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.
No comments:
Post a Comment