In Birgitte's case, so far we have the following regarding the events in the court of September 6, 2011.
1) Birgitte arrived at the court with two witnesses before 11:00am, to be in honor of the Judge's mandate. The witnesses can attest to Birgitte's testimony that she is who she says she is and is the same individual who has been accosted, threatened and coerced.
2) Birgitte IS the individual sought after by the affiant, PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO as Patricia Mesen Arroyo acknowledged Birgitte on September 3, 2011 as the individual she sought, telling Birgitte that there were NO charges, but that they needed information in order to prosecute. (Such as proof of registry.)
3) Dr. Cerdas, also in the court, can also identify Birgitte Poulsen as the individual he had sought to get a signature. He was not seeking a different woman. Birgitte made verbal notice that Dr. Cerdas could identify her as the individual sought after.
4) When asked to identify herself, Birgitte said, "I am Birgitte Poulsen." However, the documentation required to prosecute her, she lacked because it did not exist. There is NO law mandating that such contracts or cedulas are compulsory.
5) It is a fact that the threats from PANI, and Dr. Cerdas were made to Birgitte in the flesh (as if she made a TORT or crime en mal,) and not based upon contractual obligations (civil actions.) That's why a police officer always asks for your papers first, in order to establish his jurisdiction over you. However, he can address you directly with no contractual identification if you are involved in a crime that violates scriptural matters, (such as physical harm to another individual.) No papers or identification of a contract is required to prosecute such action.
6) At 11:15am, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda exclaims "NO" from his inner chamber. The judge instructs the clerk to come back out and tell Birgitte that "The judge will get back to you."
7) During a lingering period of 15 minutes, Birgitte re-informs the clerk that her witnesses, as well as Patricia Mesen Arroyo and Dr. Cerdas can point to her as the one they seek to make claim on.
This is summarily rejected by the judge.
8) The clerk dismisses her or at least the dismissal is made in assumpsit as Birgitte is told the judge will get back to her.
9) Under the principles within contract law, can this be construed as permission to leave?
10) The judge demands a hearing with BIRGITTE POULSEN.
11) Birgitte Poulsen, assumes it is Birgitte in the flesh the judge seeks as she is the one who is being threatened by Dr. Cerdas and PANI personelle.
12) Honoring the judge's 'invitation', Birgitte, the threatened woman, shows up on time with witnesses in addition to those who can testify against her (DR. JUAN MIGUEL CHACCON CERDAS and PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO.)
13) Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda writes an affidavit to the court, which he is an officer under oath to the constitution to serve the sovereign of the nation, that: PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO appeared, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen but without the documentation they seek which would identify BIRGITTE POULSEN.
Do you see the slight of hand? The judge does not lie, but he does allude to the fact that he is seeking an entity allegedly contracted with the state that is called BIRGITTE POULSEN by title, (no number offered.) This is evidenced by the use of all capitals like PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO. Cedulas and SS numbers etc. are titled by all caps and use the same appellation as the applicant.
BIRGITTE POULSEN AND Birgitte Poulsen are two distinct and different entities. One is real and one is a corporate persona the state must create to prove that she has re-lieged and no longer is under the protection of the preamble. We did not make up the rules; they did when they swore an oath to uphold the constitution.
14) The judge is then seeking a different BIRGITTE POULSEN, because the Birgitte Poulsen who has been threatened and coerced is not the civil entity he seeks. Would it be reasonable then that the public servants cease and desist their coercive behavior against Birgitte Poulsen?
15) If the public servants believe that Birgitte Poulsen has consented to state contracts identified as BIRGITTE POULSEN, number xxxxxx, then based upon the fact that Birgitte has demurred to the officials that such contracts do not exist, it is up to the affiant to provide proof of this civil element that the court can proceed by way of civil action.
16) If it were not this way, Kmart could make civil suit against everybody walking by their store for not having contracts with them, essentially claiming to 'own' the people's free will which of course would indicate totalitarianism. But, of course, articles 25 and 28 do exist.
For those out there who think that we are insane and ought to be forced or harmed in any way, understand the essence of this statement:
What difference does it make to you whether we are part of your religion or not? Quite evidently, by all LAW, no individual can be forced into an association. So, what is the anxiety about us? How do we harm you?
That is the big question.