The outcome of the war is always decided before the first ordnance is deployed. On September 6, 2011 our family won the war. The judge and his allies, losing the war and possibly fearing their masters, lost control and went on a last ditch attempt to gain control over this bleeding situation with a lawless assault on our family. They had inferior moral ground. Now it is simply a matter of clean up, healing and restitution and reflection. I do not expect to see any form of restitution, nor repentance from judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda any more than the jews fleeing Germany could appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 1940.
Naturally, after the failure of the civil search of July 26 and the coercion and other threats by Dr. Cerdas, we followed up with our own form of pre-emptive surgical strike. Inquiries by phone to Dr. Cerdas (as he demanded), and offers to seek proper remedy and cure were sent to the local public prosecutor, the Ministry of Health and PANI. As we were to find out, months later when the case file was leaked, the Public Prosecutor was never actually involved.
Naturally, I couched my language in fashion, preparing for another attack. Since the matter was civil and we were willing to seek remedy, if they would simply open dialogue without using force. They refused to reply and retreated back to the drawing board. The plans laid out were far over the head of the incompetent PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, who intentionally omitted facts regarding our status in order to create an assumption that all jurisdictional matters, in this now evidently civil court, were met. Obviously the jurisdictional matter had been divulged July 26, 2011 and the sole reason why Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda issued a civil search rather than an exigent criminal search warrant which would be the case in the event of truly abandoned and neglected children, registered or not.
IE: the judge was aware of the jurisdictional failures. If we had not consented to his Anton Piller civil search, he could have placed us in contempt, but that would open a court of record, which is of course what we wanted. Since we reported back to Dr. Cerdas within a few hours on July 26, 2011 (as requested) they became aware of the danger of putting us in contempt. They tried that in 2002 and it failed then as it would have again in 2011. The reason is simple. If a true article 35 court of record was opened, we could establish the failings of both civil search and criminal search warrant by simply making a motion of sopena duces tecum ordering the plaintiff to furnish the basis of their criminal or civil action (open a dialogue). Thus, putting us in contempt would frustrate the agenda of the plaintiff.
They needed to re-think this and after our inquiries and requests, it was clear a constitutional decision was what they needed to load their next cannon with. That ordnance would be deployed in such a way that the controversy would be opened in the manner of the constitutionality of the claims made against us. This is a judicial trap that I have watched judges use for years. No, in fact the entirety of their codes and statutes are 100% constitutionally correct as we shall see. It is not, nor has it ever been a question of constitutionality of the codes and statutes of the various commissions cited by PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo. They fell into that trap as we shall see in the coming posts. The reason I use this tactic is not in order to taunt or meddle with these extremely dangerous people. I have spent many years protecting people from vexatious attacks from public servants and I do recognize one thing: When defending yourself from any aggressor, it behooves oneself to be aware of the methodology and tactics to defuse their superior physical force. When defending yourselves against wolves, be a lamb, but use wolf's clothing if necessary. After all, that's how they capture us.
What is important to see, at this point, for those who want to research the law, is the five week reloading phase. Behind closed doors, they were building a serious arsenal of constitutional decisions to bomb us with. What they could not foresee was my delivery into their court and planting my own ordinance before they could deliver it. After they issued a citation to my wife, I entered a document on September 5, 2011 to the court which rendered their ordinance useless as they would have no ability to navigate and deliver their blow. My document checked theirs. Being the day before the supposed hearing, they had to proceed and play in hopes that we would make an error. Unfortunately for the judge, he was hopelessly unprepared for our document. This led to his narcissistic fit of pique and his use of the sacred power of the judicial appointment for private purposes. PANI is not a government agency. It is a private, autonomous artifice entity like the central bank or K-Mart, or the TSA. IE: it is non self referencing and not a physical man, thus can only be harmed via breach of covenants. As such, when an artificial entity has a complaint, the complaint will be civil in nature and a contact must be involved, even if it is adhesive or quasi in nature. Either way, any obligation must have the elements of a debtor and creditor, so that the court can adjudicate lawfully. Any attempt to jump over protocols that would benefit one side of the controversy would be a breach of justice and an unlawful action on behalf of the judge and in fact in contempt of the very court he is the president of. Remember, the judge is not the court. He is an officer of the court and must follow protocols, lest he modifies these protocols by legislating from the bench which is a complete subversion of the Republic and the very sovereign he is there to serve.
I will expose this, one document at a time, for clarity and purpose of creating a case file, for that is the purpose of this information. This the real court room where, for once, we can be heard. The aim and purpose of this work is to elucidate a path for the very few who are searching for a method to re-gain control over their own creation. We were told well enough some three thousand years ago not to pledge allegiance to any man as ruler, but who listens to good advice anyway?
Before we get started on very heavy, voluminous documents, it should be well understood that:
The people do not own a nation anymore than they can own a race.
Their servants do not own a nation.
The people own that which they create.
The people own their government.
The government creates citizens and residents.
The government owns that which it creates.
This underlying principle, found in constitutional preambles the world over, will ring very clear as I bring forward the true meaning of their words.
No comments:
Post a Comment