TITLE: HOW TO BE A SOVEREIGN OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY

AUTHOR: Ramón Martínez López

2008225082885

This work describes what an AMBULATING REPUBLIC consists of:

Adhering to the rights of intellectual property and rights of individual
freedom, I hereby proclaim myself independent and establish the
AMBULATING REPUBLIC (A.R.) attached to THE MENDA LERENDA
ERRANT REPUBLIC (MLER), welcoming as national territory any
surface with which I have contact, whether physical or etheric dependent
on the oxygen that I breathe and my inviolable borders are those of my
physical contour, being the psychic ones with the greatest supply and
scope, not recognizing other authorities or foreign laws other than those
based on honesty, common sense and constructive collaboration.
SIGNED:

THE PLENARY OF GOVERNMENT OF THE AMBULATING

REPUBLIC approved with the consensus of 100% (the largest of all world
states). The MOVING REPUBLIC authorizes anyone who wants to self-
proclaim their independence to use the same name.

The bearer of this document is accredited as SOVEREIGN OF THE

AMBULATING REPUBLIC attached to THE MENDA LERENDA
ERRANT REPUBLIC with the same rights based on honesty, common
sense and associative collaboration.
AMBULATING REPUBLIC
Lux Mea
Issued:

Validity: UNDEFINED

This identification welcomes its owner to international law as a Diplomat

in foreign countries.
Fundamentals:
INTERNATIONAL RIGHT
MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION

The Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is an international treaty

signed in Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933.
The convention establishes the definition of the State, its rights and
obligations.
In its Article 1 it establishes four characteristic criteria of a State that have
become part of customary international law.
They have been recognized as confirmation in International Law,
establishing that a State as a person of International Law must meet the
following requirements:

ARTICLE 1

The State as a subject of International Law must meet the following

requirements:
I. - Permanent population.
II. —Determined territory.
III. -Government.
IV. —Ability to enter into relations with other States.
Under these guidelines, any entity that meets these criteria can be
considered a sovereign state under international law, whether or not it has
been recognized by other states.
Mobile and Independent Republic REML meets and complies with the 4
requirements of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the definition
of the State.

ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of its recognition by
other states.
Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity
and independence.

ARTICLE 7
The recognition of the State may be express or tacit. The latter results from
any act that implies the intention to recognize the new State.

VIENNA CONVENTION

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is an international treaty

that regulates diplomatic relations between countries and the immunity of
diplomatic personnel.
It was adopted on April 18, 1961 in Vienna (Austria) and entered into force
on April 24, 1964. It was supplemented in 1963 by the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations.
174 states belong to the Convention and in those states that have not signed
the document, its provisions apply as customary international law.
INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE AMBULATING
REPUBLIC AND E.R.M.L.

The Principality of Hutt River is a micronation located within Western

Australia, which was founded on April 21, 1970. It was formerly known as
Hutt River Province. The principality claims to be an independent state but
it is not de jure recognized by Australia officially, however, this state has
already been proclaimed 40 years of independence and the Australian
Government has not been able to legally find a way to suppress it.
Hutt River claimed its Independence by writing addressed to its
Administration. When the Australian Government responded to the
Administrator of that State, its recognition was tacitly implied and since
then it has been considered so.

Sealand, officially Principality of Sealand, is an unrecognized self-

proclaimed state, internationally considered as a micronation, whose form
of government is the hereditary constitutional monarchy.

Despite the lack of recognition of its sovereignty and legitimacy, Sealand is

one of the best-known micronations in the world and is often used as a case
study of how the principles of international law can be applied to a territory
in dispute.

Wirtland is the first experimental sovereign country based on In ternet, a

micronation (a self-declared state but not recognized as an entity). Wirtland
is an experiment in the legitimacy and self-sustainability of a country
without its own land. A country that transcends national borders without
violating or diminishing the sovereignty of any other nation.

International law (Montevideo Convention) leaves the door open for the
formation of new states. To be eligible for international recognition,
Wirtland needs territory.
Asgardia is a Nation without Territory project on Earth based on a satellite
from outer space.
The proposal was announced on October 12, 2016 by the Vienna, Austria-
based Aerospace Research Center.
They have applied to the UN for territory status.
The International Organization has not yet responded.

DEFINITIONS

CONSENSUS: Agreement produced by consent between all members of a

group.
STATE: Set of the governing bodies of a sovereign country.
GOVERNMENT: Authority that directs, controls and administers the
institutions of the State.
NATION: Set of the inhabitants of a country governed by the same
government. Territory of that country.
COUNTRY: Nation, region, province or territory.
COUNTRY: Homeland or adopted land ordered as a nation, to which the
human being feels bound by ties
legal, historical and affective.
TOWN: A group of people from a place, region or country. Country with
independent government.
SOVEREIGN: Who exercises or possesses the supreme and independent
authority.

MICRONATION is an entity that claims to be an independent nation or

state but lacks the recognition of world governments or international
organizations.
MICROSTATE
A microstate is a sovereign state that has a very small population, a very
small territory, or both.

Ijure
It literally means ‘by law’, with legal recognition, legally.
A de jure situation is one that is recognized by current legislation or by the
competent authority.

COMMUNICATED TO ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Declaration of Independence and articles of its Constitution.

Adhering to the rights of intellectual property and rights of individual

freedom, I hereby proclaim myself independent and establish the
AMBULANTING REPUBLIC attached to THE MENDA LERENDA
ERRANT REPUBLIC, welcoming as national territory any surface with
which I have contact, whether physical or etheric dependent on the oxygen
that I breathe and my inviolable borders are those of my physical contour,
being the psychic ones with the greatest supply and scope, not recognizing
other authorities or foreign laws other than those based on honesty,
common sense and constructive collaboration.

Informed the world community, the Traveling Republic in use of its

Sovereignty establishes its Constitution in the following Articles approved
in plenary session of Government by 100% of votes in favor:
Articles:

1 / Sovereignty resides in the people.

2 / The AMBULATING REPUBLIC (A.R.) authorizes any person who

wants to become independent to use the same name.

3 / The A.R. guarantees its non-intervention in government or laws of

foreign countries. Reciprocally demand that none of them interfere in
theirs.

4 / The A.R. it is always surrounded by a neighboring country. In practice

A.R. it is equivalent to an Embassy located in a foreign nation. It is
protected by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and by the
International Laws that guarantee them in the country where it is located.

5 / The A.R. issues accepted and recognized identification to any person

who wants to self-proclaim their independence. It guarantees its bearer as
Sovereign of its Independent Republic, has the status of Ambassador and is
covered by International Diplomatic Law.

6 / The Sovereign of the A.R. He has dual nationality: as Sovereign of A.R.

and that of your country of birth. It is approved to preserve the original
nationality in order to simplify bureaucracy in procedures with countries
beyond its borders. Documents such as passport, driving licenses and
others that may be useful are kept.

7 / The A.R. he refrains from minting his own currency. Any currency is
accepted as legal tender, as well as barters and other alternative forms of
commercial transfers. For this reason and for not complying with the I.M.F.
With the Founding Document, this Republic rejects its integration into the
International Monetary Fund. The integration to other International
Organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health
Organization (W.H.O.) and other World Organizations, will be studied
once they present their request and in strict order in which they request it.

8 / Discarded both currency and own banking entities, A.R. It develops its
economy through the networks of neighboring foreign financial systems. In
l he international transactions with the neighboring country will comply
with the corresponding legal agreements.

9 / The A.R. welcomes as distinctive: On a transparent etheric star blue

background, which represents the infinity of the celestial vault and the blue
of the living sea, and measures 1⁄2 of the length of the background. It
symbolizes strength, softness, union and expansion; as well as
independence and liberation. It is an allegory of the value of Freedom.
It represents the individual and free Unity capable of uniting with others
and in a joint, solid, creative, constructive and harmonious way.

10 / International Relations with other States, their Organizations and their

inhabitants will be established equitably and in reciprocity.

11 / Each A.R. It can submit to a referendum its integration into

Confederations so that the same principles, efforts and progress are united
with other Independent States.

12 / This Mobile Republic in permanent physical mobility and without

fixed location coordinates, establishes for its location
www.reikikambo.com as a universal contact location and contact at
estrellapistola@yahoo.com

13 / As States with REAL Democracy, all A.R. They can exercise their
right to present amendments to their Constitution by adding, modifying or
canceling the previous Articles. Each consultation will be submitted to a
vote and approved unanimously by its Plenary of Government.

DOCUMENTATION IN WHICH THE A.R. IS SUPPORTED

JUDGMENT OF THE HAGUE COURT ON THE DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE OF JULY 22, 2010
"We declare that there is no rule in International Law that prohibits
unilateral declarations of independence."

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT
Of Civil and Political Rights.

"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of this

Right freely establish their political status and also provide for their
economic, social and cultural development. "

Registration certificate
This document certifies that the registration of the work with code
2008225080379 and title "AMBULANTING REPUBLIC" carried out by
the user with code 2008223534324 in the SAFE CREATIVE Intellectual
Property Registry took place on August 22, 2020 at 6:26 UTC.
About the Constitution and laws
I must proceed, to explain and enforce, first what the law is and then what
the Constitution is. Laws, which are legal because they express a mandate
of correlative rights obligations, can only be regulating or organizing. This
is how we call them in their entirety regulatory and organic. Or regulate or
organize legal entities. The laws do not deal with anything else. The
Constitution does not regulate or organize, the Constitution institutes, and
that is worth explaining. What does it mean to institute? It means founding.
Laws do not found, but regulate or organize. The Constitution founds.
Laws are founded and their function is to regulate and organize what the
Constitution mandates to be founded. I don't think there is much science in
it.
Importance of the law in order:
Natural law.
Human rights.
Customary law.
Uniform Commercial Code.
Constitution of each country.
The inalienable rights of man are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness. If we take these universal principles with a moral foundation in
natural law it would be "do not do what you would not like to be done."
Morals are universal, no particular morals can be applied to my group or
my own benefit.
Morality is what it is, it cannot be relativized, if your morality is based on a
false belief, your values and morals are false. Morality is the law because it
seeks a common good.
The Right to Life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the
benefit of another man or any number of other men.
The Right to Liberty means the right of Man to individual action, to
individual choice, to individual initiative, and to individual property.
Without the right to private property there is no independent action
possible.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means the right of Man to live for
himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal and individual
happiness, and to seek to achieve it, provided that he respects that same
right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to dedicate his life to
the happiness of another man or to that of any number of other men. It
means that the community cannot decide what the goal of a man's existence
is to be or prescribe the choice of his happiness.
Natural law is an ethical and legal doctrine that postulates the existence of
rights based or determined in human nature. It advocates the existence of a
set of universal, previous, superior and independent rights to written law,
positive law and customary law.
So, the living being commands legal fiction.
What is natural law:
Natural Law is that current of a philosophical-legal order that defends the
existence of a right prior to any positive legal norm.
In relation to the above, although the human being, or the State through its
competent power to legislate confers laws to be complied with by all
citizens, said laws are subject to the non-contradiction of that norm or
natural law, since if so, it would be an unfair law or the law simply could
not be applied.
Several philosophers explain that positive laws must comply with and
respect the natural right of people, since they must respect certain rights
that are inherent to the human being, which in turn are inalienable, for
which its violation must be punished because it is a violation of a
fundamental right of human beings, which would make said positive law
not applicable under any circumstances and citizens can choose not to
comply because of its unjust condition.
Natural law is an ethical and legal doctrine that defends said existence of
the rights of man founded or determined in human nature, that these are
prior and superior to positive law, that is, that human life for example as
well as freedom, They are rights prior to and prior to any positive law, for
which such positive right must always respect and defend them, due to their
status as fundamental rights.
That is why several philosophers, doctrinaires and legal scholars explain
and defend that the validity of a law depends on its justice, since an unjust
law that violates the fundamental rights of the human being cannot be
valid, with which its application it would be in disuse, because an unjust
law goes against any precept and concept of the rule of law that citizens of
any territory should enjoy.
Natural law and positive law
Natural law and positive law have the similarity in that both are a set of fair
rules, regulating human behavior. But despite this, there is a difference
between these two systems:
Natural law is a set of values or principles found in the nature and
consciousness of man. For its part, positive law, are rules dictated by the
State with the aim of regulating the conduct of man in society.
Natural law is universal and eternal. On the other hand, positive law is
temporary since it adapts to changes in society, and governs a given
society.
Natural Law limits Positive Law, since it paralyzes positive Law in the case
of contradicting it, as it is an unfair law, and at the same time guides it in its
creation.

Individual freedom is the constitutive value of the human person as such,

the foundation of his duties and rights, according to which each one can
decide autonomously on the essential questions of his life, becoming
responsible before society for the consequences of his decisions and of the
results of your own action.
For some ideologies and philosophies, especially libertarian ones,
individual freedom would have its natural origin and its ethical foundation
in the individual sovereignty or property of an individual over himself.
Self-ownership (also individual sovereignty or self-ownership) is the idea
that the individual is the owner of his own person, or said that he has a
natural or moral right to control his body and life. This principle is also
used as the ethical basis for the right to private property.
Collective freedom is the one that is intended to be exercised when a group
of individuals make up an association and together, they give their
opinions, options or projects with sufficient power to direct their collective
actions, so it can be understood as the consequence or natural complement
of freedom. individual or the conducive environment for it to function.
Among the examples of putting it into practice we can find direct
democracy.
Subject of international law
The subjects of international law are States, international organizations, the
belligerent community, national liberation movements, and the individual -
a natural person - as a passive subject of international law, that is, they
receive rights and obligations from him.1 In addition, they can add certain
special cases, such as, the Order of Malta and the Patriarchate of
Constantinople.
Legal nature
The subjects are the entities with rights and obligations imposed by
international law. For the Classical conception, States are the full subjects
of the international order, without the possibility of other subjects that are
not States. At present, this position has been revised, considering that,
although the States are the natural and original subjects, there are other
derivative or secondary subjects alongside them. So the legal nature is the
most important thing in Public International Law.
The States themselves for the government and management of their
relations are forced to create international subjects; In other words, the
legal order is based on the will of the States. States as creative subjects of
international law have the prerogative of giving existence to new
international persons and the exclusive function of the States, which is to
elaborate the norms of international law, is shared and delegated to these
new subjects, such as, for example, the international organizations or armed
forces on international missions.
Legal personality can be observed from two perspectives, in a broad sense,
the subjects of international law are all those who have a relationship of
rights and obligations to the international community within a legal order,
for which some authors state that indirectly all people are subjects of
international law because of their human rights, but only in a passive way;
In the strict sense, legal personality within international law is one that
requires active participation in the creation of new legal relationships from
which new rights and new obligations arise, at least for the same subject.
Relationship between the State and its independence
Main article: Independence
Independent nations would be the type of political entities that enjoy legal
status. Dependence therefore affects or diminishes its status as a subject of
international law.
States, being sovereign, can voluntarily limit their sovereignty. This is how
they exist:
States under protectorate: situation resulting from a treaty between two
States, whereby one of them places its security under the protection of the
other and in exchange for that protection entrusts the protective State with
the conduct of its internal relations.
States under quasi protectorate: the State does not totally transfer the
management of its international relations to another, but accepts certain
restrictions in the development of its international policy. It is generally
about economic relationships. This is the case, for example, of the
members of the European Union.
Neutralized States: are those that, according to a treaty, establish the
commitment to maintain their neutrality in any future warlike conflict, with
respect to other States that are obliged to respect such neutrality.
International organizations such as confederations of microstates.
International Organizations are intergovernmental entities, established by
an international agreement endowed with their own permanent and
independent bodies in charge of managing collective interests and capable
of expressing a legal will different from that of their members.
Requirements required by the International Court of Justice, according to
the "Folke de Bernadotte" ruling to consider an International Organization
as such:
The need to have international legal status so that the organization could
fulfill its tasks.
The existence of bodies that have been entrusted with the fulfillment of
specific tasks.
The existence of obligations of the members with respect to the
organization. Eg making financial contributions.
The possession of legal capacity, privileges and immunities in the territory
of its members.
The possibility of the organization entering into agreements with its
members.
Attributes
Ius tractatum: international organizations can enter into agreements based
on their inherent capacity to conclude them, whether or not such capacity is
stated in express or tacit text.
Ius legationis: international organizations exercise it in its two aspects:
active and passive, since they accredit representatives before the
governments of the member states and in turn receive representatives
accredited before them by the state governments and even other
organizations.
Locus standibus: that is, the ability to appear in court, they do not have it
since it can only be exercised by the states. They may, however, request
advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice.
Organic structure
International Organizations need an organic structure for the fulfillment of
their objectives. The organs that can be found are the following:
Deliberative body: it is the plenary, in it all the members meet. They may
have different names depending on the international organization to which
we are referring. For example, in the United Nations it is called the General
Assembly, in the ILO it is called the Conference, in the WHO it is called
Congress, in the IMF it is called the Board of Governors.
Executive body: It can be called: Council, Administrative Committee,
Executive Committee. For example, on the IMF board, members are
represented according to their contribution; in this body we are going to
find a real inequality, those with the most votes are the most important in
international trade.
Administrative organization: it generally fulfills a permanent function, its
functions are administrative in nature. One of its functions is, for example,
preparing meetings. Theoretically, it should be totally unrelated to the
influence of the member states.
Control body: There are different types: legal, political, financial.
Consultative body: rather the local interests of the member states are
represented in them.
Individuals
Physical person
Undoubtedly, whether or not individuals are considered as subjects of
Public International Law depends a lot on the historical moment and on the
evolution of the system itself.
Within the doctrine we can find different positions:
Those who consider that the individual is the only subject of international
law. An example of this trend is the French sociological school. In this
case, the state is considered only as a fact, as an association of individuals.
There are also those who admit a certain international personality of the
individual, but subject to limitations. This position is the most accepted.
The individual is a passive subject of international law since he only
receives from him rights and obligations. It cannot be a subject of
international law because it lacks the capacity to enter into Treaties and it
does not have the standing to go before the International Courts to enforce
its rights.
The individual as a subject of international duties
It is important to bear in mind that the individual can be internationally
responsible when she violates fundamental norms of international law.
They are illegal acts of violence that can be committed at sea or in the air.
The only subjects that can commit these acts are natural persons,
individuals, but States are authorized by international law to de have the
violators of the norm and submit them to its jurisdiction; but who defines
the crime is international law.
Some examples:
Piracy: are those acts of violence on the high seas against people or
property by the crew of a ship with intent to pillage, it can only be
committed by individuals, and the obligation to abstain emanates from the
international legal order, others say that international law authorizes each
State to classify the act of piracy in its criminal laws. It would be internal
law that creates personal responsibility, but it is international law that
authorizes sanction. Reality indicates that the norm of international law
defines the crime and is not limited to authorizing. Piracy is a crime against
international law, which gives the definition and also imposes the
punishment.
War crimes: international law, in this matter, admits, alongside static
responsibility, individual responsibility, the individual being responsible
for their own acts and, therefore, a direct recipient of obligations imposed
by the international legal order.
As in piracy, international norms authorize states to sanction, and at the
same time define the determining facts of such sanctions.
With MLER and AR, legal personality is acquired by declaring
independence and it becomes an active subject of law.

Conclusions
The first thing to keep in mind is that this is not a question to take sides,
due to the fact that, to a large extent and from a factual analysis, the
character of the subject of the individual may not surprise and is even
accepted, since we are all part of the international system.
However, within the field of jurists and more precisely dogmatists, the
issue is not entirely debatable, since the speeches that are familiar on the
point enjoy a certain authority, since they are based on theories or pseudo
theories, when not an aspect of that is cut out to claim a position.
However, if the argumentation to support such a position conforms to the
canons of this, the fact of the speech thus seen is more than respectable.
However, these authoritative speeches do not mean that they should be
accepted as such per se. Therefore, it is always good to test the arguments
or their coherence, at least to try until they are perfected, within the
contexts in which they are sustained.
Entering into some conclusions, the fact that dogmatics has developed a
series of requirements on the fact of determining when we are in front of a
subject of D.I. It does not oblige, for that reason alone, to adhere, except
when these are supported by a legal provision and with it the parameters of
a continuous pragmatics (reality) are obeyed, an issue that cannot be
perceived entirely uniform in this matter.
Being part of an international system, a factual issue, the individual
establishes various relationships that are achieved by laws of foreign States
(determined by rules of the D.I.) or by treaties on different matters, a
normative issue.

If the person is the object of a large part of that regulation, it must be

concluded that ID as a legal system has conceived it that way, a fact that
assumes its logical chain when the individual is part of that international
order, in which the State serves as means of original organization and the
International Organization as a derivative form of those.
It is true that the locus standi in the understanding of the individual's power
to appear directly to claim a right in an international jurisdiction, has not
yet been established, but this shows another question in the subject of
study, that is, the fact that it does not can act directly, but yes via another
entity that assumes its defense. This marks that here we are talking about
one of the classic institutions that studies legal science, such as
representation, how is the point confirmed? If a person receives the effects
of a judgment handed down by an international court, or simply an
individual claim is assumed as an object of debate before a jurisdiction, it
means that such claim or interest is considered as legal and that therefore it
displays effects when it is decided, but it is done in reference to a "thing". It
seems that it is difficult to conceive that things answer by themselves; it is
in relation to the subjects that are linked to it, and it is because a provision
established such a relationship, be it with a thing or with a right or with a
conduct. If the latter happens, it can only be conceived because the
imputation criterion is taken into account by the international or domestic
legal system. You are a living being and you respond to natural and human
rights law, so otherwise it is an identity fraud, taken as a "thing"
The fact, on the other hand, that the individual does not participate in
creating the standards.
The person as a subject of International Law
In domestic law, the vast majority do not participate in the creation of legal
norms and that is not why it is left out of its provisions, it happens that here
the State has organized itself in such a way as to concentrate the
sovereignty granted by the nation (fiction in attention of the interest of the
community) and does so by instituting bodies to which it confers powers,
but which are validated by all. In this sense, if the same reasoning is always
made within a general theory, as it is tried to do here, the same thing
happens in the international sphere, that is, the State acts on behalf of its
nationals, organizes international relations and Nation also confers that
power to the State to agree on rules of law, which, as in domestic law, will
deal with different material areas, but always in accordance with the
criterion of the center of imputation of legal norms.
Therefore, if the analysis is made from a general theory of law to deny the
personality of the individual, it must maintain consistency and apply
similar statements to similar situations, because in this way, if International
Law does not have the human being as its object, is it? How is it possible
that your rules keep it in mind? If we take the logical and deductive
reasoning put forward ut supra, it is not logical to conclude that the human
being is only a subject who observes, because if not under what
argumentative perspective are the post-world war courts justified.
However, this logical and deductive reasoning can be intertwined with the
criterion of "center of imputation of legal norms", it means that if this is
applicable within the global legal system, its cascading effect is reflected in
the internal legal systems, as can be seen to be the case in practice.
This only confirms the origin of such a criterion, the global order, and
again the jurisdiction of postwar international tribunals is based,
successively, by the courts of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and also
today by the International Criminal Court. In addition, when International
Law attributes the rules on jurisdiction in matters of crimes, and more
precisely, it adopts the principle of universality of jurisdiction (Jiménez de
Arechaga and Puceiro: 1997), allowing a State to make its jurisdiction
applicable to the persons who commit atrocities against the values of
humanity, it is well known that he considered the person as an imputable
subject of legal norms.

At a higher level, it can be seen that there is a confusion of the nature of the
D.I.P., on the one hand, and, on the other, the object of its regulation. The
object can be seen from the perspective of the immediate as well as the
mediate. It immediately emerges that it regulates the relationships between
its classical subjects, but this is not contradicted by the fact that it
prescribes conduct for the person, because, as mentioned, International
Law has a cascading effect on internal orders, since it is in its object the
power to regulate the behaviors that are carried out in the world order as a
physical space in which it acts. The latter is related to the mediate object.
And nature only describes how the world system works, that is, under the
canons of coordination, cooperation and the will of its members. This is
reflected in compliance with the ICJ rulings, the implementation of forms
of international reparation, extradition or when the protection of a person is
implemented to satisfy a legal situation (subjective right). But the fact that
the person does not participate in the creation of the law (seen in its creator
of rules or provisions) in the international sphere does not have the
exclusive effect of denying them their status as a member of said system,
this happens in the sphere internally, only a few create the rules and this
does not mean that the same conclusion can be reached.
This is not to say that D.I. and internal law are identical systems, but they
present similarities that, analyzed under a pure legal theory, should lead to
balanced conclusions.
Brief practical considerations
The advance on the discussion of whether or not the individual is a subject
of D.I. it may very well be resolved, that is, one or the other solution is
chosen. But from the reflection of this paradigm, it is relevant to observe
that the practice shows a constant development in the fact that it continues
to give evidence of the importance of the individual in the international
system and therefore continues to institute mechanisms that assign
consequences to their behaviors.
Evolution seems to indicate that it would not be far from establishing a
universal institution or modification of regional ones where the individual
acts directly to defend their interests.
This does not imply an affirmation but only a prospective conclusion based
on the history and evolution of the concepts. It is true that this study has
tried to show, but it is clear that the possible effects of establishing such a
solution, which does operate in the European regional international system
with Community law, in the global international arena would ultimately be
consistent with the mega protection provided by the International
Covenants on Civil, Political, and Economic Rights, among others, which
although they institute a Human Rights Committee, the jurisdictional body
still remains.
In such a way that, with individuals having the possibility of access to
international jurisdictions, States would not be forced to exercise their
diplomatic protection or to present their demands on behalf of their
subjects, which would help a lot to keep conflicts on an individual scale. ,
and it would reduce conflicts between States… ”. In this sense, it should be
added that Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union,
adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to
be recognized to become a state, nor does one state have the obligation to
recognize another. At the same time, neither recognition is sufficient to
create a state, nor does its absence suppress it. " In this way the MLER and
AR are constituted as States that protect themselves as their own
diplomacy.
Finally, this point of view would be advisable to be treated academically in
our house of studies, where the subject enjoys apparent certainty (dogmatic
authority) on a position that denies the personality of the individual. In
addition, its academic debate both in universities and in conferences or
congresses is always in D.I., a matter of observation by the international
community in order to generate momentum and discussion on proposals
that lead to make the rights enshrined in the treaties effective.

Protection of human rights

Relating to economic, social and cultural rights.
What is known today as human rights refers to the recognition that every
human person, by virtue of being human, is the bearer of autonomous
attributes that must be recognized and protected by the State. They are
inherent to the human being and do not require any specific title to acquire
them. They do not result from an adjudication or assignment of the State,
whose function with respect to them is of recognition, respect and
protection. It is enough to be a human person to be the holder of human
rights and every human person is the holder of those rights. Its
enforceability does not depend on its legislative consecration; on the
contrary, historically they appear as attributes that have been asserted
against oppressive laws that ignored or undermined them.
They are subjective rights that emanate from human dignity and that
protect it, because they fight arbitrary domination and supported by
unequal relations of social power, through which some human beings
impose others to be instruments of their own ends. We speak of the
universal ideology born to confront oppression.

Sovereign state
Member States of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states,
although not all sovereign states are necessarily members.
International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent
population, defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into
relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a
sovereign state is neither dependent nor subject to any other power or state.
Although it must also be considered that the states were created from their
commercial relationships, therefore, the violation of my privacy is
punishable by law (UCC 1-103 1 1-308-308 and the Rome Statute). UCC
1-308 I do not agree to this contract.
While, according to the declarative theory of a state, a sovereign state can
exist without being recognized by other sovereign states, unrecognized
states often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers and
participate in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Main article: Sovereignty of Westphalia

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on
territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in internal
structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations,
and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently abused. Until the 19th century, the
radicalized concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed
to determine that certain people in the world were "uncivilized," and
lacking in organized societies. That position is reflected and constituted in
the idea that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of
an inferior character when compared to that of "civilized" people. "Lassa
Oppenheim said:" There is perhaps no conception of the meaning of what
is more controversial than that of the sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact
that this conception, from the time it was introduced into political science
to the present day, has never had a meaning that was universally accepted.
"In the opinion of HV Evatt of the Australian Supreme Court," sovereignty
is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does
not arise at all. "
Sovereignty has acquired a different meaning with the development of the
principle of self-determination and the prohibition of the threat or use of
force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The Charter of the
United Nations, the Draft Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, and
the statutes of regional international organizations express the opinion that
all States are legally equal and have the same rights and obligations based
on mere fact. of their existence as persons under international law. The
right of nations to freely determine their political status and exercise
permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is
widely recognized.
In political science, sovereignty is generally defined as the most essential
attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency within the
framework of a given territory, that is, its supremacy in domestic politics
and independence abroad.
Named for the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the Westphalian system of
state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less
clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of
princes' to confessionalize 'the state, that is, to determine the religious
affiliation of its kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio [whose
kingdom, its religion] ".
The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has come increasingly under
fire from the "not-west" as a system imposed solely by Western
colonialism. What this model did was make religion subservient to politics,
a problem that has caused some problems in the Islamic world. This system
does not fit into the Islamic world because concepts such as "separation of
church and state" are not recognized in the Islamic religion as valid.
In occasional use, the terms "country", "nation" and "state" are often used
synonymously; but in the strictest usage, they can be distinguished:
Country denotes a region of terrain defined by geographic features or
political boundaries.
Nation denotes a group of people believed or believed to share common
customs, religion, language, origin, ancestry, or history. However, national
and international adjectives are frequently used to refer to matters related to
what are strictly sovereign states, as in the national capital, international
law.
State refers to the set of government and support institutions that have
sovereignty over a given territory and the population. Sovereign states are
legal persons.
Recognition
State recognition means the decision of a sovereign state to treat another
entity as well as a sovereign state. Acknowledgment can be expressed or
implied, and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily
mean a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.
In international law, however, there are various theories that a state should
be recognized as sovereign.
The constitutive theory
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of
international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other
states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Below
it, was a sovereign state if another sovereign state recognized as such.
Because of this, the new states could not immediately become part of the
international community or be bound by international law, and recognized
nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with
them. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognized only 39
sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was
firmly established that in the future the new states would have to be
recognized by other states, and that it meant in practice recognition by one
or more of the great powers.
One of the main criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some
states recognize a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht,
one of the main defenders of the theory, suggested that it is the duty of the
state to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state can use
any criteria to judge whether recognition should be given and they have no
obligation of using those criteria. Many states will only be able to
recognize another state if it is for their benefit.
In 1912, LFL Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence, as long as it
is not recognized, but it does not take into account the same before its
recognition. Through recognition solely and exclusively, a State becomes
an international person and a subject of International Law.
Declarative theory
Main article: Montevideo Convention
In contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in
international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2)
a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) the ability to enter into
relations with other states. According to the declarative theory, the
statehood of the entity is independent of its recognition by other states,
provided that sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative
model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is
independent of its recognition by other states, and the State is not
prohibited from defending itself. Rather, recognition is considered a
requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. An
important part of the convention was Article 11, which prohibits the use of
military force to gain sovereignty.
A similar opinion on "the conditions in which an entity that constitutes a
State" is expressed by the European Economic Community opinions of the
Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a State is defined by
having a territory, a population, the government and the ability to enter into
relationships with other states.

State recognition

States in relation to recognition typically fall between the declarative and

constitutive approaches. International law does not require a state to
recognize other states. Recognition is often suspended when a new state is
seen as illegitimate or has occurred in violation of international law. The
almost universal non-recognition of the international community of
Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only
after being recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by
Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was largely withheld when the
white minority took power and tried to form a state along the lines of
apartheid South Africa, a decision that the United Nations Security Council
describes as the creation of a "Illegal regime of the racist minority". In the
case of Northern Cyprus, the recognition of having been canceled in a state
created in Northern Cyprus. International law does not contain any
prohibition on declarations of independence, and recognition of a country is
a political matter. As a result, Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and their
representatives are elected in the North Cyprus Assembly; and Northern
Cyprus became an observer member of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation and the Organization of Economic Cooperation.
Fact and law of the States
Most sovereign states are de jure and de facto states (that is, they exist both
in law and in reality). However, a State can only be recognized as a de jure
State, in which it is recognized as the legitimate government of a territory
over which it has no real control. For example, during World War II, the
governments-in-exile of various continental European states continued to
enjoy diplomatic relations with the allies, even though their countries were
under Nazi occupation. The PLO and the Palestinian Authority assert that
the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim that has been recognized
by most states, although the territory it claims is under the facto and "de
jure control" of Israel. Other entities may have de facto control over a
territory, but international recognition is lacking; These can be considered
by the international community to be only de facto states. They are
considered de jure states only in accordance with their own law and by the
states that recognize them. For example, Somalia is commonly considered
to be a state as such.
Relationship between state and government
Although the terms "state" and "government" are used interchangeably,
international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its
government; and, indeed, the concept of "government in exile" is asserted
on that distinction. States are non-physical legal entities, and not the s
organizations of any kind. However, normally, only the government of a
state can bind or bind the state, for example through a treaty.
Generally speaking, states are enduring entities, although they may have
become extinct, either voluntarily or external forces, such as military
conquest. Violent abolition of a state has practically ceased since the end of
the Second World War. Because states are non-physical legal entities, their
extinction has been argued and cannot be due to physical force alone.
Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the
correct social or judicial actions in order to abolish a state.
It should be noted that a sovereign State is made up of individuals, as was
the case in the French Revolution.

Ontological status of the State

The ontological is the state of the state and has been the subject of debate,
especially whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see,
taste, touch, or detect in any way, really exists.
The state as "quasi-abstract"
It has been argued that one possible reason why the existence of states has
been controversial is because states have no place in the traditional Platonic
duality of the concrete and the abstract. Characteristically, concrete objects
are those that have position in time and space, which states do not have
(although their territories have spatial position, but states are different from
their territories), and abstract objects have no position in time or space. in
space, which does not adapt to the supposed characteristics of States either,
since States do not have a temporal position (which can be created at
certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has
been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, which
has recently begun to attract philosophical attention, especially in the area
of documentation, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of
documents in understanding of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such
as states, can be brought into existence through documented acts, and they
can also be used to manipulate them, such as tying them up by treaty or
surrendering them as the result of war.
Scholars of international relations can be divided into two different
practices, realistic and pluralistic, of what they believe the ontological state
of the state to be. Realists believe that the world is one of the states and
interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before
international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists
believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and
interactions between states, where it is competing with many other actors.
The state as a "spiritual entity"
Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual, or
"mystical entity" with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.
The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was perhaps
the biggest proponent of this theory. The Hegelian definition of the State is
"the divine idea as it exists on Earth."
Trends in the number of States
Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the
international system has skyrocketed. Some research suggests that the
existence of international and regional organizations, the greater
availability of financial aid, and a greater acceptance of the norm of self-
determination have increased the desire of political units to separate and
can be credited by the increase in the number of States in the international
system. Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts and economist
Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, "Size of Nations," that the increase in
the number of states can in part be attributed to a more peaceful world,
more free trade, and economic integration. international, democratization
and the presence of international organizations that coordinate economic
and political policies.
An attempt could be made to determine empirically what constitutes a
sovereign state by examining the characteristics of states whose
sovereignty is indisputable. All sovereign states, it could be observed, have
territory, people and government. Interestingly, however, there appear to be
no convincing standards either in law or in practice for the size, number of
people, or form of government that might be required of a sovereign state.
In fact, a United Nations General Assembly resolution declared that neither
small size, remote geographic location, nor limited resources constitute a
valid objection to sovereign statehood. Fowler, M., & Bunck, J. (1996).
What constitutes the sovereign state? Review of International Studies, 22
(4), 381-404. doi: 10.1017 / S0260210500118637

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

April 18, 1961
It entered into force on April 24, 1964.
The States Parties to this Convention,
Bearing in mind that since ancient times the peoples of all nations have
recognized the status of diplomatic officials.
Taking into account the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Charter regarding the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of
international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations
between nations.
Believing that an international convention on diplomatic relations,
privileges and immunities will contribute to the development of friendly
relations between nations, regardless of their differences in constitutional
and social regime.
Recognizing that such immunities and privileges are granted, not for the
benefit of individuals, but in order to guarantee the effective performance
of the functions of diplomatic missions as representatives of the States.
Affirming that the norms of customary international law must continue to
govern matters that have not been expressly regulated in the provisions of
this Convention.
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention:
to. By "head of mission" is understood the person entrusted by the sending
State to act as such; b. "members of the mission" means the head of the
mission and the members of the mission staff; c. "members of the mission
staff" means the members of the diplomatic staff, the administrative and
technical staff and the service staff of the mission; d. "Members of the
diplomatic staff" means the members of the mission's staff who have
diplomatic status; and. "Diplomatic agent" means the head of the mission
or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission; F. "members of the
administrative and technical staff" means the members of the mission staff
employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission; g.
"members of the service staff" means the members of the mission staff
employed in the domestic service of the mission; h. "Private servant"
means any person in the domestic service of a member of the mission, who
is not an employee of the sending State; i. "Mission premises" are
understood to be the buildings or parts of buildings, regardless of their
owner, used for the purposes of the mission, including the residence of the
head of the mission, as well as the land intended for the service of those
buildings or part of them.
Article 2
The establishment of diplomatic relations between States and the dispatch
of permanent diplomatic missions is carried out by mutual consent.
Article 3
1. The functions of a diplomatic mission consist mainly of:
to. Representing the sending State before the receiving State; b. protect in
the receiving State the interests of the sending State and those of its
nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; c. negotiate with
the government of the host state; d. to find out by all lawful means the
conditions and the evolution of events in the receiving State and inform the
government of the sending State about it; and. promote friendly relations
and develop economic, cultural and scientific relations between the sending
State and the receiving State.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall be construed in such a way as to
prevent the exercise of consular functions by the diplomatic mission.

Why do you have diplomatic status in foreign countries?

As a general rule, a Nation borders several countries. In the case of
REMLs, all borders limit with a single foreign country, unless they have
each foot in a different nation, which then limit with two.
Just as an Embassy in a foreign nation is surrounded by the same country.
The legal form is the same. This is what the Vienna Convention on
International Relations contemplates and expresses it clearly. Specifically,
in Articles 22 - 29 - 30 - 31 and 39. In other words, REML's are always
located identically to an Embassy within a foreign country.
Has MLER been recognized by a member state of the EC has been decisive
for the establishment of this Republic?
In fact, the official response of your Ministry ratifies and highlights the
relationship capacity of both States. The recognition and certification of the
Montevideo Convention is implicit.
In any case, Article 3 already defines that the political existence of a State
is independent of its recognition by other States.
MLER and AR was already independent before that. The only thing that,
out of deference, we communicated to our native country the Sovereign
process and its Ministry responded kindly confirming the MLER rights and
accepting their legal validity. But that is only an internal procedure for you,
not ours. They could also have notified that they do not recognize anything,
that does not affect us. It is just a courtesy protocol communication
between Nations. However, the attention and kindness in responding to our
Declaration of Independence and recognizing our Republic we value it
positively and we maintain excellent diplomatic relations.
Proof of this is Article 1 coinciding in both Constitutions, a sample of
bilateral harmony.
(N.R. in the two Constitutions Art.1: Sovereignty resides in the people)
Does this recognition set a precedent or jurisprudence?
In reality, it is indifferent, as mentioned in Article 3 of the Montevideo
Convention. Furthermore, if they now decided to annul those rights, it
would not be possible under Article 6 which determines that the
recognition of a State is irrevocable.
With your answer confirming the legal validity, the recognition is ratified
de jure and de facto.
MLER scrupulously abides by the Montevideo Convention.
MLER and AR statement:
MLER REPÚBLICA MENDA LERENDA AND THE ADSCRIBED IN
COSTA RICA OR ANY COUNTRY AMBULATING REPUBLIC,
addressing from the diplomatic staff of a diplomatic office. I am enclosing
a copy of the documentation in this email so that the staff of this State
office can verify it. My name is Ramón, my code is A-011.006.022 and I
am sovereign of the MENDA LERENDA REPUBLIC AND THE
ASSOCIATED AMBULATING REPUBLIC. Because there is no legal
status that delegitimizes this active documentation since 1999, and because
there is no law that contradicts the laws and treaties on which it is based,
we ask you to respect and treat the protocol supported by the TREATY OF
VIENNA on diplomatic relations. Since we are under customary
international law, in addition the citizen of this State, I live, I am lawfully
accepting social custom, under the canons of natural law and the life of the
citizens of the State (COSTA RICA or any country) that in this moment I
am adjoining. MLER and AR is a collective and does not act against the
law of legal and legal rights, I remind you that what is not prohibited is
allowed, and that when the legem does not distinguish, it is not incumbent
on us to distinguish either, Quaelibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet, Any
jurisdiction has its own limits, a maxim in which each sovereign state
imposes at least some limitations on itself. Consensus facit legem, common
assent makes the law. A contract is a law between the two parties, whoever
makes a mistake is not considered consenting.
Taking into account articles 55 and 56 of the CHART OF THE UNITED
NATIONS, they reiterate the obligation of states to comply with human
rights, as well as article 30 thereof, which deprives states of the ability to
ignore them. From state A-011.006.022, inalienable rights and diplomatic
privileges are enforced and in compliance with positive law, treaties,
TREATY OF MONTEVIDEO, CONVENTION OF VIENNA, CHART
OF THE UNITED NATIONS, so you have no power over Therefore, it
should be noted that every individual has the right to life, liberty and
security of his person, article 3 of human rights, no one will be subjected to
slavery or servitude ... they are prohibited in all their forms. Article 4 of
human rights, no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment ...
Article 5 of human rights, every human being has the right everywhere to
be recognized for their legal personality, Article 6 of human rights, no one
can be arbitrarily detained, imprisoned or exiled, article 9 of human rights,
no one will be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality, nor of the right to
change nationality, article 15.2 of human rights, no one may be forced to
belong to an association or society, Article 20.2 of human rights, nothing in
this declaration may be interpreted in the sense that it confers any right to
the state, a group or person tending to suppress any of the rights and
freedoms, proclaimed in this declaration, Article 30 of the human rights.
In order to create the conditions of stability necessary for peaceful and
friendly relations between nations based on respect, the principle of equal
rights, and the self-determination of peoples, the organization will
promote ... universal respect for rights human rights and the freedoms of all
without making distinction for reasons of race, sex, language, religion and
the effectiveness of such rights and freedoms, article 55 CHARTER OF
THE UNITED NATIONS c. All members agree to take action together or
separately in cooperation with the organization for the realization of the
purposes assigned in article 55, article 56 of THE CHARTER OF THE
UNITED NATIONS.
Importance of the law considered by the MLER and AR:
Natural law.
Human rights.
International deals.
Customary law.
Uniform Commercial Code.
Constitution of each country.
Positive law.
I Ramón as human being ML E R and AR Code A-011-006-022.
San José, Costa Rica, 12-08-2020.
You can consult www.republicamendalerenda.net
www.reikikambo.com

About COVID-19
Due to the panic caused by the different media and by the health minister,
people are beginning to give the state "powers" that were previously
unimaginable as a "Superman" type and to prevent collective paranoia from
splashing us and before the absurd, inhumane measures we assume the
contract by international law to which Costa Rica is subscribed.
According to the contract presented " DECREE 463/2020, OF MARCH
14", a new virus has entered circulation, it has been called coronavirus,
more specifically it is known as COVID-19, fear and panic is spreading
among practitioners from secular humanism, by corporate news, emanating
from the different “official” media.
Due to the fear that the number of infected and sick due to this new disease
will increase excessively, they intend to adopt amoral and coercive
“policies”, by decreeing a state of alarm for the good of the people. The
measures they want to adopt are measures such as limiting movement
through what they call national territory, temporary forced expropriations
of private property, among others.
Our nation AR informs for the tranquility of all, that, although we know
that the contract
The document DM-RM-0820-2020 and DM-RM-0852-2020 and
outcoming documents, and temporary administrative measures for the
attention of mass concentration activities due to the health alert for
attention for COVID-19, is not applicable to us because we are out of the
jurisdiction of the Costa Rica Corporation and we also have a contract with
natural law and inalienable rights and human rights, that we are not
concerned about plague or any disease, as we comply with its law, and that
we are aware that the only ones responsible for our state of health is us and
we will maintain it by following and complying with the Creator's law,
since God only requires that you comply with his law to have his
protection, so we do not want the protection of an equal, since we insist
that we are protected by God and Providence.
All this about COVID-19 has been based on a big lie:
There are no healthy ones that can infect.
Diagnostic tests are not specific and give a high percentage of false
positives.
There is no evidence of virus isolation, purification, photos, size, or
structure.
The measures taken by the health ministry threaten life and fundamental
rights.
Nor does the mortality rate justify the coercive measures taken.
For the security forces of the Costa Rica corporation, public force, since
they have taken an oath, they are committing fraud of the law by not
reporting that the measures taken have false grounds and I remind them
that by law they are obliged to report it.
The members of our nation are moving through their national territory,
bearing in mind that our nation is MLER and our borders are where our
feet step, so we are never in contact with the Costa Rica corporation.
Since the decree of law is not above international laws. That without
consent there is no jurisdiction over equal. If the previous points are not
refuted and demonstrated and by means of a sworn statement under penalty
of perjury, it will be agreed that the aforementioned decrees of law as
contracts will have no effect in our nation, so no measures will be taken
against our property or inhabitants. , all in relation to restricting the
freedom of movement and data privacy rights.
So, it should be added that:
I declare myself unable to wear a mask or for whatever reasons that I have
no right to wear and have been forced to wear it. I also declare that I do not
have to give any explanation to any authority.
Among some of my rights that cannot be restricted are:
Data Protection
Data Categories:
Personal information:
Name, surname, identification number and telephone (among others),
Sensitive data:
Those whose treatment can generate some type of segregation or
discrimination towards its owner, for example: medical data, sexual
orientation, political ideologies and religious-spiritual convictions (among
others).
Personal honor and privacy
The constitutional principle finds protection in consecrated crimes. "Crimes
against the area of privacy of the Penal Code", specific reference mind to
the violation of secrets, correspondence, electronic communications, theft,
diversion or suppression of correspondence and others. For the
configuration of these crimes, fraud is required; that is to say, the
conscience voluntarily manifested with the conduct of making the
correspondence public; in this sense, the culpable act is not punished. Thus,
everyone has the right to the protection of their honor, private life, privacy,
own image, confidentiality and reputation. The law limits the use of
information to guarantee the honor and personal and family privacy of
citizens and the exercise of their rights.
If any person or authority tries to find out the motive or motives, it would
be violating one of the fundamental rights contained in the constitution, the
right to HONOR and PRIVACY and violating the current DATA
PROTECTION LAW as the HEALTH DATA is ESPECIALLY
PROTECTED by the Law relating to the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and the free circulation of these
data. The Agent who insists on violating these rights, must show her
professional card, and the bearer of this document will take measures
according to the penal code, coercion and trespass respectively.
On the right to health
BACKGROUND:
What are the inalienable rights of the human being?
The inalienable rights of man are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness.
The Right to Life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the
benefit of another man or any number of other men.
The Right to Liberty means the right of Man to individual action, to
individual choice, to individual initiative, and to individual property.
Without the right to private property there is no independent action
possible.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means the right of Man to live for
himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal and individual
happiness, and to seek to achieve it, provided that he respects that same
right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to dedicate his life to
the happiness of another man or to that of any number of other men. It
means that the community cannot decide what the goal of a man's existence
is to be or prescribe the choice of his happiness.

Natural law leads us to the right to life and health.

Health (from the Latin salus, -utis) is a state of well-being or equilibrium
that can be seen at a subjective level (a human being assumes the general
state in which he is as acceptable) or at an objective level (the absence of
diseases or harmful factors in the subject in question).
The pillar on which life is sustained is health. Without the knowledge that
it is a balanced health, the alterations that are observed in it cannot be
established or described. There is no normal health model as it would lead
to something totally subjective. So, it is better to differentiate between the
types of health for a perfect interconnected and linked balance.
There are two basic types of health: objective and subjective. The latter, by
definition, is internal and not transferable; a personal experience that can be
described as a sensation, a feeling, or an ecstasy. My beliefs influence my
state and perception of health. That is why health is not the property of
anyone outside of me. Also, as such, health belongs to everyone without
condition and therefore my perception of health, the perception of my
healthy life is not the object of questioning by others or interference, no
matter how noble they are. Since it would violate my right to life and how I
perceive it and my right to develop my life in a healthy way.
On the other hand, objective scientific health, which can be transmitted:
that which remains the same regardless of who is observing it and which
can therefore be transmitted between people without deterioration. From
this it follows that objective health, and therefore scientific, is essentially
shared: a piece of healthy knowledge that does not leave someone's head is
useless. Like the noise that the tree makes when it falls in the middle of the
forest, if nobody receives it, one cannot speak of health; perhaps from
personal experience, but certainly never from science. Scientific health is
by definition shared, something dynamic and alive in its very essence.
And therefore, something that cannot be owned by anyone, because it
cannot be enclosed or fenced off. Objective health, and especially scientific
health, cannot have owners by definition.
The perception of health is the result of a personal and subjective process
and can only be understood contextualized in the universe of beliefs, values
and behaviors of the sociocultural environment of each person, as well as
of the material conditions of life. From the point of view of health with
scientific evidence a is opposed, but the personal perceptual value of health
cannot be denied or separated since it influences the real state of the
person's health, so that if their perception is altered, they become ill. As is
the example of the loss of a job or loved one.
To sum up, public health cannot be considered before the health of the
individual.
There are, of course, systems and methods to control and above all to
promote specific areas of health. We have invented sophisticated legal tools
in order to favor the material conversion of certain forms of health that we
consider socially desirable, and that have been useful both to promote
certain types of healthy life creation and to disseminate health.
Public health, for example, allows society to regain open access to health
products after a certain number of years after guaranteeing a certain period
to reward the original creative effort. The methods, meanwhile, have an
expiration date for the same purpose. The fact that there are companies and
industries that abuse, such as pharmaceuticals and their vaccines, to extend
their influence on public health, does not give the right to do so.
But the very fact that its own and specialized legislation is needed shows
that "property" over health and life is different from other properties such
as a car or a house, by virtue of the fact that it multiplies when shared. The
material properties are exclusive: if one person uses them the others cannot
use it at the same time, it is like the use I give to my own body. That is why
in matters such as health objects, possession and control are synonymous,
and this is recognized in natural laws. In the case of public health, and
given that sharing is inherent to its existence and that by nature they can be
used concurrently (several people can share the same healthy state), this
kind of control is impossible. Health cannot belong to anyone; it is,
actually, everyone's.
Any attempt that forces the adoption of measures imposed by a supposed
greater and common good in the name of public health, violates the natural
principle of the right to life since this does not guarantee a healthy life and
that health as a right is personal and non-transferable, besides belonging to
all.
To conclude, personal health and its subjective form is inseparable from
health that belongs to no one and belongs to everyone. Any attempt to
break this link results in a loss of health and your rights.
Refusing vaccination because of beliefs.
Whether the decision is irrational or based on an illogical belief, from some
conventional point of view, does not limit freedom of action.
This is so because the concept of rationality is not completely objective.
People frequently change health (an instrumental condition to achieve well-
being, not an end in itself) for other transcendent elements such as being
faithful to their religious beliefs (refusing a transfusion), philosophical
(hunger strike for ideological reasons), or more prosaic like the pleasure of
smoking, using drugs recreationally or drinking alcohol. What is rational
for one may be irrational for others. The appropriate response to a reckless
or irrational decision - we repeat, from the conventional medical point of
view - would not be authoritarian paternalism but to try to persuade with
more and better information.

It is not democratic to defend technocratic models that claim that science is

an objective and indisputable basis for politics; knowledge, in a knowledge
society, is less and less an exclusive product of experts and more the result
of a social construction.

The credibility of a professional institution in relation to any

recommendation related to public health in a knowledge society is not
gained, paradoxically, with "evidence" (and less by alluding to authority
arguments) but by accrediting a commitment to the good governance of
knowledge clinical: transparency, open research, data from public clinical
trials, abstention from the participation of professionals with relevant
conflicts of interest in professional documents and guides, accountability,
etc.

On rights to consider:
• The right to health is something that belongs to me, not what belongs to
public health. Health is my property and is not transferable.

• A natural right like life cannot be compulsory.

• The right to public health cannot take precedence over the right to life,
there is a range of rights and public health is not a constitutional right.

For a long time, health was defined negatively, as the absence of disease.
The most widely accepted modern definition of health, however, is that
contained in the preamble to the Constitution of the World Health
Organization (WHO): "Health is a state complete do of physical, mental
and social well-being, and not only the absence of affections or diseases ".
From a legal perspective, the right to health constitutes
"the set of mandatory precepts that recognize individuals’ rights concerning
their health and that regulate their conduct with respect to all those matters
in which the health of the person and the group comes into play".
Our Political Constitution does not expressly mention this fundamental
right; however, from the beginning the Constitutional Chamber recognized
its existence, as will be seen later.
The right to health
The Constitutional Chamber has said that the right to health derives from
the right to life enshrined in the Magna Carta (votes 1915-92 and 5892-95),
which provides that "human life is inviolable." (Article 21)
In this regard, the Chamber has said:
"V.- Human life is only possible in solidarity with nature that sustains and
sustains us, not only for physical food, but also for mental well-being; it
constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free of
contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. IT IS
NOT THE SAME CITIZEN AS BEING HUMAN, this is how Article 21
of the Political Constitution states: "Human life is inviolable."
"It is from this constitutional principle that the right to health, physical,
mental and social well-being undeniably follows, a human right that is
inextricably linked to the right to health and the obligation of the State to
protect human life." (Votes Nos. 3705-93, 3341-96)
This right protects both nationals and foreigners. (See votes Nos. 1915-92,
5527-94, 3019-94, 5130-94, 5135-94)
Life depends on respect for the right to health, since it is implicit within it.
(Votes 131-94, 4894-93, 2233-93, 1297-92, 2728-91, 2362-91, 1833-91,
1755-91, 1580-90, 56-90)
The Constitutional Chamber has defined this right as a "right to health
care", and it has been recognized as a basic right of the human being.
Modernly it has been considered that, as it is not possible to guarantee
perfect health to any person, the correct thing is to speak of the right to
health care. Health care includes a wide variety of services that deal with
from disease prevention, to environmental protection, treatment and
rehabilitation, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve in human beings a
state of complete physical and mental well-being. and social, and not only
the absence of affections or diseases.
The Constitutional Chamber forgets the principle of health care, part of
education and health promotion before any other type of care or protection
against diseases. As it is possible that for other causes, he does not assume
the responsibility of technical criteria and in this writing, he suffers from
total ignorance about the definition of health and dares to define it.
This right to health is only justified as a mechanism for the protection of
life, ABSOLUTELY FALSE, which is the most important in the scale of
fundamental rights, because it constitutes the biological fact of human
existence. All other fundamental rights revolve around him because they
derive from the mere existence of the human being. The fundamental right
of every human being to health is not the same as the right of the citizen or
person to public health.
Consequently, the right to health must be considered as an extension of the
right to life, understood as the right of every human being that the other
members of the community do not unlawfully attempt against his life, or
against his bodily integrity, or against your health. (See votes Nos. 6061-
96, 5717-96, 4423-93)
The State is responsible for ensuring public health, which implies ensuring
the prevention and treatment of diseases. (Votes 5130-94, 5135-94,1915-
92, 739-92)
The Chamber has considered that the right to life is a fundamental principle
protected and protected by our Political Constitution, and the Costa Rican
Social Security Fund is the institution in charge of providing protection to
the population, through health plans, patient care and supply of medicines,
among others, in addition to being delegated the state responsibility to
determine the best and safe practices of the service (vote 6874-94). The
right to health lies behind all the others that CCSS beneficiaries have.
(Votes 5135-94 and 5130-94)
Likewise, the Constitutional Chamber has considered that the Ministry of
Health is the public body in charge of ensuring the health of the country's
inhabitants. For this purpose, it has been endowed with several powers that
allow it to fulfill this task, for example, the verification of the legal
requirements for the operation of any activity and the prevention of
improvements, and may even issue the order to close the places that - by its
conditions, and based on a technical report - may endanger the legal good
of health. (Votes 6454-96, 728-96).
Public health as a pretext for repression, control and mass surveillance

Just as education is a direct link between a teacher and his student, health is
the same between a doctor and his patient. The teacher owes his student
and the doctor his patient.

Contemporary health disasters have consisted of the creation of a health

bureaucracy in which the doctor is an official who owes himself to his
State, not to his patient. Like any other official, the doctor complies with
work routines, executes protocols and is due to who pays him: the State.

The doctor is a bureaucrat and the patient are a robot stranded in the
mechanical workshop. The spearhead that is destroying health are the so-
called contagious diseases, always with the same pretext that, moreover, is
paradoxical: the doctor should no longer treat a patient but all others, who
can be infected, which are above the previous one.
In addition, from a professional practice, health has become a complex
legal discipline. Above health, it is necessary to comply with the decrees
that regulate it which, in the case of epidemics, set up a network of control
and surveillance institutions that function like the others that the State has:
in the disciplinary and repressive way of the one we are victims right now.

For example, a fundamental principle of medicine has always been

professional secrecy, above which they have imposed the obligation to
"notify" a contagious disease.

Diseases are always the same but each State does not react in the same way
because medicine is governed by political rules, not health. That is why
there are different catalogs of contagious diseases, some declared
contagious without any case to date. What is contagious for one state is not
contagious for another. It is easy to deduce that the pretext of the infection
is false and that the non-contagious diseases that are included in the
catalogs as if they were, are not there for health reasons but for political
reasons, that is, for surveillance and control.

As the monopoly state is more fragile, it needs greater control and the list
of contagious diseases increases. Now to the lists of the WHO, the
European Union, and the central State are added the autonomies that have
turned the infections into a labyrinth, as has been shown with the
coronavirus.

Under the pretext of contagion, the State has set up a parallel bureaucracy,
the Epidemiological Surveillance Network, which does not work with
patients but with numbers (the stupid and false "curve") and in which not
only doctors participate but also medical professionals. "Microbe hunters",
biologists. The sick are farther and farther away and so are diseases. It is
the bacteria or the virus that matters, so the burden shifts from the doctors
to the biologists.
These types of diseases are called "notifiable" today and their list seems to
be taken from the television series "House". Many of them do not exist,
that is, the number of cases is zero, but it is enough that there was one to
attract an interest that other much more common diseases do not have.

Others are not contagious but the device is put into operation in the same
way, as if they were, because contagion is the pretext. Hence, the central
state adopts the typical bureaucratic and aseptic (hypocritical) terminology
of calling them "notifiable diseases", while some countries continue with
the old terminology of "communicable".

Biology has ended up facing medicine. It begins with the fatal mistake of
associating microbes with disease and then continues with a second
mistake, which is its consequence: not doing autopsies. The only thing that
matters today is the "viral load" and deaths are always attributed to the
microorganism, which is unscientific, as pathologists well know:

“Autopsy-based research offers useful and reliable information in

prevention and epidemiology studies in various areas of medicine. This
information on the causes of death is essential in the development of
national and international health policies for the prevention and control of
diseases”.

However, the bureaucracy imposes the opposite: "If VHF [Viral

Hemorrhagic Fevers] is suspected in a deceased, an autopsy should not be
performed, given the high viral load of body fluids" and the corpse must be
cremated.

Therefore, the cause of death is unknown and what is worse: it will never
be possible to know why the corpse has been cremated. "Any person who
gives a positive diagnosis and dies is considered a deceased by
coronavirus." Public health and the policies that flow from it work based on
assumptions, not on proven facts.
Therefore, the fact that a "de mandatory clarification” and the patient dies
does not mean, at all, that it is the cause of death.
On the other hand, everyone has the right:
To his personality, human dignity and privacy.
To refuse treatment, except when it poses a risk to public health, is not
qualified to make decisions (in that case it corresponds to family members
or close associates) or when the urgency does not allow delays because
irreversible injuries or danger of death could be caused.
The right to refuse treatment is clearly and forcefully established. The
question is in knowing when you are in a case of risk to public health.
All preventive measures ....... must comply with the following principles:
Mandatory measures that carry risk to life cannot be ordered.
Therefore, it is not possible to adopt compulsory vaccination, since it has
been scientifically proven that vaccination carries the risk of contracting
the disease against which it is intended to protect, although the scope of the
risk cannot be delimited.
It is essential to consider that the principle on which vaccination is based to
generate herd immunity and be beneficial for the rest of the population and
extremely harmful if you do not get vaccinated because you put the rest of
the population at risk, results from the comparison with those who don't get
vaccinated. It follows that it is totally false, if the vaccines work no one
should be at risk, according to that there should be fewer cases per year
after vaccination and that is also false. In conclusion, public health is
founded on a false premise.
Since not being vaccinated does not imply a general risk towards the rest of
society, this obligation to be vaccinated is illegal and violates the right to
personal liberty, physical integrity and personal privacy.
Vaccination will only be mandatory when there is an imminent and
extraordinary public health danger. And even in that case, the measures that
are taken will always be temporary, until the disappearance of the danger
that motivated them. With which, already seen, there is no imminent
danger.
The unvaccinated are those that generate immunity and antibodies that
benefit the rest of the population, it is the natural cycle of immunization.
Therefore, the right not to be vaccinated must prevail and that such
decision be made by the parents, or by oneself in each case, who ultimately
have the obligation to ensure the health and education of their children.
Natural law always prevails.
If vaccination were voluntary, the one who is vaccinated would be
protected from the one who is not vaccinated, therefore, what is the basis
that it is mandatory, does not have it.
And where is the right to informed consent, there isn't.
An imposition like this, knowing that there is no scientific evidence to
corroborate that vaccines are as safe as claimed by the industry that
manufactures them, that it has not even been possible to present a report in
any country in the world that shows that vaccines are necessary and that
they are innocuous, they do not cause harm, they cannot be accepted.
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER
Part of resolution No. 2019014677 of the Constitutional Chamber of
August 7, 2019 is transcribed, which established the following: "III.- ON
THE OBLIGATORY OF VACCINES AND PROTECTION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HEALTH. There are many regulations that
expressly establish the obligation to vaccinate. Firstly, article 46 of the
Civil Code can be cited, which establishes: “Article 46.- Every person may
refuse to undergo a medical or surgical examination or treatment, with the
exception of cases of compulsory vaccination or other measures relating to
public health, occupational safety and the cases provided for in article 98 of
the Family Code. However, if a person refuses to undergo a medical
examination, which is necessary to prove certain controversial facts in
court, the Judge may consider as proven the facts that were to be
demonstrated through the examination. "
What is ratified by article 2 of the National Vaccination Law, which
provides: “Article 2.- FREE AND EFFECTIVE ACCESS The entire
population is guaranteed the compulsory and free vaccines, as well as
effective access to vaccination, in especially for children, immigrants and
sectors located below the poverty index. " (The underlining does not
correspond to the original) While in article 3 of that same normative body
the following is established: “Article 3.- Mandatory nature. In accordance
with this Law, vaccinations against diseases are mandatory when deemed
necessary by the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission,
which is created in this Law, in coordination with the Ministry of Health
and the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. The approved vaccines must be
supplied and applied to the population, without being Economic reasons or
lack of supply in health services provided by state institutions are given.
These approved vaccines refer to the official basic scheme that applies to
the entire population, and to vaccines for special schemes aimed at specific
risk groups. The National Commission for Vaccination and Epidemiology
shall prepare an official list of vaccines, which will be included in the
Regulations of this Law. The list may be periodically reviewed and
analyzed, taking into account the frequent technological changes in this
field. " In which case, this Chamber already had the opportunity to
pronounce on the content of such normative provisions (Articles 2 and 3 of
the National Vaccination Law), due to the optional legislative consultation
of constitutionality that was processed in file 00-009914-0007 -CO, in
which it was consulted –among other points- whether the mandatory
vaccination provision for any person violated the principle of autonomy of
the will (article 28 of the Political Constitution). Opportunity in which this
Court indicated, through resolution number 2000-11648 of 10:14 am on
December 22, 2000, that: “(...) Taking into account the provisions of the
transcribed regulations, as well as the statement of reasons for the project
being consulted, this Chamber does not consider that the consultants are
right, saying that by establishing the mandatory nature of vaccines is
harmful to the right of autonomy of the will. Health as a means and as an
end for the personal and social fulfillment of man constitutes a human and
social right whose recognition is beyond dispute. It is one of the rights of
man that emanates from his dignity as a human being. From this right
arises both for the individual and the organized community, as well as for
the state itself, a responsibility regarding health. In international
instruments and in constitutional declarations of social rights, the right to
health is included, to whose recognition must be added the imposition of
the duty to take care of one's own health and that of others. Thus, within a
global social policy aimed at solving the effects of social deficiencies, the
observance of the principle of coherence of purposes determines that
actions on working conditions, social security, education, housing, nutrition
are harmonized. and population with those of health, due to the connection
and interdependence of one and the other. In this way, the enunciation in
the consulted project of the provision of free and compulsory medical
assistance, for the entire population, does not in any way harm the principle
of autonomy of the will, but nevertheless it does guarantee essential health
care to safeguard responsibility. inescapable of the State to ensure the
health of each and every one of the citizens. " From which it can be
inferred that this Chamber has recognized, firstly, the importance of
vaccination as part of the essential health care that the Costa Rican State
must guarantee in order to protect the fundamental right to health of all
people, and, secondly, that the protection of public health and the
prevention of diseases constitutes a constitutionally legitimate aim that can
validly justify the mandatory nature of vaccines. (…) Finally, in the
particular case of children, article 43 of the Childhood and Adolescence
Code establishes: “Article 43.- Vaccination. Minors must be vaccinated
against diseases determined by health authorities. Providing vaccinations
will be obligations of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. For medical
reasons, exceptions to administer vaccines will be authorized only by the
corresponding health personnel. The father, the mother, the legal
representatives or the persons in charge will be responsible for ensuring
that the compulsory vaccination of the minors in their charge is carried out
in a timely manner. " In this way, it is found that the Costa Rican legal
system incorporates various legal clauses that establish a general
mandatory regime with respect to vaccination, with special emphasis on the
case of children, due to the vital importance of immunization for the
prevention of individual and collective diseases (epidemics). And it is that
vaccination has proven to be an ideal and effective method to prevent
epidemic outbreaks and infections at the individual level, as well as to
control and even eradicate diseases that pose a serious risk to the
community (e.g.: smallpox). To the point that both the World Health
Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund or UNICEF (United
Nations Children's Fund) promote universal immunization of childhood,
with the aim of preventing infant mortality and morbidity due to diseases.
preventable by vaccination [can be reviewed for this purpose, see the
UNICEF website:
http://www.unicef.org/spanish/immunization/index_2819.html
(06/29/2011)]. "
You say; “This Chamber has recognized, firstly, the importance of
vaccination as part of the essential health care that the Costa Rican State
must guarantee in order to protect the fundamental right to health of all
people, and, secondly, that the safeguarding of public health and the
prevention of diseases constitutes a constitutionally legitimate aim that can
validly justify the mandatory nature of vaccines ”. How can they know that
vaccines are important from a health point of view? What evidence do you
have of this? Because in order for it to be a constitutionally legitimate
purpose, it must have a scientific and ethical foundation, which is violated,
a foundation that contributes to health, which is false, and a mandatory
foundation, which violates fundamental rights. That is why any technical
assessment that according to you does not correspond to you, has to be
justified by law, so it is mandatory that you know the technical and
scientific foundations to support the laws and the political constitution.
If health is a universal good and it is understood that vaccines are necessary
for it, how is it that there are countries that do not have the obligation of
vaccines even though they are members of the WHO?
And besides, it is already known who finances the vaccination campaigns
of the WHO, AND ALSO FINANCES THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON IMMUNIZATION AND VACCINATION PRACTICES OF THE
CENTERS OF CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DISEASES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAIS HE WANTS TO REDUCE THE
WORLD'S POPULATION WITH VACCINATION CAMPAIGNS. With
the campaign they have done for the application of the covid-19 vaccine,
BILL GATES has already said publicly that many people will die. The
president of Costa Rica has publicly said that until there is a vaccine, the
confinement is not finished. Bill Gates admitting that his experimental
vaccine WILL CHANGE our DNA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=AOof5bsiMpo&feature=youtu.be
The Constitutional Chamber lacks foundation, morals and ethics. WHAT
WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN? (there with his conscience).
The WHO recognizes that vaccines are not safe or effective, and that they
are time bombs and that when a child is found injured or killed after a
vaccine, they have no explanation to give. The Ministry of Health does not
have more information on safety and efficacy than what is on the internet.
https://www.who.int/es/news-room/events/detail/2019/12/02/default-
calendar/global-vaccine-safety-summit
https://lbry.tv/@rafapal:5/la-onu-cuestiona-la-seguridad-de-las:0
It has been shown that many of the vaccines are developed in live human
fetuses, and their tissues are recombined with the DNA of the fetus and that
of the person receiving the vaccine.
To end,
His argument that vaccines are required by law and its rationale is
untenable.
Vaccination can never be mandatory. What's more, it goes against the
natural law of the defense of life and has been demonstrated throughout the
history of humanity.
My conscience does not allow me to harm myself or harm my health or that
of others, so I object to reasons of conscience. Many vaccines are
developed in the living tissues of human fetuses. And this is amply
demonstrated.
VIOLENTED RIGHTS:
We consider that freedom to vaccinate should be an inalienable right of
every human being and that the authorities cannot force it even on the basis
of the theory of group immunity, a theory that has no scientific basis.
Group immunity, which is used as an excuse to vaccinate all of us, does not
work, it is not real, it is false, it is a management of social reengineering,
with the complicity of many ... And to top it all, it is the vaccinated who
spread the virus of vaccines as listed in the package inserts for the vaccines
themselves.
To consider:
We all have the right to choose always, for our right of freedom.
Where is the urgency of life or death so that it is forced by law?
Natural right to conscientious objection, to object to harming myself or
others.

About international commerce laws

It is through Corporations, banks and governments that the governmental
corporate rule system, which was executed. Governments behave as
beneficiaries, and NOT as trustees, understanding that a trust is a contract
in which, one or more PERSONS transmit assets, money or rights, present
or future, of their property to another PERSON for the latter to manage it.
All governments are corporations registered with the US Securities Market
Commission. People are corporations, because when they are born and
request a birth certificate, the government creates a trust with our names.
This trust is considered COLLATERAL, and a COLLATERAL account is
created and financed under our names.
If we do not supplement a will before age 7, corporate governance renders
us deceased under maritime law. It is then, when corporate governance
assumes control of all our assets.
The funds generated by the monetization of our lives, using us as
COLLATERAL, are loaned to us when we request a bank loan. Legally we
do not have the right, because we have died at the age of 7, which forces us
to pay with interest.
The media, religions, institutions, etc.… reinforce social norms, limits and
behaviors. They create a need, and then sell us a product to satisfy it.
We were born into the system without being informed of how it works, we
were captured and enslaved at birth without our consent.
It all started with the creation of the Reserve Bank in 1913, controlling
inflation and deflation of the economy, the corporations took control. From
this moment on, all crises could be manufactured, like the one in 1929.
The great depression of 1929, was created so that the big corporations that
controlled the stock market could benefit, lending money to governments
so that they could recover. States were forced to sign contracts for debts
that could never be paid. Over time, these large corporations have taken
control of the states.
The Reserve Bank "plays" at boosting markets by strategically tightening
or softening the money and credit supplies of the Western world.
Using the same commercial regulation mechanisms, the OPPT has declared
all government and banking systems extinct.
The American UCC (Uniform Commercial Code-Uniform Commercial
Code) is the result of the Merchant Law, Lex Mercatorian, and is applied at
the US level, in each of its States. The places in the world where there has
been more trade (both physical and speculative, have been: 1-United
Kingdom, 2-USA; and therefore, where it is most used, is in the USA. The
objective of said UCC is to maintain certain standards of trade, thus
avoiding future protracted conflicts, and a rapid resolution of commercial
conflicts (= Flowing the money in a stream = moving the money). At the
international level there is the CGIS (International Contract Treaty), and
the UNIDROIT, I suspect that, that does not come in Unidroit, and CIGS,
can be taken from the UCC for future international contracts (that is, the
UCC is a very useful complement), for example the UCC 1-207 and 1-308
can be used worldwide In principle I do not know if you have to include the
Code number, but I think it is enough to put the conditions (Without
Prejudice, or whatever corresponds).
All the States use the Lex Mercatorian AR use Lex Mercatorian from Spain
from 1885 and consider others.
States are governed by Lex Mercatorian, pacts, contracts and use
arbitration courts before the laws of their countries to resolve conflicts
since using one of the parties' legislation can harm the other. They use the
norm that is in common use and that many times is not written, and is due
to use by custom. They also follow the commercial principles of the Vienna
Convention on goods and services of a moral and patrimonial nature among
others. RA follows the same principles.
 Identification
 

Adhering to the rights of intellectual property and individual freedom

contemplated in the law, I hereby proclaim myself independent and
establish the WALKING REPUBLIC. www.reikikambo.com

SIGNED:
The bearer of this documentation is credited as
THE PLENARY OF GOVERNMENT OF THE WALKING REPUBLIC
approved with the consensus of 100% (the largest of all world states). The
MOVING REPUBLIC authorizes anyone who wants to self-proclaim their