10/10/12 "The Very Word 'Secrecy' is Repugnant in a Free Society." JFK

Let's recap the process of September 6, 2011.

Birgitte Poulsen, without state registration or residency or citizenship, is merely a sojourner. She does not register for free public entitlements for reasons under the preamble of the constitution.

She is threatened (as well as her children) to comply with obligatory public code by public officials. In honor of the 'offers' made by the public officials, she returns them an affidavit and constructive notice that explains the jurisdictional failures of their claims. We invite them to rebut these facts via demurrer. They refuse to rebut.

We go back to the ministry of health and ask them questions and they tell us they do not have to speak with us.(civil dishonor)
They send an official (Dr. Cerdas) who attempts to create a contract (joinder) with their system. We create a conditional acceptance that explains we will comply if they can establish the obligation that we must agree to a civil contract.
Estopped by our testimony, they ask for help from the judge claiming we have abandoned and neglected our children. Seeing that without a bonafide complaint from either a public prosecutor or a police man, the judge can only issue a civil search warrant that would require our 'consent.'
Not getting the consent, they leave our domicile on July 26, 2011. Seeking a remedy for their grievance, we write another testimony explaining our status and understanding of the law and request that they open a dialogue in respect of openness, honesty and truth for the purpose of a proper, lawful remedy and cure. If they have a claim, we will answer to that claim.
They refused to make a claim and even fear speaking with us.
On September 2, 2011, Birgitte Poulsen receives a citation (civil claim) by the judge CARLOS MANUEL SANCHEZ MIRANDA. The citation text style mentions BIRGITTE POULSEN, not Birgitte Poulsen. We are quite aware of the use of civil personas in all capital letters under the principle of capitis diminutio maxima, but believe this is only an error in style due to the clerk's habit of form. We believe the individual sought is Birgitte Poulsen as Birgitte Poulsen is the individual who has been threatened and coerced.
After receiving the citation, Birgitte goes to the court to ask for the case file in order to comprehend the charges.
The clerk refuses to give her the charges unless she has valid state identification (proof that she is BIRGITTE POULSEN.)
Birgitte goes to the PANI office (the affiant on the citation) to ask PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO, what the charges are. Remember, we are seeking a remedy. If these people making threats wouldn't they simply answer (article 27.) Civil law, after all, is all about offer and counter offer. As long as we are making the offer to settle or discuss details, we cannot be brought to court or the judge will tell us to continue our negotiations.
PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO elects (inconsistent with previous statements that she was under no obligation to speak with us,) to recognize Birgitte Poulsen, obviously, as the individual she was seeking to say, 'There are no charges.'
For the first time, having the first reasonable exchange, we now believe that this issue can be dealt with in the court in the primary sense that without a charge, what is the claim?
Birgitte Poulsen arrives at the court on time with witnesses. The affiant from PANI and the ministry of health are there and can identify Birgitte Poulsen as the individual they seek.
The judge elects to remain behind closed doors. The clerk tells the judge that Birgitte Poulsen has arrived, but lacks state identification, yet she has two witnesses and both affiants recognize her as the individual they seek.
However, the judge determines that only 'PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO' did appear, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen.

Here is the trick: the judge does not lie, but speaks the truth. PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO did appear, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen. Facts. You are to think the judge is saying BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear. He does not say that. Judges are wordsmiths. They are very clever men. Instead, he gets PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO to perjure the court (again) attesting that the woman who showed up was not the woman they sought, threatened and coerced. The judge wrote it as an offer to which PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO signed so that it was not hear say. The judge involved PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO in his deception.
However, there is a problem prima facie on the constancia. The pseudonym, BIRGITTE POULSEN, is their creation and the name of a potential contract that they are desperately attempting to create with Birgitte Poulsen. (remember articles 25, 13.3, 75, 19)
So, BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear, but my wife showed up, since they were threatening her and not BIRGITTE POULSEN.  Frivolous claim of writing style?
Well, if that is the case, the judge, by his own hand and mouth, explained who showed and obviously that was not who they wanted, because he dismissed my wife telling her (via clerk) that the judge would 'get back' to her even after affiants could point directly at her.
So what was the problem?
The judge was attempting to operate a private (United Nations) court. This a commission and is typical in contractual disputes. If no contract is identifiable, the only available option is an article 35 court. Either way, we win because there is no body of crime and no identifiable civil matter.

However, the judge is covered, because although he was aware of our standing in the case file (our standing through affidavits) he felt that he could rely on PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO's participation as a method to take the next step. That next step required stealth and rapidity and a great leap of faith that nobody would ever figure this out. Because he has knowledge of our standing via the case file and admits that Birgitte Poulsen is not he one they seek.

Had we been given the case file, we would have full knowledge of the inchoate crimes being developed and the expanse of the conspiracy to hurt my family by assimilating it into a religion without our consent and over our objection using state force. Had these facts not been concealed from us, we would have left the danger, long before. But, these facts were concealed. By the judge's mouth, Birgitte Poulsen was not the one they wanted. So, before we had a chance to act by creating a summary of events and a cease and desist motion, the judge had to act and act fast in order to divide and conquer. It did not work fully. As incredible as this may sound, our plight could have been worse.

No comments:

Post a Comment