7/16/12 Search Warrant Violation #1

As we see in point 1, a search warrant can only be applied for by a police officer or prosecutor if it is a crime against the state or state property (registered people.)

Because this is a civil (contractual) matter, the prosecution must be able to prove that there is probable cause in her affidavit that we are lying when we say that our children are not registered and we have no intention to register them that they may be 'entitled' to receive free benefits from the government.

So then, what happened here? From a thorough reading of Patricia Mesen Arroyo's affidavit we see that she is unable to establish A) a crime or B) a civil fraud, so she uses the word URGENT in her description, implying an emergency state of abandoned and neglected State children.

This falls into an exception of which there are 8 widely accepted search warrant protocol exceptions. She is attempting to use 'exigent circumstances' to make it appear as if there is a life and death situation going on.

Now, there is an enormous problem Patricia Mesen Arroyo now faces. She is lying on an affidavit.  Since Arroyo has never met our family, she is relying on her informants. Starting with Christina Rubi, all the way up the line to Dr. Cerdas. These people lie and perjure documents in attempt to establish jurisdiction for the continuation of a process even though we have checked their activities with the proper testimonies. Their action of refusing to answer our work is in violation of Article 27. Their attitude is not one out of genuine concern and confusion, but of vexatious pique and contempt for our constitutional challenge to their glorified omnipotence.

Arroyo uses the testimony of these people, and DOES NOT include the content and subject matter of our affidavits and constructive notices. This work affects the status of the case and an omission in her statement to the judge is in violation of several penal codes as well (316-322)

Let's understand what Patricia Mesen Arroyo has done here and consider why she would lie.

An omission of material facts puts Patricia Mesen Arroyo in contempt of that court and using the system to abuse a process is a vexatious attack on our family and on the constitution of the nation of Costa Rica. This is why we asked the basic questions: Are you a public servant and subservient to the constitution...because they act as private sector individuals. Of course, PANI is a private trust, subcontracted but totally autonomous. If it is private, contractual fraud is the only venue, but Ms. Arroyo attempts to deflect this by lying about the URGENT state of our children's abandonment and neglect. Omitting or lying on an affidavit is found in 316-322 of the Costa Rica penal code and Dr. Cerdas' perjury is located on 318. We'll get back to that later.

For now, consider the 9th commandment and the Costa Rica penal code and the word affidavit.

So let's recap: Patricia Mesen Arroyo is neither a police officer, nor a public prosecutor, so this is not involving a crime against the state, lest she attempts to convince the judge of the emergency status of the abandoned and neglected children.

Patricia Mesen Arroyo is a private attorney working for a private, for hire trust company called PANI. Thus, without a state registration she is limited to applying for a search warrant in a civil contract dispute. The state prosecutor is not involved and had her own reservations on the activities of the court on September 6, 2011. We'll look at the public prosecutor's words on a later post. For now, we can establish that the warrant was applied by a non government entity. This leaves Patricia Mesen Arroyo with persuading a judge to make a search warrant for civil search to find documents that if ever existed, they would have been found in the public registry. That type of warrant exception is called an Anton Piller search and is a world wide accepted process in heavily weighted commercial frauds like patent violations and copyright infringements. These civil search warrants require: 1) Strong prima facie case, 2) Potential or actual damage to plaintiff (PANI) 3) Clear evidence that we possess the documents required.

Now we see why our testimonies had to be omitted from her affidavit. Arroyo is in violation of 3 crimes within the first application criteria.

No comments:

Post a Comment