As we have seen on the You Tube videos, Dr. Cerdas insists that we sign both his order as well as the receipt of it. He insisted that before we examine the order, we first sign not only the receipt of the order, but the actual order he came to deliver. We were not able to first take the order to counsel. If we had signed the order, we would have accepted the order as it was written, thus agreeing to perform what the order stated. Conversely, if we did not sign the order, it would go to the administrative tribunal under the assumption that the ministry had jurisdiction. Dr. Cerdas would state that we refused to follow their order and the process would continue.
If a law had been broken, why did Dr. Cerdas require any signatures?
The reason is that he needed jurisdictional joinder in the form of a contract to proceed with an administrative tribunal. When a crime occurs, no signatures are necessary for the prosecution to initiate an action. Only the elements of habeas corpus and mens rea are necessary to establish an action. If the matter is civil, then agreements (contracts), or breeches of such, come into question and the Plaintiff would have to provide evidence of said contracts by the power of a writ of subpoena duces tecum to establish the veracity of the claim. In the order seen here, health office, Ebais #4, states we refused vaccines.
The claim of our refusal was based on the testimony of Dra. Ana Gabriela Mora Rojas, which can be seen here.
However, we never refused vaccines. We demurred the matter of vaccine entitlements, awaiting the ministry to rebut our scriptural position on the matter, as per article 75. A demurrer is not a refusal.
We are prohibited from accepting vaccines from a scriptural health perspective. We are also prohibited from receiving other free entitlements. We are also prohibited from worshiping man made gods and their extra-curricular social redistribution schemes. We are also prohibited from engaging in surety for the debts incurred from such redistribution schemes. Article 75 of the Constitution supports those scriptural perspectives.
My application of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Rather than proceed with reckless coercion and threats, the ministry of health parishioners could have refuted our lawful position. This respectful form of open dialogue would have supported jurisprudence and would have gone far in preserving family, health, life and liberty. Such an attempt for open dialogue would support the spirit of law. This clearly was not the purpose of these religious missionaries.
Dr. Cerdas' document orders that we present vaccination papers (that do not exist) or begin receiving mandatory entitlements (a legal oxymoron.) Dr. Cerdas insisted that we agree to the order before having counsel examine it. That is why we could only conditionally accept the order, as seen in the video. Dr. Cerdas accepted and signed our conditional acceptance as witnessed by his personal driver and police escort, as well as members of my family. However, Dr. Cerdas then refused to give us the order whereby we could take it to counsel.
Furthermore, Dr. Cerdas noted that we did not want to receive the document and, as seen in the video, counsels with his witnesses to conspire in stating that we refused the document when in fact it was Dr. Cerdas who said, "I cannot deliver this." Our wish to protect a signature by creating joinder with our conditional acceptance precludes the order from being accepted as written. Dr. Cerdas' job that day was to conscript us unconditionally, that jurisdiction may be established. This indeed was clever missionary work.
How can we produce documents that do not exist, particularly when we have explained in great detail WHY they do not exist and why we are prohibited from vaccinating our children. The ministry refuses to refute our affidavits and constructive notices with any proper modality proving errors in our lawful position.
Dr. Cerdas FAILS TO PROVE HIS JURISDICTION over my children, or refute my affidavits or constructive notices.
2 comments:
I appreciate being able to keep up to date with your situation but it is difficult to read of your experience without being emotionally affected. Though I think what I find even more difficult is reading some of the insanely ignorant posts. While I’m sure it’s some stupid slob hiding behind a cloak of anonymity while sitting in their mothers darkened basement hunting and pecking their keyboard with one hand while doing who-knows-what with their other hand, it is still very upsetting to be made aware that in our age of enlightenment the worst kind of ignorance remains; ignorance of your fundamental rights. Please allow me to share some well-known information that may discourage some from posting ridiculous invectives in regards to this family’s situation. Mind you, I am not a well educated person so if I can grasp the concept I’m sure anyone can.
Eleanor Roosevelt drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thereby establishing equality in society. With 58 Member States of the U.N. voting a total of 1,400 times on practically every word and every clause of the text I would imagine the end result had to be so basic and irrefutable that even the worst of enemies could reach an agreement on these 30 Articles. Here is a link to the document "http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/".
[TO BE CONTINUED]
In summary is says the following:
1. Everyone is free and we should all be treated in the same way.
2. Everyone is equal despite differences in skin color, sex, religion, language for example.
3. Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
5. No one has the right to hurt you or to torture you.
6. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the law.
7. The law is the same for everyone, it should be applied in the same way to all.
8. Everyone has the right to ask for legal help when their rights are not respected.
9. No one has the right to imprison you unjustly or expel you from your own country.
10. Everyone has the right to a fair and public trial.
11. Everyone should be considered innocent until guilt is proved.
12. Every one has the right to ask for help if someone tries to harm you, but no-one can enter your home, open your letters or bother you or your family without a good reason.
13. Everyone has the right to travel as they wish.
14. Everyone has the right to go to another country and ask for protection if they are being persecuted or are in danger of being persecuted.
15. Everyone has the right to belong to a country. No one has the right to prevent you from belonging to another country if you wish to.
16. Everyone has the right to marry and have a family.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
18. Everyone has the right to practice and observe all aspects of their own religion and change their religion if they want to.
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.
21. Everyone has the right to help choose and take part in the government of their country.
22. Everyone has the right to social security and to opportunities to develop their skills.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.
27. Everyone has the right to share in their community's cultural life.
28. Everyone must respect the 'social order' that is necessary for all these rights to be available.
29. Everyone must respect the rights of others, the community and public property.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration.
Here is a link to the plain language version: "http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ABCannexesen.pdf" . If there are still too many words to digest, here is the child-friendly version: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11219
While I’m sure there is someone out there still hell bent on remaining stuck on stupid, I hope any critical parties with eyes to see and ears to hear will take a moment and, at least, think the next time they are about to post against a family who is exercising their fundamental rights to choose what they think is best for their family.
Post a Comment