The idea that it is a civil search is best illustrated by the fact that the search warrant of July 26 was not an actual search warrant, but a civil search that has the requirements of A) strong prima facie case, B) that this alleged breach of contract caused serious damage to the plaintiff (PANI), C) that the defendant has the evidence in his possession, D) there is a strong possibility that the defendant will destroy the evidence.
Every one of these must be apparent. In our situation, not one of these is apparent. A) There is no prima facie evidence of a crime or a breach of contract as they have zero evidence of B) actual damage to PANI or the ministry of health, or anyone for that matter. C) The only location this evidence would be is in the registry of the trustee. After all, when someone wants to apply for a driver's license, for example, before applying for that entitlement/privilege, no evidence of the license exists. The card the driver receives is NOT the license. The license is a comprehensive contract located in the registry. The card is merely evidence that such a contract exists in the registry. So, if the plaintiff claims we have a contract, they are in possession of it, not us. All we would have is evidence that a contract exists in their registry. They are the trustees of the agreements, not us. D) How could we destroy what they have in their possession?
The evidence of any civil fraud will not be found in our house. Any evidence of a civil fraud would have to first be established in their registry. The fact that Patricia Mesen Arroyo uses conjecture by alluding to a contract that does not exist is an abuse of process due to the fact that they refused to refute our affidavit and constructive notices that elucidate the fact that such a contract and registry does not exist.