10/17/12 Search Warrants and Bench Warrants

Satisfied that their conspiracy to ask Birgitte to leave the court and then create a 'hybrid' warrant for further action based on her alleged failure to appear, judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda goes about his nefarious, secretive work. It is interesting at this point to detail the time and dates of these and the subsequent writs of September 6, 2011, for there are some impossibilities on the elapsed time of the sequence of events which suggests that these documents may have been prepared ahead of time. It was imperative that they enter their warrant before we had a chance to witness to the police, in a form of a complaint, the improprieties of the actions of PANI and Ministry of Health individuals, not for the purpose of litigation, but for the foundation of a cease and desist motion. However, we had not had trouble with the courts on a variety of issues, including the Ministry of Health on similar issues in 2002, 2005 and again in 2008 when they had offered their 'obligatory' services. It is true that they are obliged to offer, but our obligation to accept is based upon the law of obligations which is born out of Roman civil law and is the basis governing all civil law world wide.

The judge is in a somewhat compromised position because he cannot issue a search warrant from the bench. The search warrant requires proper protocol. Also, an arrest warrant must entail a criminal action; it has already been admitted by Patricia Mesen Arroyo that no charges exist. What the judge CAN issue from the bench at this time is a bench warrant for the arrest of Birgitte Poulsen for her contempt of a court order to arrive at the call of the court.

Clearly, it is impossible for judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda to issue a bench warrant, as not only will the police apprehend and bring back Birgitte Poulsen to the court, but at such time Birgitte will have the opportunity to ask the police to become additional witnesses. Also, the issue of who showed to the court and who did not 'appear' and the intrinsic difference will become evident as the game token 'BIRGITTE POULSEN' remains a non chargeable entity still sitting in their box. BIRGITTE POULSEN is the title of an incipient contract. As such, Birgitte Poulsen cannot be 'recognized' because BIRGITTE POULSEN does not become a legal entity until Birgitte Poulsen consents to be 'bondable' to the 'bail' that can be charged by the new obligations and commercial liens against the newly created BIRGITTE POULSEN.

By the same lack of token, the judge cannot create a search warrant simply because the process does not allow a judge to search anyone (thank the preamble). He cannot apply for a search warrant, then self authorize and lead the charge down our driveway. Similarly he cannot reinitiate the civil search warrant of July 26, 2011 in the form of a CRIMINAL search warrant which, of course, he does by fabrication, deception and omission. Remember, there are NO charges and no crime. Hence, any warrant still must adhere to the Anton Piller criteria. In his action against us, he is desperately trying to forge a criminal search warrant from the original civil search warrant using his authority to issue a bench warrant. The judicial alchemy of altered facts, fabrications and omissions are clearly for the purpose of justifying the draconian actions requested of the police. Had the judge been successful in the use of this clearly illegal action, our family would be in far worse a position than we are now because they could have incarcerated us and separated our children, completely striking our Achilles heel. We would have had no ability to regroup or report. We will detail his warrant in the next post.