9/5/12 Duty, Obligation & Non Sequiturs

In the examination of another legal citation: 2000-11648, the supreme court of Costa Rica is asked to determine the constitutionality of the revocation of the previous law that stated that the vaccines must be made easily accessible and free, to: OBLIGATORY AND FREE. The National Vaccine Commission adduced that the inclusion and expansion of the law to make it obligatory was necessary to protect minorities, the public principle, and RIGHTS AND INTEGRAL AND NON INTEGRAL DUTIES OF THE DEPUTIES OF THE COMMISSION. The Sala Quatro (supreme court) measured the inclusion of 'obligatory' against articles 18, 28 and 129 of the constitution of Costa Rica.

Cutting out the superfluous legalese we can reduce the matter to this:
The new addition of 'OBLIGATORY' to the law (civil code or contract) interferes with the nature of free will in article 28. This then conflicts with article 18 which states that the people must adhere with the constitution. Article 129 establishes that laws passed shall be adhered to as law IN ACCORDANCE WITH OTHER LAWS THAT GOVERN THE LAW PASSED.

All law is contract, even the law of God was given to us as a choice. No man or group of men can arbitrarily deprive anyone from this choice, without consent. That is observed in the preamble of the constitution.

The court examines whether the new amendment to 'oblige' all clients of the law interferes with 'autonomy of freewill' adduced in article 28. A simple dilemma with an even simpler answer that cannot be divulged lest the keys to the system be revealed.

I agree with the court's conclusion that states the new amendment to 'obligate' citizens and other civil clients under the code does NOT interfere with their right to autonomy of free will in article 28. The clients have already enthusiastically agreed to the obligation by registering to receive their entitlements. The issue is moot as the obligation exists as the people have consented. The cedula (ss#) is the highest form of evidence of that consent.

However, the path of logic that the court follows to make this conclusion drifts away from law and into supposition and non sequiturs. Very clever, very subversive. The judge's rationale to throw a red herring and keep the public in a state confusion where conversely the key law in the focus of constitutional rights is rooted in scripture and cited in the preamble of the constitution. The assembly redirects its rationale so that the source of all rights do not come from the scriptures, but come from the United Nations which believes it is the highest power in law. The United Nations does not subscribe to any entity more supreme than itself. The United Nations is claiming to be the source of all supremacy and the judicial body involved in amendment 2000-11648 agrees. The implication is that the lack of infringement of article 28 is not based upon the law of obligation established by consent in article 13, but instead by virtue of the omnipotence and self evident values imposed by the United Nations.

This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the following. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." No one, therefore, shall have any rights if the enjoyment of them conflicts with the United Nations' desires.

What the Costa Rica national assembly omits in 2000-11648 is that the entire strength of the United Nations is predicated upon contracting nations and those nations achieve their power by the consent of the governed and that consent is encapsulated in registrations. The reason the ecclesiastic nature of the preambles in constitutions around the world is they make reference to the God of Israel as the supreme word of law. The God of Israel gave us a choice whom to serve, and the United Nations (a small coterie of rich men) impose their dictates as they emasculate all religion under one guiding counsel of men.

The shift from the Law and entry into the legalese zone for purposes of hiding the truth begins with a dissertation on privacy of the client in the health care system being breached in favor of protecting the public from infectious diseases. Further shift occurs when the claim that there is injury to the deputies as they cannot perform their mandates to protect the public of the law remains facultative to the obligation of vaccines. IE, how can the deputies guarantee the health if vaccines are not obligatory? The deputies claim injury for the lack of clarification due to constitutionality of the idea of obligatory.

This blurring of rational almost appears credible as similar issues have come up in the United States. IE 'what about the people's privacy in the medical records? A ridiculous precept, because who wants to keep their medical info private from a doctor or the government anyway? The fact is, if you have a Social Security number, you are a 14th amendment citizen and you are in, both feet, so their is NO privacy, and that is logical, legal and lawful. That is also a red herring for people to not see the keys to understand their relationship with a civil government system. Article 24, like the 4th amendment indicates that there must be a reasonable expectation to privacy and that expectation must be viewed by the public as reasonable. So how can you worry about withholding information from the health ministry after you have contracted with them to play doctor? You can have your privacy. Rescind your SS number.

There is no law in Costa Rica, or the United States or any other Mosaic law system, that forces anyone into a contract that limits their God given responsibilities. This is elucidated in the foundational statement of the preamble of the constitution of Costa Rica and further recognizes which God they are talking about in article 75. They are not talking about mother Gaia, the sun god, tree god or any other pantheistic hallucination.

The legislature further discussing 2000-11648 goes on to introduce more non sequiturs into the decision to blur the real jurisdictional connection. He mentions that these international treaties create duties and impositions onto the citizens in order to protect the health of others. This precludes the principles spoken of in the preamble and essentially pitts the United Nations as the new god of Costa Rica, because the God of Israel is not in favor of such collective schemes. The judge continues the non sequitor by suggesting that no right of the individual is so limitless the the necessity to protect the interests of another are restricted. Therefore, since there is an assumption is that they are dealing with obligees, post hoc ergo propter hoc, this ruling is used in our case, insinuates we are treading on the rights of others by not being registered with Costa Rica which in turn registers with the United Nations putting us in an assumpsit jurisdiction.

Accordingly, by virtue of the assumption, we have an allegiance to the United Nations, the collective interest is superior to the freedom of the individual. Association with the United Nations appears mandatory according to 2000-11648. This association limits liability and offers entitlements. Now that's quite a statement since the collective is another non self-referencing entity and someone must speak on its behalf to claim injury.

That is the way to subvert law, yet be in accordance with it. Non sequitors and post hoc ergo propter hoc rational.

Lets recap why obligatory vaccines have been passed by the legislature. The obligatory vaccines do not infringe with the right to privacy or the right of autonomy of will because the United Nations have created treaties that impose obligations and duties on all citizens that they must receive health care for the health of others.

These duties, imposed on the individual, allow the collective to become a superior entity in importance, a very popular United Nation mode of thought today. However, it does not hold any capacity as these conclusions are non sequitors, because of the law of obligations. Any and all obligations stem from a duty which stems from a debtor, creditor relationship that has subject matter in law and a vinculum (legal reason.)

What does this mean and how does this apply to us?
It means that despite the national assembly coming to the correct conclusion, it has no rational position in claiming that one contracting entity contracting with another entity can dictate over a third entity when no obligation arrises.

However, what judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda avoids is the simple truth that creates the lawful constitutionality of obligatory vaccines not based upon the obligation arising from the consent evidenced by registration with the entity making the offer, but by unilateral declarations made by an entity by which all people are assumed to have assumpsit obligations. The fact that they are using this amended law 2000-11648 in part to prove jurisdiction over us is tantamount to saying the obligation is due to our duty to the United Nations. I require proof that we are debtors to the United Nations.  I will accept any obligation to the United Nations pending proof that a debtor, creditor claim with subject matter and vinculum exist.

9/11/12 More Irrelevant Referencing

A most bizarre document used by PANI to attempt to prove jurisdiction over my family was mediante sentencia 2007-836. This is a supreme court decision from a court in VENEZUELA. No where in this decision do we find the quotes made by PANI attorneys Licda. Monica Pacheco Gomez and Lic. VB Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos. This case is in fact a foreign jurisdiction that details an issue between a government employee getting fired from the ministry of foreign affairs (vs. ministry of human resources.) The parties have bonified contracts and the issue can be read here. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the ministry of health, jurisdiction, or vaccines. NOTHING. This is just another specious, off point tactics similar in strategy to Patricia Mesen Arroyo's misquotes and omissions of truth.

9/17/12 American Human Rights Charter, article 19

On August 29, 2011, PANI executive attorneys, Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos, use American Human Rights Charter article 19 in part to prove the obligatory nature of vaccines to be administered to my children. This implies that this article overrides my parental authority. Let's examine this.

Article 19. Rights of the Child
Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.

Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights
1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, "person" means every human being.

In recognizing the primary function of jurisdiction over an individual man, one must define the terms. Terms are used in many instances in obfuscated ways to deceive people into entering contracts whereby an individual gives up something without knowing it in order for the offerer to gain an advantage over his prey. Con men use language mastery to gain their mark's confidence. So let's look FIRST, as always, at the preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights cited by PANI officials as a method to force our children to adhere to their religious rituals.

The preamble makes it very clear the various protections man has from the authors of this treaty. The preamble speaks of these protections as evident truths that apply to man. It is well thought out and logical. Then they move on to the body of the charter whereby the first article defines who the charter affects. ('Who' is within the jurisdiction of the charter.)

1. States party to the convention.

2. Persons (not men) subject to the jurisdiction. Man cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the state without first establishing a juristic persona; a token which identifies a comprehensive agreement between the man and the state. This contract will be identified by title (your given name and family appellation capitalized) and number (ss number, cedula, etc.) This identification does not identify the man, it identifies a token which is subject to the jurisdiction. You, the man, are responsible for the token's activities by your own willingness to contract with the state, which is a voluntary action.

Essentially, the covenant does not apply to man, but applies to personas and, in fact, the preamble exhaustively explains this. Further clarification comes at the beginning in article 1 where the authors of the covenant define what a person is: "For the purpose of the convention "person" means every human being."

This is extremely deceptive speech because it implies that every man is affected, like it or not, which would offend the law of God, which many contracting states (such as Costa Rica) have established in their constitutions. If we exhaustively define the terms, we establish where the slight of hand is really a forked tongue. A human being is not what you think it is.

That is why none of this charter offends the God of Israel in any way. They are stating clearly that none of this charter applies to man, but instead these rules are for players called persons. Persons are juristic creations even if they are natural. A natural person would be a contracted man, a corporate person is a corporation. These personifications are imperative for the system to operate and for us to play sandbox with our invisible masters. However, no one is forced to play.

Article 19 speaks of 'the' child, but does not designate ownership. Due to marriage licenses, the product of the marriage defaults as state property, as two willing players (man and wife) create a three party contract with the state. It is assumed any children of the persons are party to the covenant. Article 35 of the Costa Rican constitution states that, "No one may be tried by a commission, a court or a judge specially appointed for the case, but exclusively by the courts established in accordance with this Constitution." However, commissions and private tribunals (courts of no record or an administrative court) can rule on the matters of private civil law. This convention is private law and it is binding on state parties which, in turn, apply these regulations on their citizens. It moves on to mention when and where and how the participants to this contract will NOT receive these fuzzy, warm guarantees and that any of these guarantees are at the behest of the executive committee. Read carefully articles 29 and 30...in fact, read everything.

So, none of this applies to my family, as we are not registered with the state which, under article 7, contracts with this commission. The government of Costa Rica and its citizens are bound by their contracts and the people obviously love their bondage, otherwise they would rescind their contracts by the civil equitable law of rescission. That's ok by me, I do not decide what others should do, as for me, I choose not to play. (I also do not get any free goodies.)

So, once again, the PANI executive office including Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos fail to establish jurisdiction over my children using this document.

Next up, article 3 on the convention of the rights of the child.

9/20/12 United Nations Rights of the Child, Article 3

The final tool PANI executive attorneys Monica Pacheco Gomez and Eduardo Alfaro Villalobos use to attempt to prove their control over my children is the United Nations Rights of the Child, article 3. This is an enabling clause that instructs parties to the covenant to police the 'parental duties.' Take note of the important terms used to define "duty." We can define duty through the civil equity principles of the Law of Obligations. Duty cannot be ascribed to anybody without their acquiescence, lest there is a violation of law. A criminal will owe a duty to pay a fine, for example, and his consent is not required. However, any law that does not follow the preamble of the constitution must be adhered through civil contracts. That does require consent. That is why 13.3 discusses the 'will' of the parent. It is at this point where the parent consents to the jurisdiction of the government inside of limited liability schemes, which then falls under further contract with the United Nations. If the child is not registered, the state may attempt to use marriage license to assume control of the child. The state will attempt to do anything to get control of that asset (the child) because the asset can be used as surety for debt. That, by the way, is prohibited as a 'crime en mal.' It is kind of surreal because the United Nations is worried about selling children and prostitution and such, which is exactly what the state is intending to do by selling the child into surety for loans to pay for the lust of the state today.

For the sake of brevity, we will not go any further here than to examine, once again, the preamble. State parties to the present convention...have agreed as follows. Everything in between and following is irrelevant because this covenant deals with state parties. Not men, nor their children. Thus, if you have a contract with a state party evidenced by a SS number, SIN, or cedula, now this applies to you. You are a contracting party to the state and the state has the power to give away your political rights to the United Nations. The United Nations is private, civil law conducted by contract just like it says here.

You see, my good friends, this is how we control government. We simply do not participate. We cannot tell others to stop participating, but we cannot be forced into any association what so ever. If indeed a law is involved, it must be adjudicated in either a civil or criminal setting.

This means we are not 'above the law' as some legal illiterates believe. No, we can be held under Romans 13 when indeed there is a tort, trespass, or civil crime. We simply have to define the terms and recognize that much of that which is called law are civil statutes and contained in civil procedure which is spoken in the language of equity. Simply put, if it is not in accordance with the preamble of the constitution, then it must be consented to.

If any such statute or code is offensive to you, measure it against Acts 5:29 to see if it is compulsory or simply obligatory. You may be surprised at the number of laws that require you to re-liege so the authorities do not offend the preamble of the constitution. The simple perfection of this is realized that we are afforded a choice. Even the idol worshippers are given a choice to worship what they wish, but equally , those wishing to worship nothing more than the primary law are equally afforded that choice.

To find the truth, we must define the terms.

9/26/12 There Are Three Kinds of Lies; Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics."

Twain's use of this was not merely for the use of irony, but illustration of a fact. Lying is inherently evil, but lying for the purpose of supporting a religious agenda which attempts to support itself with falsified statistics is more than a damned lie. It is an inchoate crime, particularly when it must be further covered with more people, more lies, suppressing evidence, omitting material facts, perjury of testimony to a judge, abusing process and obstructing justice with off point, specious testimonials. This obviously has morphed beyond anything to do with the benefit of our children, ironically claimed in the United Nations' charter. This is an attack of ideals where, I choose to support the law of the constitution and preamble and PANI officials and Ministerial officials choose to side with the United Nations and that source of Pantheistic Humanism as a final word. Such a religion can only be assimilated by the choice afforded in civil equity definitions. My position harms nobody and illustrates demonstrable, definable facts. Their position relies on the use of lies and inchoate attacks on my family that proved genocidal. If indeed PANI and the Ministries were truly concerned about my children, open dialogue to establish their power (jurisdiction) over my children would have been the correct civil approach, not secretive panels, lies, abuse of process and stealth attacks and omission of our documents that annuls their power over us. Open dialogue would be the choice of any group seriously concerned about the truth of the matter. The above tactics used by Dr. Juan Miguel Chaccon Cerdas, Patricia Mesen Arroyo and all of the United Nations functionaries that involved themselves in the destruction of my family = summation of the mens rea of their inchoate crimes and the resulting pernicious damages. The overall sense of the people who attended my daughter's funeral knew something was drastically wrong. I have simply defined the wrongness and intent to damage in all of these previous blog entries.
Now we move onto September 6, 2011, the event and actual ACTION and causation that led to the death and destruction of our lives in Costa Rica. What occurred in the court room on that day?

9/29/12 No RSVP Required

On September 2, 2011, Birgitte received a citation to appear in court at 11:00am, September 6, 2011. The man delivering the citation did not require any RSVP or signature, at least we believed it was Birgitte that was required to appear.

The citation was on court stationary with court personnel stamps and signatures. Therefore, the individual sought is OBLIGED to appear in order to remain in honor of the state mandate. This is perfectly lawful and legal and is in accordance with the preamble.

Curious to find out what the charges were, Birgitte went to PANI office on September 3, 2011, as they were the affiant listed on the citation.

PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo,  explained to my wife that there were NO CHARGES. They just wanted information. PANI is a private trust, thus requires grantor, trustee and beneficiary.

Inconsistent with her previous position that she was not obliged to speak to Birgitte, Patricia Mesen Arroyo elected to recognize Birgitte as the entity they sought to bring to the court.

On September 5, 2011 we entered a document to the court to ensure the court recognized our status as individuals adhering to the constitution.

On September 6, 2011 shortly before 11:00am, Birgitte arrived at the court in honor of the court's demand. She brought two witnesses that we have known for years.

At approximately 11:00am PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo arrived, at which time Birgitte was asked to identify herself. She told them, "I AM Birgitte Poulsen," the individual asked to be there by Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda. Remember, the PANI threats from Annia Lorena Duran to 'physically remove our children' were directed at my wife in the flesh, no contractual identification required; and Dr. Cerdas, who directed his efforts to contract with Birgitte, while no identification was required at that time either.

We are not registered with the state as per our choice not to receive state entitlements (articles 51 and 55 as example) protected by articles 13.3, 19, 25, 28, 75 and of course the preamble which is singularly the platform for the entire constitution. As such, we cannot identify a state contract by title and number, but can only tell them who we are.

Here is the big turning point. At 11:15am, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda writes an affidavit stating that Birgitte did not honor the court mandate and DID NOT appear at the court, only some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen. This affidavit was witnessed by Patricia Mesen Arroyo. The court and PANI was short a civil element called the 'contract' under the rules of equitable 'obligations.' Without that, the judge could not preside the court. 

At 11:20am, Dr. Juan Miguel Chaccon Cerdas arrived at the court and Birgitte told the clerk that Dr. Cerdas could identify her as the woman that he sought to make agreements or demands upon.

This is where it gets really interesting. The judge, who made the order for Birgitte cannot actually see her in the court with witnesses, thus cowers in the inner chamber, peaking out on occasion to spot an opportunity whereby he can proceed to open the court to process. Naturally, the civil element of consent is lacking and due to our documents, he can neither create a quasi contract allowing for an assumpsit court (not of record) or private commission under United Nations contract to proceed. (We have no demonstrable contract implied or expressed that has not been negated by affidavit.)

So, the judge cannot open either an article 35 court, or a private commission. He cannot ask Birgitte to enter the second chamber (where affiant and defense make their positions and arguments) because, under civil rules of procedure, the obligation rests the affiant's bonafide claim which we have already asked them to provide, and they refused (dishonored civil procedure.) As individuals under the preamble, we neither argue nor debate, but follow the law that we are compelled to follow.

We made them aware that if the affiant lacks a civil claim, then a subpoena duces tecum, demand for a bill of particulars, a plea in abatement or at least a show cause hearing will be our only recourse.

So the judge, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, knows the PANI issue is dead in the water. It lacks the civil element of 'consent.'

To recap, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda ordered Birgitte to appear at his court then claimed she did not appear. Indeed she did show up and we had witnesses and even Dr. Cerdas could be summonsed because I am sure he would have a difficult time explaining that Birgitte was not the woman he sought in the YOU TUBE video.

What is a judge to do?
Simple: He could return the issue to PANI for lack of sufficiency to make a case IF he opens the court to a proper article 35 court.

OR

He could favor the affiant under his contract (article 7) with the United Nations being that along with article 35 courts, he also presides private commissions/tribunals under article 7 ensuring the obligations the state has with the United Nations. But, of course, that would mean the judge is now REPRESENTING the affiant. If he is representing the affiant, he is no longer a competent judge under article 23 and the rules of competency and conflict of interest. 

At this time the judge, from inside his private chamber, exclaims "NO..." and sends the court clerk back to the 3rd (outer) chamber. The clerk told Birgitte that the judge 'would get back to her and she could leave.' Note that the court clerk had no problem addressing Birgitte and delivering the judge's message. 

At approximately 11:40am, all parties left the court house as per the judge's dismissal. Remember, we were completely unaware of the inchoate conspiracy against us, as they refused to show us this case file, or even rebut our testimonies. This entire process, beginning on May 13, 2011 is in dishonor of civil rules of obligations. IE: contract law. We were aware of nothing more than that the judge dismissed this case due to insufficiency of claim.

What followed next proved to change our lives forever, and in fact will result in the judge changing the balance of his life, for he stepped outside of the authority bestowed upon him to act as a private representative to address the agenda of his contractor, the United Nations.