to remain silent. That is exactly what has been elucidated on documents concealed from us as we shall examine next.
Although we cannot find mediante recurso 2009- 01963, we can establish the intent of the law that it cites in #8111. This is a public code and it states that the vaccines are 'free and obligatory.'
Without going much further, this states it all. Vaccines are not free, the health ministry and vaccine manufacturers get paid from 55% taxes and 45% loans. So, we shall not force others to pay for our health care, as that is incongruent with the preamble of the constitution as well as articles 18, 19, 25, 28 and others.
So, how then can it be 'obligatory?' Simple: The law of obligations
As we can see, every obligatory law is a contract that must have four elements of which there is a debtor and creditor. This is commercial law and the reason it is a civil process in equity.
These are THEIR words, not mine. I did not make up the definitions found in the law of obligations. As such, we have no obligation to the state of Costa Rica to vaccinate or any other quasi contracts because, simply put, we are not debtors since A) we have not registered voluntarily and B) we have not accepted any benefits whereby a quasi contract could be created by a judge to ensure equity and prevent 'unjust gain.'
The state refuses to rebut my testimony of facts and as such, in civil law, that is dishonor and our affidavit stands as the highest truth. Remember, their best legal rebuttal was, 'we don't have to answer to you.'
We were never arguing with their force... We only attempted to find the truth as they saw it is law, but they refuse to rebut ANY of our testimony.
One might believe that if the law says you have an obligation to the law itself, that is enough to adjudicate in favor of those that want to distribute vaccination rituals. For example, we have an obligation to refrain from theft or murder. The state can impose itself upon actions such as theft or murder whether the person has a cedula/ ss# or not. But, that is because theft and murder are prohibited by the God of Israel. The adherence to the prohibitions of theft and murder are obligations to the God of Israel for which we are creditors for His promise. Any action of a government must be congruent with scriptural mandates and prohibitions as they are ordained by God in Romans 13. If indeed the code or statute is not congruent with biblical law, it must be consented to by the law of obligation. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of the authors of the constitution and the Author of the Bible and the opinion of supreme court judges as we shall soon see in the next posts. It is perfect and logical. All law=contracts even and including scriptural law as we have been given a choice of whom to serve.
Dr. Cerdas and his ilk belong to a very jealous god called the United Nations. The United Nations is a religious body that practices pantheistic humanism. This religion has extreme ideals and theories regarding the depopulation of the earth in order to save their mother. We'll talk about that agenda later as we wish to deal with 'obligations' and the legal nature of debtors and creditor, as this is the focal point of our issue with this ministerial cult that attacked and destroyed my family.
The purpose of Dr.Cerdas' visit was an attempt to create a nexus with a contract or simply refuse the offer (dishonor them) which then a court (not of record) could attempt to adjudicate in assumpsit.
Of course, Dr. Cerdas was not up to speed with our conditional acceptance of his contract and later tried to omit his signature from the record. This is the best these people can do? Lie, cheat, coerce, threaten, omit material fact, purger court affidavits and testimony, refuse to rebut affidavits... abuse of process.
Yes, it is becoming clear, the criminal intent and inchoate actions of everybody from Christina Rubi right up to PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo. What about Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda? He is special, we'll deal with him later.
