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.