12/14/12 What Did the Local Police Have to Say?

The unfortunate reality is that the local police were unwitting accomplices in this act of terrorist home invasion. The police men were lied to when the judge wrote in his affidavit that Birgitte did not show up in court and identify herself. The police were simply carrying out their duty under the assumption that all lawful protocols were followed. They had no idea what happened in the court the morning of September 6, 2011 and as for the OIJ (national police), they would not have any knowledge of us personally. However, as part of the OIJ protocol (to the judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's chagrin),  a report was made that included five parts of which the first three revealed more criminal actions of public servants:

1) A statement that our children did not attend public school and that we had no control over vaccines. The purpose of this 'visit' is to ascertain the REASON WHY they did not attend public school and to identify the woman, Birgitte. This proves that a new complaint with new claims are being made involving a completely new issue: education. We were never met with ministry of education people. This means that this information is stemming from a new complaint. Who is making the claim/complaint? Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda. This means Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda is now acting as prosecutor/judge and police all in one. Can he do that? In an administrative private tribunal under contract with the defendant via registration, yes he can, because you consented to it. However, we HAVE NOT consented and have written testimonials to that effect.

2) As a twist of fate, they were required to speak with a local Barbacoas police officer who reported the following about our family: They are a calm, very well educated family with good work ethics and they speak multiple languages. From the police's point of view, this family has never had any problem with anybody in the area or where they live. Thank you, Willian Astua Mora, for simply stating the truth as you saw it. That has been impossible to establish through these pyschopsematic PANI and ministerial cult workers.

3) Back to the home invasion, the policeman indicates that the house was "even found open" and when they entered, the computer was engaged in a communication with video. He then says they found the registration documentation they were looking for on our computer. This was quite an extraordinary find since we were not registered and had no intent to register ourselves or our children with the state which of course is what they were looking for. Of course, we had already told them this repeatedly, so it would be quite impossible to find our state registration or vaccination records on our open Skype call.  Ironically, the judge made a careful note, when accounting for the goodies stolen from our house, that police tape was used to cover the ports of the computer until the time an order was made to search within the computer. No such order is in the case file. 

So, it seems there is a series of incongruences that these people were searching for that had already been cleared up by affidavit or constructive notice, including educational matters, registries and vaccines, but that indeed the public servants went into civil dishonor of their public servant pledges (11, 13.3, 19, 25, 27, 35, 194, preamble).

So why did the police have to do all of this? Because my wife would not voluntarily create a nexus with a corporate appellation the court created. However, as the woman being threatened in the flesh, she attended to the call of the court to offer remedy and cure of their implication of a claim on our children. Apparently the state believes our children belong to them, or that we are denying our children health care and education. How ironic that the judge had to hide when Birgitte came to speak with him, and then imply to the police that "Birgitte did not attend to the court's call."