7/25/12 Search Warrant Violation #4

That the grievance with PANI is civil and not a criminal matter is obvious by the conduct of the police. A crime against the state would require habeas corpus in that state property is damaged or a state code (civil statute) is broken due to registered children not being vaccinated. So, due to lack of registration, there is no crime against the state code because my children do not belong to the state. The state plaintiff (PANI) is not a state agent and no one can provide habeas corpus. Nor is there any intent to damage or defraud a contract. PANI or the State (two separate and distinct entities) have not been able to provide any claim, or evidence in any form that would indicate a transfer of our children from us to them. To injure the state by violation of a code would infer that the code has been attached by adhesion contract, but we did not consent to any attachment nor waive any rights. If we have waived our God given rights enumerated in the constitution, they have failed to prove that we waived those rights with our full knowledge and consent. The absence of criminal activity excludes the possibility of a regular search warrant and a civil search is the only avenue available. Civil search requires consent. We could be charged with contempt for not giving the consent, but that would be pending that the claim of the plaintiff is not absent of material facts, or that they are abusing a process by lying to the court as to our desire to remedy the problem. 

This helps elucidate why they did not forcibly enter on July 26, 2011. If it were criminal, under the Exigency status that PANI attorney Patricia Mesen Arroyo misleads the court with, they would have kicked in the gate and done their search for documents as commanded, with or without the neighbor's testimony. They turned around at the gate that day because they needed CONSENT because this is not a criminal matter, but a civil (contractual) controversy.

This invokes Anton Piller Proceedings on civil frauds which has strict rules involving contract disputes and omitting material facts. 
An interesting note is that the OIJ (national police) states that they left because the neighbor said we were not home. So then why did they leave? If if was to search for children under the misleading words from Arroyo's affidavit, the gate would have been breached in search of the neglected and abandoned children, neighbor or not, consent or not. Thus, we know this is NOT a criminal matter.