On September 2, 2011, Birgitte received a citation to appear in court at 11:00am, September 6, 2011. The man delivering the citation did not require any RSVP or signature, at least we believed it was Birgitte that was required to appear.
The citation was on court stationary with court personnel stamps and signatures. Therefore, the individual sought is OBLIGED to appear in order to remain in honor of the state mandate. This is perfectly lawful and legal and is in accordance with the preamble.
Curious to find out what the charges were, Birgitte went to PANI office on September 3, 2011, as they were the affiant listed on the citation.
PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo, explained to my wife that there were NO CHARGES. They just wanted information. PANI is a private trust, thus requires grantor, trustee and beneficiary.
Inconsistent with her previous position that she was not obliged to speak to Birgitte, Patricia Mesen Arroyo elected to recognize Birgitte as the entity they sought to bring to the court.
On September 5, 2011 we entered a document to the court to ensure the court recognized our status as individuals adhering to the constitution.
On September 6, 2011 shortly before 11:00am, Birgitte arrived at the court in honor of the court's demand. She brought two witnesses that we have known for years.
At approximately 11:00am PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo arrived, at which time Birgitte was asked to identify herself. She told them, "I AM Birgitte Poulsen," the individual asked to be there by Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda. Remember, the PANI threats from Annia Lorena Duran to 'physically remove our children' were directed at my wife in the flesh, no contractual identification required; and Dr. Cerdas, who directed his efforts to contract with Birgitte, while no identification was required at that time either.
We are not registered with the state as per our choice not to receive state entitlements (articles 51 and 55 as example) protected by articles 13.3, 19, 25, 28, 75 and of course the preamble which is singularly the platform for the entire constitution. As such, we cannot identify a state contract by title and number, but can only tell them who we are.
Here is the big turning point. At 11:15am, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda writes an affidavit stating that Birgitte did not honor the court mandate and DID NOT appear at the court, only some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen. This affidavit was witnessed by Patricia Mesen Arroyo. The court and PANI was short a civil element called the 'contract' under the rules of equitable 'obligations.' Without that, the judge could not preside the court.
At 11:20am, Dr. Juan Miguel Chaccon Cerdas arrived at the court and Birgitte told the clerk that Dr. Cerdas could identify her as the woman that he sought to make agreements or demands upon.
This is where it gets really interesting. The judge, who made the order for Birgitte cannot actually see her in the court with witnesses, thus cowers in the inner chamber, peaking out on occasion to spot an opportunity whereby he can proceed to open the court to process. Naturally, the civil element of consent is lacking and due to our documents, he can neither create a quasi contract allowing for an assumpsit court (not of record) or private commission under United Nations contract to proceed. (We have no demonstrable contract implied or expressed that has not been negated by affidavit.)
So, the judge cannot open either an article 35 court, or a private commission. He cannot ask Birgitte to enter the second chamber (where affiant and defense make their positions and arguments) because, under civil rules of procedure, the obligation rests the affiant's bonafide claim which we have already asked them to provide, and they refused (dishonored civil procedure.) As individuals under the preamble, we neither argue nor debate, but follow the law that we are compelled to follow.
We made them aware that if the affiant lacks a civil claim, then a subpoena duces tecum, demand for a bill of particulars, a plea in abatement or at least a show cause hearing will be our only recourse.
So the judge, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, knows the PANI issue is dead in the water. It lacks the civil element of 'consent.'
To recap, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda ordered Birgitte to appear at his court then claimed she did not appear. Indeed she did show up and we had witnesses and even Dr. Cerdas could be summonsed because I am sure he would have a difficult time explaining that Birgitte was not the woman he sought in the YOU TUBE video.
What is a judge to do?
Simple: He could return the issue to PANI for lack of sufficiency to make a case IF he opens the court to a proper article 35 court.
He could favor the affiant under his contract (article 7) with the United Nations being that along with article 35 courts, he also presides private commissions/tribunals under article 7 ensuring the obligations the state has with the United Nations. But, of course, that would mean the judge is now REPRESENTING the affiant. If he is representing the affiant, he is no longer a competent judge under article 23 and the rules of competency and conflict of interest.
At this time the judge, from inside his private chamber, exclaims "NO..." and sends the court clerk back to the 3rd (outer) chamber. The clerk told Birgitte that the judge 'would get back to her and she could leave.' Note that the court clerk had no problem addressing Birgitte and delivering the judge's message.
At approximately 11:40am, all parties left the court house as per the judge's dismissal. Remember, we were completely unaware of the inchoate conspiracy against us, as they refused to show us this case file, or even rebut our testimonies. This entire process, beginning on May 13, 2011 is in dishonor of civil rules of obligations. IE: contract law. We were aware of nothing more than that the judge dismissed this case due to insufficiency of claim.
What followed next proved to change our lives forever, and in fact will result in the judge changing the balance of his life, for he stepped outside of the authority bestowed upon him to act as a private representative to address the agenda of his contractor, the United Nations.