10/13/12 Government Officials are Fiduciaries

Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's silence and evasion of Birgitte can only be viewed as fraud when he had full opportunity to greet the woman he sent his invitation to. His silence and slithering behind the inner chamber can only be viewed as fraud while in complete knowledge of Birgitte being present in honor of his request. Where there is an inquiry left unanswered, it would be intentionally misleading to tell Birgitte to leave when they are planning to engage with her again without her ability to defend.

Fraud includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.

A public official is a fiduciary toward the public including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him. If he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. The fiduciary is a trustee and the trust is the constitution as per his oath. So does PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO...IF she is indeed a public servant, which of course in her duties through PANI, is a private attorney, not a public prosecutor. These people are deliberately remaining silent to my wife who they have either threatened, coerced or called to the court. Telling her she could depart the court whilst her accusers stand down was deliberately misleading. 

We could not test the judge's fiduciary duty to the trust (constitution) because he hid in his inner chamber and my wife could not ask for his oath of office. If she had, it would reveal either an article 35 court of record, or a private commission under treaty with the affiant. PANI is an autonomous trust following the dictate of the United Nations. This is a clear conflict of interest. Conversely, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda could not reveal this as then he is now representing the affiant which would disqualify him as a competent judge which is ALSO A REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE 23 IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPER APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SEARCH WARRANT.

Interestingly, why did the judge not simply arrest Birgitte right there or charge her with contempt?

The answer to that is quite simple. She would finally be able to answer to a charge and open a proceeding. Besides, how is the judge going to explain to the police that the bench warrant was issued because she failed to show up, when she was waiting in the gallery, eager to start assist in a remedy for the affiant. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda needed Birgitte to leave the court first using the testimony of Patricia Mesen Arroyo that BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear. It was clever but, like all crimes, left some errors. We will get to those. If their goal was to get their hands on our children, it was absolutely imperative that no judicial proceeding could occur while my wife was in that court. We had them cornered and they were defeated by their own dishonor of civil process and they knew it. What followed was pure narcissistic rage.

No comments:

Post a Comment