7/3/12 What Is She Talking About?

Aside from her outlandish flag speech, Master Norma Fernandez claims that their visit back on March 13, 2001 somehow registered us which ratifies their visit on May 15. Not only are both of these dates incorrect, but exactly what has been registered or ratified is nebulous, omitted or fabricated. The body of her speech indicates that her level of legal understanding is hopelessly inadequate to absorb our constructive notice. Never the less, she still cannot understand that when someone creates a notice of jurisdictional estoppel, disobeying legislation becomes subject to the jurisdiction being proven. It may be a wild new concept for Master Norma to learn that the government is itself under law called a constitution. Aside from the flag not standing for health, I would estimate the real state of affairs that she is actually a 'servant' would come as quite a surprise based upon her insolent, superior attitude when we were filming her as she believed it was her right NOT to be video taped while performing her civil interrogation. She is quite unschooled as to what rights are. I have a right to grow a garden, but I do not have to. My children have a right to grow a garden as well, on my land, because they have no right on any other land. That means I bestow the rights of my child lest I register them with another regis or regime or liege. It is our right to eat at McDonalds too. However, if we choose not to eat the nutritious food at McDonalds, could they hold a gun to our heads and say we must, EVEN if they had powerful lobbyists that were able to encourage the passing of legislation mandating it? If Master Norma cannot understand this, she is quite incompetent and very dangerous. You know, Hitler was never the one to fear, it was the hundreds of thousands of paper pushing zealots that fueled the terror of national socialism.

7/8/12 Search Warrant Application

On July 22, 2011 a search warrant is applied for by PANI attorney, Patricia Mesen Arroyo. The search warrant application requests the search and seizure of health records, documents and identification. Of course it has been well noted that no such documents exist and there is no law that says they must. Hence our continued questions about the relationship these authorities have with the constitution which protects these very abuses from happening. It may be true that numbered citizens and residents cannot apply these constitutional restraints, but we can, as we have not waived them. That is why it is SO critical that Patricia Mesen Arroyo gets these documents as these documents establish that a contract exists and would prove we are in default of that contract of trust agreement. However, it is also a fact that we cannot be forced into a contract or trust and that we must be willing to register our children in order to shift their legal status that they be beneficiaries under that trust.

We shall now examine, in great detail, search warrants, their protocols and exceptions. What we shall uncover in the following posts is quite a shocking revelation and it is all found in THEIR documents which they refused to let us examine.

7/12/12 Criteria For a Search Warrant

What is the purpose and criteria of a search warrant? This is VERY important because if these criteria are not met, the search warrant becomes illegal and this is nothing more than a home invasion conducted under the color of law by people masquerading as law, essentially impersonating the law. That goes way beyond abuse of process and even malicious prosecution because now we enter very special crimes called sedition and malfeasance.

So, what is the criteria for a judge to authorize a search warrant? The following links are for the purpose of clarity and although they are American, they reflect the same basic principles in the Republic of Costa Rica. This link is the Costa Rican penal code.

1) An authorized individual making the application, and affidavit (police officer or prosecutor)

2) Evidence of a crime being committed or in the process of being committed (probable cause and informants)

3) Reasonable expectation the evidence of the crime will be found on site.

4) That the evidence is of a criminal, not a civil matter.

5) Items that may be searched for and seized must be detailed with relevance and restricted to those items.

6) In the event of civil breach of contract due to fraud, that the essence of the lie (proof) will be found at the location and cannot first be located somewhere else. (Like the civil registry.)

7) There must be a competent judge authorizing the warrant.

However, there are exceptions that we will deal with on a later post.

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.

7/18/12 Search Warrant Violation #2

Was there ever evidence that a crime was or would be committed? The public officials see a crime against the state because they BELIEVE the state owns the children, as Dr. Cerdas explains. However, our children do not belong to the state because they are unregistered. We do not want the state to own our children and we do not want to impose future obligations on our children due to that status. Neither do we wish to impose the responsibility of our children onto others. That is a legal status under article 13.3, 75 and the preamble. This status establishes the relationship or lack thereof with PANI and their "special" care for the entitled under articles 51 and 55. Thus, there is no crime. A writ of habeas corpus remedies that. If they make the civil fraud claim, then they must furnish the contract we have violated, because it is impossible for us to prove a negative. If such exists, according to them, they would have the registry of this baptism with their ministry, not us. The fact is, as Israelites we do not practice religion, we practice Law. Thus, the last two paragraphs of our very first acknowledgement of their grievance of May 16. Remember, it does not matter what I believe, it matters what they agreed to do as servants of the people. I did not write these documents. These documents were established decades ago and these officials swore to abide by them. They either obey them, or not.

7/20/12 Search Warrant Violation #3

Is there reasonable expectation to find evidence of a civil fraud when evidence will be found in THEIR registries, not ours? It is post hoc ergo proper hoc in high gear. In their minds, registration is mandatory. That is frightening and reminiscent of prewar Germany and other totalitarian regimes. Remember, it was not Hitler to fear, it was the malschooled masses following that idol worship.

If we are indeed in violation of a contract involving our children, that contract, adhesion or otherwise, is the prima facie evidence that must be brought forth by the accuser. The defendant cannot prove a negative. That is a process followed world wide in civil processes now broadly known as the Anton Piller civil search. Failing to provide the proper information by affidavit is a serious breach of duty to the court, the people, and a general impersonation of government authority lest that civil contract is proven (PANI is not the government of CR.)

So, searching our house is completely and totally illogical and unfounded when they are the authors and registers of the contract they are searching for. The ID identifies a contract. If this was strictly criminal, the accuser could simply point at my wife and say, "It's her, she's the one who harmed me." No name, ID is necessary. The state ID is the key to any government acting on anyone. These 'authorities' simply cannot believe anyone has the intelligence or courage not to play sand box with them. So they believe we are lying when we tell them the truth that we are not registered.

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.

7/30/12 Search Warrant Violation #5

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.