Understanding This Identification

Before we delve into the case file (expediente) that was denied to us on September 6, 2011, it is useful to define terms and get a proper understanding of state Identification. This identification (called a cedula in Costa Rica) is similar in use and effect as the social security number in the United States. This SS number was created in the 1930's as part of Roosevelt's 'New Deal.' The number was simply an identification of an individual's registration to participate in government entitlement programs. The number was a tracking number for an account with the government which had now expanded beyond its original purpose and had entered the world of commercial insurance.

This tracking number was required for the recipient to recieve the bounty of government entitlements. In many countries this number has become a universal commercial tracking number for engaging in commercial activity.

It should be well understood that this number is not mandatory, but voluntary, and understandably many people are lured into 'free' entitlements. Also understand that the need for such a system was surreptitiously compelled onto the nation in times of financial duress. We must recognize that the financial duress was promulgated by the implementation of fiat currency and private banking which manipulated volumes of money available to the nation.

In 1933, Roosevelt initiated a ban on gold as a monetary system claiming that this was the cause of the demise and collapse. Roosevelt allowed the private banks under a national reserve system to own and control the volume of money. This money (Federal Reserve Notes) became the new fiat currency and being privately owned, interest (usury) needed to be paid. These social security numbers also became tax ID numbers whereby the people were then compelled to pay the usury through a graduated income tax (established in 1917 as a provisional war tax.) The government could borrow as much as it needed for its maintenance, social programs and interest in new wars and then simply pay the interest (usury) on the volume in circulation to the private money owners.

Nations that claim the God of Israel as their moral basis protect that moral base with a constitution as Costa Rica does in article 75. This allows protection for those who do not wish to participate in comprehensive government schemes which limit personal liability. It allows for people to pledge allegiance to other kings or democracies yet protects those who do not wish to pledge new allegiances with gods foreign to that spoken of in the constitution.

Responsibility is the corner stone of freedom. When government servants insist that participation is mandatory, they have given leave of their oaths of office to remain as servants and drifted into totalitarianism. When such occurs, we Israelites (homeless soujourners for 2500 years) find our shelter in Law.

We are prohibited from receiving such entitlements or registering with foreign and alien gods to receive 'free' entitlements. Israelites are also prohibited from practicing surety for the debts that accumulate on these fiat loans which eventually bankrupt the nation whereby it falls into national captivity by commercial contracts (debt enslavement.)

The constitution and law support this philosophy. Certain people mistakenly think this means we are 'above the law.' No, in fact we can still be brought to penalty in matters both civil (commercial contracts) and criminal. However, no one may be complelled to participate in entitlement programs. Such entitlements are available, just like any other commercial insurance making a tender offer.

Roosevelt may have dealt the people a new deal, but they did not have to pick up the cards. They voluntarily accepted the new comprehensive social insurance contract.

It is also critical to understand this: We do not advocate others do as we do. I believe people should engage in what ever rainy day insurance activity makes them feel secure, so long as it does not affect me. As for us, our choices are simplified. We do not practice religion or idolatry and as such, do not re-liege or create registries with such systems because we, as Israelites, are compelled by Law to be responsible for our own selves and that of our families.

We are now testing this in court, for either the public servants intend to be subservient to their oaths in the constitution (art. 11) or not. The United Nations entry into this equation via contract is irrelevant as are their declarations. The reason is simple. The state of Costa Rica contracts with the United Nations. We have no contracts with either and article 25 prevents forced association, whatsoever.

This is why the question of jurisdiction is absolutely critical. We either gave our children to the state through registry, or we did not. The judge and all involved refuse to acknowledge our jurisdictional challenge, and as such refuse to acknowledge their oaths to the constitution. The trouble the public servants now find themselves is that their actions have adversely affected my family in a criminal manner. Not only are they in violation of the constitution, they have violated the United Nation laws that they are a tribunal to.

Who Are These Israelites Anyway?

Dr. Cerdas busied himself on July 26, 2011 when he told our neighbor that he and his cohorts were going to return, break in the gate, take our children, register them, vaccinate them and place them in public school. That is a serious threat coming from a religious ministerial sect working in coordination with another religious order, the United Nations. The United Nations is a body that countries contract with and they have some extreme anti Semitic values. Let's have a look at some of the ideals promoted by the United Nations and their various appendages. The actions of the public officials run contrary with the standards listed in the United Nations Prevention of Genocide of 1948 and Codigo Penal of Costa Rica, 127.

Dr. Cerdas' threats reinforce the fact that Dr. Cerdas intends to carry out his threats WITHOUT establishing jurisdiction over my children. This jurisdiction is established through contract which is identified by public registry.

Few people understand that when government appears to have smashed their constitutional rights, that in reality, they voluntarily entered a system whereby they waived their rights. Many wish to receive benefits from the state's varied social schemes, and for such, they must waive their constitutional rights.

Of course, my family would never interfere with other families' decisions on what they think, what they worship, what social policies they adopt, how they discipline their children, what car they drive or how they do their hair. It simply is not our business.

It does seem the business, however, of faceless bureaucrats to involve themselves lawlessly in my family's life in order to impress upon us their religious dogma called 'Humanism.' As Israelites, it is not our desire to be missionaries. Our beliefs do not require recruitment of others. The nation of Israel is a nation of people and IS NOT to be construed as the state of the star on the East coast of the Mediterranian Sea. That is a geopolitical zone established by contract under a ruse called the Balfour Declaration and has little to do with the Nation of Israel and has more to do with Zionist bankers.

Israelites are a nation of Law, not religious dogma. Religions typically require recruitment and involve commercial contracts and registration. In their inception, religions tend to be innocuous and give ephemeral releases for populations in their stressful existence in a complex world. When these programming agencies, arranged by a few elite men who suffer the same greed, fear, lust, vanity and jealousy of all men in the flesh become megalomaniac in their utopian dogmas, Law is the only recourse for Israelites to find shelter. Israelites sojourn throughout the world existing in lands of others who have also adopted the God of Israel as their foundation of Law. Costa Rica is one such nation as the constitution prescribes.

The concept of the nation of Israel is a critical understanding in the coming posts, because we must be able to discern the difference between Law and religion, morals and dogmas.

We will return to the concept of jurisdiction, artificial personas and how that affects our relationship with governing bodies under Romans 13, but for now I suggest the readers of this blog and the enemies of my nation begin by defining the following terms:

Israelite, Jew, Zionist, proselyte, semite, liege and regis. We must understand that deception is in the words and our enslavement is cast by our own hand or mouth. You may be surprised what you find in Oz. With no understanding of history, you will never know who you are. If you do not know who you are, you will never know where you are headed. It will all tie in soon.

For those who have so vengefully desecrated theLaw and, with full intent, damaged my harmless family in return for shallow gains in your ephemeral world, you will reap what you sow. Brick by brick, my friends.

Annia Lorena Duran's Threats and Coercion

Master Norma Fernandez expressed her ideas about the flag, which has quite sacred ideals and in fact are in the antithesis of Master Fernandez' apparent desire to control through lying. Master Fernandez' spirit does not reflect the spirit of the flag, so we can see her only as a foreign agent. Her sophism was mildly amusing as were her other mannerisms.

However, what drifted out with the cold candor of a true fascist, were the words from Annia Lorena Duran. Ms. Duran calmly stated that she could physically take our children away from us.

Now that was a serious threat and she had no 10th of any law whereby she could take possession of our children.You see, these public servants did not come down in regards to one of their registered children who were slated for entitlements as the state deemed necessary. Article 13.3

They had no jurisdiction and we already had told them the scriptural reasonings of these things regarding why were unable to accept their offer to vaccinate in writing.

So they were not threatening under contract (as they would with any of our numbered/registered neighbors.) They came down and threatened us in the flesh as any common criminal. We never gave our children to the state and never asked the state to be responsible for them. The children were given to us by the God of Israel and we accepted. The state has NO CLAIM. As incredulous as this is, it is the Law and the reason for article 25 to even exist. Most people do not and can not exercise the constitutional law. We do believe these threats to be real and not imagined. A threat on a man in one thing, but a threat on his children is quite another.

The flag speech and threats on our children were video taped, but unfortunately was confiscated by the police when they raided our home on September 6, 2011. I do not expect to get that back, however, we do have witnesses who, in this case, are still alive and quite safe from the child protection racketeers.

This is the reason why, from the beginning, we have asked these people questions about their relationship with the constitution. Are they, or are they not subservient to that document? People, including foreign tourists and pensioners, should have some knowledge of Costa Rica's abandonment of the constitution. It either is in place, or it is not.

OR...the public servants have wandered beyond their pay grade and have decided to arbitrarily break their own oaths. All we ever asked for was the truth. All they ever told us was they did not have to answer to our notices and affidavits.

Hmmmm...are they public servants under articles 11 and 27, or are they foreign agents representing foreign arrangements such as the United Nations? Either way, Annia Lorena Duran FAILED to prove jurisdiction over my children.

Let's See What These Public Servant's Have to Say

Now it is time to examine the words and writings of the 'public servants' and measure them against that which they are subservient to.

We are going to start with the innocuous and move step by step to the nefarious.

On June 27, 2011 Master Norma Fernandez, Annia Lorena Duran (PANI), accosted me at my home demanding information including vaccine records, which of course we did not have as we had explained by affidavit presented to the local health office one month earlier. Master Norma Fernandez boldly explained to us that the flag stands for 'health.'

Well, she is quite wrong about that. We can assume that she is using some sophistry that she tells ignorant people or perhaps she does not know that the flag is not this symbol:

Ministry of Health- Costa Rica

The pole with a serpent on it has many variations and differing meanings which can be seen here:

The Rod of Asclepius

Now whether Master Norma Fernandez believes in astrology or Greek Gods, she shall not place this symbol above that of the flag representing the republic and the constitution that she must serve as a public servant. Even if she believes it is a biblical symbol, she would have to recognize that the symbol was abolished, as it had become a form of idol worship.

2 Kings 18:1-7 (King James Version)

Whether she is attempting to invent law with intent to abuse a process or simply ignorant of the truth is irrelevant. Master Norma Fernandez FAILS to prove her jurisdiction over my children.

What's Wrong With These Vaccines Anyway?

Mandatory Entitlements

We can see clearly that my family's issues have drifted far from vaccines and directly into 'who owns the children.' I own the children, as possession is 9/10 of the law. The last tenth would encompass some sort of lien or encumbrance such as a contract or registry in trust. A trust requires a grantor (parents,) trustee (government or government subcontractor such as PANI,) and a beneficiary (in this case the child.) We asked the state authorities (public servants) repeatedly for evidence of such a contract, registration, trust, lien or other encumbrance that would affect our 100% ownership of our children. My wife and I constructed those children by mutual consent with the product of our DNA. Who makes a claim against that? That registration would create the 1/10 encumbrance. If public servants steal our children without the registration present, it is simply theft. We are the only people in this country that I know of who can actually make this constitutional claim because we did not sign those rights away. We have seen others who were forced to vaccinate their children simply because they had reduced their status to that of a baby sitter through registration. The state legally owns their children.

We do not follow the religious ministerial practices of blood alchemy endorsed by the ministries that these public servants worship. Therefore, regardless of the fact that we do not register to follow those bizarre religious practices, public servants including the judge believe they must confiscate our children. This is why the genocidal overtones are so prevelant. We are a cultural group all to ourselves. Do you know of anyone else in Costa Rica who practices even the first commandment? Jesus himself lamented in astonishment when he asked why the people called him Lord, but did not do what he told them. I agree with Jesus on that point and have wondered the same thing. Whether the public servant class wishes to obey Christ or not is their prerogative as given in article 75. However, public servants believing that their religion is so superior to all others, including the doctrine that governs the government, is a dangerous form of religious zealotry. It is a form of artificial intelligence, because the system (a non self referencing entity or legal artifice) begins to reprogram itself in order to become the head instead of the tail.

History is rife with such insane practices, masquerading as law, that put many people fleeing. The important thing to realize, is that the people who followed such demented practices were BELIEVERS. Mentally infected like those at a religious tele evangelism rally, these people can be made to believe ludicris things and act in irrational manners. Remember, believing in something, such as blood contamination rituals, is one thing; but to believe in it with such a fervor that the law must be broken is an indication of broken logic. The language infection has altered the programming of the public servant. The public servant is malfunctioning and acting against the prime directive. We shall soon divulge the actual writing of the court and lack of jurisprudence. Now it is critical to understand that this is why article 75 exists. Articles 75 and 25 of the Costa Rican Constitution are there in order to prevent such intellectually retarded religious crusades from infecting and adversely affecting the nation itself.

However, what about those vaccines anyway? Lets set aside the jurisdictional components that are clearly missing here and just evaluate the invasive chemicals that these religious zealots representing their ministries wish to force upon us.

What is wrong with this stuff?

Whether you are a Jew, an Isrealite, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Adventist, Krishna, Born Again Christian or a plain old Atheist, you would likely not want these dangerous chemicals and human/animal by-products injected into YOU.

Vaccine Risk Awareness

Anonymous Nonsense Vs. Cold Hard Facts

The purpose of publishing all of the affidavits, constructive notices and events involving the interaction between our friends and the Ministry of Health and PANI in Puriscal, Costa Rica is strictly for the transparent documentation of facts. However, there have been several anonymous comments left to one blog post in particular which dwell on opinions, fairies in the clouds and other off point topics. Curiously, the comments focus on my own editorials and are ripe with conviction; yet no one has uttered a peep regarding the work that James has submitted to the courts and ministries. Admittedly, my writing demands very little and is much easier to attack. I do hope that thoughtful readers as well as off point, anonymous individuals are taking the time to absorb James' research and presentation of law and facts.

My objective in writing today is not to partake in virtual opinion ping pong, but to hopefully establish more facts. An anonymous commenter has claimed to be living in Costa Rica with their family and publicly choosing not to vaccinate their children or send them to public school. Still another anonymous commenter has claimed to know hundreds of families in Costa Rica who are openly foregoing vaccinations for their children and choosing to home-school. I do not understand why anyone with such valuable information would choose to publish opinions and experiences anonymously. I urge the commenters to present the laws and facts that support the claims they have made. This information may not help our friends, but would undoubtedly aid other families living in Costa Rica who are struggling with these same issues.

The suggestion that the Ministry of Health and PANI are in accordance with hundreds of families living in Costa Rica without injecting their children with mandatory vaccines contradicts the testimony of Dr. Cerdas who, in the driveway of our friends on June 30, 2011, read from the General Law Health book the exact articles which require contracted residents under the age of 15 to vaccinate and re-vaccinate. It is difficult to believe that Costa Rica is in any way disregarding its own mandates. Inside Costa Rica published an article on January 26, 2010 regarding the mandatory H1N1 vaccine for selected high risk groups in Costa Rica. According to that article:

"The vice-ministra de Salud, Ana Morice, explained that the CCSS will be compiling a list from medical records of persons that are required to be vaccinated,...The vice-ministra said that those people on the list who do not want to receive the vaccine, will be obligated to do so. "The idea is not use force, even though we have the right to go with the police to pull people from their homes and take them to a medical centre to be vaccinated", explained Morice. The mandatory vaccination is based on government decree 35703-S of the Ley General de Salud published on January 21, 2010 in the official government publication, La Gaceta."

What an eerie contemplation that you too may be obligated to be injected with a substance that you may or may not philosophically agree with and that your eligibility to be on the list is based on your personal medical records. If we ask the government to protect us, we can't cry when we don't like their approach.

I suspect that the numerous anonymous comments which suggest that our friends are only having trouble because they have not contracted with the state of Costa Rica and that it is possible to refuse that which public ministries deem mandatory and necessary is only a repeated desperate attempt to divert the focus away from the fact that not only is it impossible to refuse the mandated gifts from the State, but should you ever have trouble in Costa Rica, don't count of due process of law either.

Perhaps these numerous anonymous comments are made by individuals who have financial interests which are dependent on a positive image of Costa Rica. My opinion, your opinion and other irrelevant references to mythical creatures do not dilute the fact that our friends have not committed a crime; there is no habeas corpus. If anyone believes that our friends did harm by not soliciting social contracts with the state of Costa RIca, just ask yourself why our friends have yet to be presented with any charges against them; why, if they were not contracted with the state, it was the ministry of health and not immigration to storm our friends' sanctuary; and why due process has been completely denied to our friends?

Our friends understand and follow the laws. Without lying or cheating or doing any harm to anyone, our friends live, committed to personal responsibility so as to never add to the great burden of so many needy people who choose to contract and benefit from the generous social entitlements of a struggling, developing nation. Our friends are not jealously demanding that anyone think or live as they do. It is shortsighted to protect fragile interests by trashing victims. Why not, instead, stand tall and demand due process to prove that the product you are selling lives up the glorious image you promote? Pura Vida.

Constructive Notice

The following constructive notice was submitted to the court in Puriscal, Costa Rica by our friends on September 5 ,2011 the day after our friends were given the citation to appear in court.

Constructive Notice

I, the bearer of this notice, in the flesh and blood, hereby make the following declaration of truth, acts, testimony, and understanding of circumstances for the purpose and intent of seeking a remedy and cure for any tort, complaint, allegation or breach of contract presented to me. Matthew 5:25; CR constitution article 30.

I am of sound mind and although I may seek council of my choice, I do not seek, require or demand a state licenced attorney, nor will I accept any appointment of representation nor waive any rights.

In no way should the intent of this notice be vitiated by way of lack of form, lack of state approved notary signature, lack of state approved stationery as I wish to recieve no state benefits nor create reciprocal obligations for recieving any benefits. As such, this notice will be made as any common man can state his truth. Just as any judicial writ does not fail through defect of form. The intent and facts herein this notice shall not be degraded by clerical error or use of form. 'Breve judicial non cadit defectu forme'.

Although I have made my best effort to offer clear translations; any mistranslation or nebulous term shall not be used to semantically alter the substance of my intentions. 'Mala grammatica non vitiat chartum'.

I speak for my family in this document and as such may use the term "we", being myself, my wife and my children where appropriate.

In this notice I make many references to Biblical Law as we have been made aware by public official that the Laws of Costa Rica respect the Law of God. Thus I recognise the Laws of God to be antecedent, thus supercede the laws of the state unless I expressly consent otherwise to re-liege. 'Nunquam res humanae propere succedunt ubi negliguntur divinae.' Acts 5:29; Constitution CR Article 75.

Although I do make many references to the Constitution of Costa Rica, these are observations and merely corelative or coincidental and for purpose of cognitive awareness only, as I make no constitutional applications or claims nor desire to use the constitution as protective mechanism as the constitution is not a covenant made by me but made by and for its authors. 'Leges suum ligent latorum.'

I make many references in Latin as this language is immutable and not subject to semantic manipulation, thus offers a clear undertanding and path

My children are my property and their lives are entrusted to me. I am charged with the responsibility of protecting those lives that they be as I train them in the ways of proper service. C.R. Const. article 45; article 21; U.N. article 17(2); Psalm 127:3-5; Genesis 33:5; Isaiah 8:18; Proverbs 22:6.

Any actions of the state to damage those lives either physically or psychologically will be viewed as a tort. CR article 45; article 21.

In no way do I relinquish authority, custody of my children to the state and in no way is the state to assume my children or other properties and chattles are salvage or maritime prizes for the purpose of confiscation. Any such act will be viewed as an unlawfull taking. Article 45; Ephisians 6:1-4; Exodus 20:15, 21:16.

Any use of my children for the purpose of coercion or enhancing the state's bargaining powers will be viewed as an act of terrorism. Article 11

We ask NOTHING of the state.

I do not purport to be a 'sovereign'. CR Article 3

I recognise the sovereignty to the state of CR as well as the sovereignty of the God of Israel. CR article 2.

I am attempting to conduct myself and arrange the conduct of my family in such a way as to follow the rules of both sovereigns for the purpose of being in accordance with rules of peaceful conduct and submission to well behaved government as well as faithful servants to the God of Israel. 'Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam.' Acts 5:29.

I do not vote or seek to be involved in political issues.

We do not practice idolatry nor seek involvement in religious assemblies and/or controversies. Exodus 20-3; article 19.

We do not seek/demand the state to be responisble for our health care, education, pensions, insurances, security, for these are matters of strict liability. As such the state shall make no assumption that they are to force us to limit that which God gave us as positive Law responsibilities. As such we are strictly liable for these social imperatives under the Laws and guidance of the God of Israel. Galatians 6:5, Timothy 6:5.

I, in no way purport to be in perfection of following all law, for I am in constant state of learning new facts. Although ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law favors the ignorant of facts. 'Lex succurit ignoranti'.

I have no knowledge of any contracts or quasi contractual obligations that were not made out of duress, coersion, or uneven bargaining power which bind me lawfully. 'L'obligation sans cause, ou sur une fausse cause, ou sur cause illicite, ne peut avoir aucun effet'.

I have no intention to make CR my permantent residence or permanent habitation.

I have no intention to make covenants with, or beome contractually obligated with the state's social programs which limit my liabilities and responsibilities by way of article 25 of the Consitution of CR. 1 John 5:21.

I am an Israelite practicing Israelite law as permitted by article 75 of the constitution of C.R.

I do recognise the requirement to submit to the government and Laws of CR when they are in accordance with God's Law for the purpose of peace and order. Romans 13; Acts 5-29.

I do recognise my obligation to follow God's law over man's law when government statute are not in accordance with God's law. Acts 5:29, Daniel 6:13

To contract, or make covenant (pledge alliegance) with a foreign god to engage in activities such as usury, is prohibited by the God of Israel and considered idolatry, thus waives His protection. However, I freely submit to authority on matters criminal and or civil/private contract law. 1st Corinthians 10:12-14, Romans 13:1, Proverbs 22:26, 1 Samuel:8.

We would be in violation of Gods idolatry laws (First commandment) if we were to pledge allegiance to a new liege (King or rule maker) or contract with a new sovereign which would in effect replace God's social covenants with new political social policies that burden other men by shifting my responsibilities to other men. Galatians 6:5, 1 Timothy 5:8, 1 Corinthians 3:8.

If any man or officer of the body politic is damaged by my application of Law, please allow that individual to make claim and that any writ of habeas corpus be satisfied, so that I make immediate offer to re-concile voluntarily, for I am unaware of any such complaints or charges. If any corporate entity, juristic artifice, group, or association of men is claiming a breach of contract in equity, please allow that entity to bring forth the contract in question, that it may be examined, and that I may offer voluntary opportunity to respond for the purpose of just reconciliation. If such claim is made, but not volunteered to me that I may understand, and observe the lawfullness of such claim, a subponena duces tecum and plea in abatement and general demand for a bill of particulars will be my only recourse. Article 48.

Be it known that we have acted in accord and attended promptly to any charge, citation or summons presented to us. In any controversy present ourselves voluntarily and with out prejudice that the matter may have a swift resolution. No undue force will be required in any dealing with us. Article 37.

I have no knowledge of damaging any entity, real or artificial.

I have no intent to damage any entity, real or artificial.

I object to any summary judgement that damages me and/or my family prior to my making first opportunity to excercise a reconciliation through due process, in the form of verified complaints, writ of habeas corpus, knowledge of jurisdictional venue (civil/criminal), and the just examination of any presummed contracts.

I understand the State of CR is a man made association empowered by the consent of the people of this nation to carry out the laws of the state and such an organization cannot have more power than that of its individual creators. 'Derivita potestas non potest esse major primativa'.

If no damages to a man in the flesh are presented, then I can assume only damages to an artificial entity are available to pursue and that such damages are civil damages and the result of broken covenants.

I understand that the government is charged with the responsibility of adjudicating both criminal and civil breaches.

I understand that damages to a man in the flesh or violations of God's Law are crimes 'mal en se' and no contracts may be involved. However crimes 'en prohibita' or crimes against stautes where no habeas corpus is evident, result in civil (private law) adjudication. If a breach of a public code is the case, then such application requires that contract is involved.

If the public code is in violation of Gods Laws, then the code must be consented to by way of covenant and agreement, allowing the creation of a superior covenant with a new sovereign understanding that the state codes may be in effect. Article 75, 19, Acts 5:29.

I recognise the residency contract violates several of God's Laws, primarily the first Commandment as well as God's laws involving social security, health, surety, usury, and theft via limited liability.

I recognise the general use of undue influence by the state to 'encourage' foreigners to re-liege or waive exisiting rights for no consideration. 'Nullus jus alienum foris facere'. Article 19-20-25.

I recognise the state may use the constitution as an 'illusory' consideration if indeed the constitution is unaccessible by a foreigner if the constitution is waived. 'Nuda pactio obligationemnon parit'.

I recognise that article 19 has limitations set by other laws, which in effect may nullify and make 'illusory' the constitution for practical purpose of the intent of the document, yet article 20 has NO such limitation prescribed by law.

I recognize the state and officials are under prior constitutional duties that cannot be construed or sold as consideration. They exist as law prior to the creation of an immigration contract. 'Omnia quae jure contrahuntur contrario jure pereunte. CR article 11.

The immigration/ visitor visa contract is summarily a naked contract. 'Nuda pactio obligationem non parit'. There is no apparent consideration that is not already a constitutional right to which immigration officials are previously bound, article 11, article 19.

Any contract that voids a right (particularily under color of law) by virtue of duress does not create equitable consent. 'Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus'.

Hence the recipricol duties in the visitor visa contract that do not detract from law such as forcible exit every 90 days beome an exercise in vanity as the contract lacks consideration. 'Quad vanum inutile est, lex non requirit'.

To freely reject association with any assembly does not suffer restriction as any forced association might imply coersion which the state regards as 'illegal'. Article 25, article 11.

There is presumption prior to entering CR that the constitution of CR applies to foreigners as there is reference to foreigners receiving said rights in article 19 and that vitiation of article 19 by limitations set therein that have in effect the diminishment of said article, violate article 20.

Understanding that slavery (involuntary servitude) is phrohibited with no limitations, voluntary servitude via covenants and agreements are a normal everyday activities limited only by the rule of contract law. Hence if the state immigration authorities claim limitations inside article 19, such limitations reflect back to the validity of the originating entry covenant and consideration therein. Articles 19, 20.

Any action of the state to force performance of an invalid contract created out of deciet and duress would be INVOLUNTARY servitude or slavery and tantamount to theft of life, time, liberty, and pecuniary interest. Article 20, deuteronomy 24:7.

If indeed the state understands its own rules, then a foreigner has both the right to practice his religion and reject association, particularly one that both offends God and is not law properly given to government except when authorised by the consent of the governed via contracts. Articles 11; 25; 75.

It is presumed that there is an pre-existing duty that officials of the state are bound to their constitution and thus cannot use the constitution as an 'illusory' benefit.

If indeed the constitution is illusory, then this in not disclosed in any evident methods for the ease and promotion of clear understanding such as at the borders and immigration windows.

In the event the constitution, which binds the officials of the state to Gods laws, is rendered ineffectual by virtue of immigration contracts, then several other points of law come into effect to ensure state power is not morphed into something larger than what constituted it as clearly given in article 25 so that the power of the individual is not subjugated beyond what has been ordained by God in Romans 13:1. Article 11.

A contract cannot be enforced which forces another party to waive constitutional rights.

I believe it to be a fact that the constitution of Costa Rica is not subject to random manipulation or exclusion by officials under article 121(7), when the issue does not involve "crimes in se", or breach of Biblical law, but conversely, the adherance to Biblical Law. Article 11.

I believe it to be a fact that the functionaries and officials are bound to obey the rules set forth in the constitution as a prior condition to any subsequent new agreements or contracts. 11;18.

I believe it to be a fact that I cannot be randomly deprived of a pre-existing duty owed to me by officials under article 121(7) without a public dissemination of two thirds the vote of the legislative assembly. Articles 11, 18, 19, 25.

I do believe it to be a fact that I will suffer a loss of undeterminable magnitude if these duties are denied.

If indeed a prommisary estopple is granted and I am indeed denied the law as purported, the resulting damage to me would be of unconscionable loss.

If indeed the claimant (immigration officials) is damaged, please make that damage known, for it would appear as the lack of contract performance does no harm to the claimant. 'Actio non datur non damnificato'.

Based upon the gravity of the consequenses, it would seem reasonable that the immigration contract must disclose and express clearly that every contractee waives constitutional laws and God given laws to which all public officials are bound. 'Deceptis, non decipientibus, jura subveniunt'. Constitution Article 11.

The constitution of CR and laws of God make it impossible to follow certain immigration statutes and codes. One law is inconsistant with another. 'Impotentia excusat legem'. Articles 11, 19, 25,75.

The immigration contract and subsequent visitor visa statues presume to negate the preordained Laws of God and preexisting duties to the constitution by a fraudulent principle of causality. 'Post hoc ergo, propter hoc'.

The fact that these immigration codes are imposed in virtually all situations and are considered the 'normal' modality of enforcement suggests that the implied force is due to impunity. 'Impunitas continuum affectum tribuit delinquendi'.

If the continuous normal operation of a governmental department is the only reason for a decision in favor of prommisory estoppel, then the adjudication is inconsistant with law. 'Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia'.

I made no waiver of judicial contract enforcement and , although the state would have to take notice of such waiver under articles 27; 11, no such demand to take notice or act accordingly was made by us for fear of creating a reciprocal obligation as the state (or officials) would have to expend energy and time on behalf of my notice. I have no expecation for the state or state officials or citizens of this country to be burdened by my actions.

We rigidly adhere to non-political , non religious activities espoused in articles 28, 19, 75 and a notice of the aforementioned doctrine may have been construed as having an agenda or political influence on other people. As such, we made no prior notice to avoid demonstrable political /religious agendas.

If I err on these issues, please I beg of the court to bring forth the error, for I insist it is not an error in law, but an error in fact and my ignorance is not any form of negligence or lack of adhereance to laws and duties and I wish reconciliation based on correct facts. Matthew 18:15.

For Nikoline, from Her Mother

My Dear Bub,

My wonderful angel,

You graced us with your presence, you enriched our lives for 13 years, from the day you were born, and now forever in our hearts. You quietly made everybody around you happy, and nobody could help being affected by your lovely spirit.

You filled every spare moment with creativity, be it painting or inventing dialogues between your horses with a multitude of accents and personalities or even designing clothes for your huge flock of toy animals. You loved reading so much and when you'd go missing I'd often find you in bed with a good book.

Your love for your animals was imense. From all the horses and your goats to even the smallest and ugliest little chicken. The uglier the better. When one of your chickens would get eaten, your sorrow was profound and we never did manage to get rid of any of your "favourite" 20 roosters.

You were such a good friend to your sister, Linnea, with whom you shared work and play. I know that she misses you so much, so please provide her strength to go on without you. And help your other siblings and your father and myself become whole again, because losing you has made us feel broken.

My little angel, you were beautiful in every way. Your life was so full and everyone loved you. You brought me so much happiness. All I ever wanted was for you to be happy, and you were. Maybe your days in this dimension with us were not cut short to take you away from us but to keep you with us, forever perfect.

Translated into Spanish:

Mi querida Bubba,

Mi angelito precioso,

Nos diste gracia con tu presencia, nos enriqueciste la vida durante 13 años, desde el momento de tu nacimiento y ahora por siempre en nuestros corazones. Tu siempre trajiste felicidad a todos en tu alrededor en una manera tranquila y nadie se escapo de ser afectado por tu lindo espíritu.

Tu llenaste todo momento libre con creatividad, fuese pintando, o inventando diálogos entre tus caballos con una multitud de acentos y personalidades o hasta diseñar ropa para tu cantidad de animales de juguete. Te encantaba leer tanto, que cuando desaparecías, muchas veces te encontraba en tu cama con un buen libro.

El amor por tus animales era immenso. Desde todos lo caballos y las cabras haste el pollito mas pequeno y el mas feo. Entre mas feo aun mejor. Cuando una de tus gallinas fue comida, tu dolor era profundo y nunca pudimos liberarnos de tus 20 gallos "favoritos."

Tu fuiste tan buena amiga para tu hermana Linnea, con quien compartiste trabajo y diversión. Yo se, que a ella le haces mucha falta, por favor ayudadle a conseguir fuerza para seguir adelante sin ti. Ayuda a tus otros hermanos, a tu padre y a mi a volver a ser todos en uno, pues el perderte nos ha hecho sentir quebrantados.

Mi pequeña angelito, eras bella en todo aspecto. Tu vida era llena y todos te amaban. Tu me trajiste tanta felicidad. Todo lo que siempre quise es que fueras feliz, y lo fuiste. Tal vez tus días en esta dimensión con nosotros no se corto para que nos fueras quitada si no para guardarte en nosotros, por siempre perfecta.

The Difference Between our Friends and Others Opposed to Vaccines

"The Other Approach"

In the last request our friends submitted to the organization for the protection of children, PANI, in Costa Rica, they site article #55 of the Constitution of Costa Rica. It reads, "Article 55.- The special protection of the mother and minors will be in charge of an autonomous institution called National Patronage of the Infancy, with the contribution of the other institutions of the State."

Autonomous -self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
PANI is the autonomous institution in charge of the special protection of mother and minors.

PANI has the authority to take people's children away.
PANI has "the contribution of the other institutions of the state,"(ie:health nurses and cops) yet
PANI is not bound to the laws of the state.
This is alarming.
Our friends pointed out in their request which they submitted to PANI that, "PANI is a construct of men, including a board of directors and as such requires nexus through contracts of consent over those whom it governs."

Nexus- a means of connection; tie; link.

The following work is offered by one of our friends to explain this relationship more clearly.

When we contract with government entities for the purpose of recieving the bounty of government handouts such as free health care, free schools, employment insurance , pensions and a plethora of other wonderous free gifts, we enter an area of law called civil law. This is the law of societal contracts and statutes. This mysterious world is adjudicated in courts of equity and as such require that contracts are bonafide and have all the elements of proper contract. We are born with unalienable rights of common law, which has limitations to strict liability , meaning we must pay for our own health care, education and financial well being. These unalienable rights are not given by men , but given by the God of Israel and agreed to by republics that are chained by consitutional restraints in nations that purport to follow the basis of Mosaic Law.

The result is that governments , such as the Costa Rican government as well as the US government has been created by men desiring to rule, but restrained under prior laws for the purpose of well heeled government , and good order within the the context of those prior lawful principles.

As such when government officials seek to enlarge their powers beyond the simple purposes originally espoused, they may need to create special contracts with those that desire the benefits from such 'new deals'.

If the offers made by government officials involve insurance for health care, or 'free' education , or any such schemes to 'limit' liability, we must create an official act of re-lieging. IE we must divorce the king of the common law in order to accept an new king to rule over us because we cannot serve both.

However it has always been our choice and is the corner stone of freedom in any republic. People broadly understand this as freedom of religion. But it also includes the freedom NOT to re-liege or make a new king to rule over you. To engage in limited liability we must make a contract with those making the offer. Since this is an operation outside of the ordained priniciples of the purpose of the government we must prove that we are in agreement to leave our common law behind on the land and venture out to sea in the law of contracts. The contract we establish with government is typically encapsulated in a card called a cedula or SS number. This card and number establishes that a comprehensive insurance contract exists somewhere in the government archives and you agreed to it. As you are not forced into an association by Law, (such as article 25 of the Costa Rican constitution) it must be agreed to voluntarily. This is where the concept " by the consent of the governed" originates.