What was it they were looking for vs. what did they take? On July 26, 2011 the police, ministry of health, PANI and Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda came to the gate. During this search warrant, they obviously required consent as they did not enter. If there was probable cause of a crime, they would have gone ahead and forcibly entered, neighbor's testimony or not.
This indicates a couple of key things that are particularly critical in the next series of posts.
1) The matter was not criminal. 2) Dr. Cerdas continues to lie during our phone call later that evening as he says he does not know the name of the judge. On this document, we see his signature directly beside the Judge Miranda's signature affirming they were all at our house on July 26, 2011 and turned away because we were not home.
The reason we would like to know the name of the judge is so we could have the opportunity to assist the judge in establishing facts. After all, this action was ex-parte and we had no knowledge of the search warrant and no knowledge of their continued grievance as the ball was in their court to answer to our affidavit and notices. Our affidavit stands as the highest truth as they could not refute it and in fact refused to acknowledge our work or even have the courtesy to answer to the facts therein.
So, being that a search warrant is issued as a civil fraud, the matter requires our consent and presence, which then means the question of MATERIAL FACTS arrises on the affidavit of the applicant. You see, if Cerdas told us who the judge was, we could direct our attention to him and create a show cause document that would question the legitimacy of Patricia Mesen Arroyo's affidavit by elucidating her omission of material facts (codes 316, 318, 322). If she omits material facts, such as our affidavits and constructive notices, she is in contempt of court and guilty of a horrific abuse of process.
Any alleged civil controversy would have to be measured against the deeper constitutionality of the essence of any entitlement program being a consent made law. We did not consent to forcing others to pay for our health care... show us that we must. Show us where we did. In fact, as we alluded to in our phone conversation with Dr. Cerdas, why were we not summonsed so that we could ensure our testimony was dully on the record by demanding a show cause hearing or order.
Does sneaking around behind our backs, lying on affidavits and abusing process make the appearance of legitimate lawful actions, or does it squint toward malfeasance and abuse of process? Concealment is fraud. What is more frightening is the obtuse retorts from these people such as, 'we do not have to respond to you.'
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves because what we want to describe here is simply what the police may take and what they cannot in a search of a domicile. On July 26, although the use of threats and coercion and general ministerial abuses are evident as on past occasions, the judge remains cautious and does not proceed. The items searched for were enumerated on the warrant and the invasion was obviously rejected as there was no evidence of a "crime mala en se" and was reduced to the only avenue available by default. It was treated as a civil crime or crime against the state which necessarily involves contract, registration and consent if the code is not congruent with the preamble of the constitution. What subsequently occurred during the home invasion on September 6, 2011 was quite a different matter. The items being sought and actions carried out were NOT what were enumerated on the search warrant.