In Birgitte's case, so far we have the following regarding the events in the court of September 6, 2011.
1) Birgitte arrived at the court with two witnesses before 11:00am, to be in honor of the Judge's mandate. The witnesses can attest to Birgitte's testimony that she is who she says she is and is the same individual who has been accosted, threatened and coerced.
2) Birgitte IS the individual sought after by the affiant, PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO as Patricia Mesen Arroyo acknowledged Birgitte on September 3, 2011 as the individual she sought, telling Birgitte that there were NO charges, but that they needed information in order to prosecute. (Such as proof of registry.)
3) Dr. Cerdas, also in the court, can also identify Birgitte Poulsen as the individual he had sought to get a signature. He was not seeking a different woman. Birgitte made verbal notice that Dr. Cerdas could identify her as the individual sought after.
4) When asked to identify herself, Birgitte said, "I am Birgitte Poulsen." However, the documentation required to prosecute her, she lacked because it did not exist. There is NO law mandating that such contracts or cedulas are compulsory.
5) It is a fact that the threats from PANI, and Dr. Cerdas were made to Birgitte in the flesh (as if she made a TORT or crime en mal,) and not based upon contractual obligations (civil actions.) That's why a police officer always asks for your papers first, in order to establish his jurisdiction over you. However, he can address you directly with no contractual identification if you are involved in a crime that violates scriptural matters, (such as physical harm to another individual.) No papers or identification of a contract is required to prosecute such action.
6) At 11:15am, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda exclaims "NO" from his inner chamber. The judge instructs the clerk to come back out and tell Birgitte that "The judge will get back to you."
7) During a lingering period of 15 minutes, Birgitte re-informs the clerk that her witnesses, as well as Patricia Mesen Arroyo and Dr. Cerdas can point to her as the one they seek to make claim on.
This is summarily rejected by the judge.
8) The clerk dismisses her or at least the dismissal is made in assumpsit as Birgitte is told the judge will get back to her.
9) Under the principles within contract law, can this be construed as permission to leave?
10) The judge demands a hearing with BIRGITTE POULSEN.
11) Birgitte Poulsen, assumes it is Birgitte in the flesh the judge seeks as she is the one who is being threatened by Dr. Cerdas and PANI personelle.
12) Honoring the judge's 'invitation', Birgitte, the threatened woman, shows up on time with witnesses in addition to those who can testify against her (DR. JUAN MIGUEL CHACCON CERDAS and PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO.)
13) Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda writes an affidavit to the court, which he is an officer under oath to the constitution to serve the sovereign of the nation, that: PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO appeared, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen but without the documentation they seek which would identify BIRGITTE POULSEN.
Do you see the slight of hand? The judge does not lie, but he does allude to the fact that he is seeking an entity allegedly contracted with the state that is called BIRGITTE POULSEN by title, (no number offered.) This is evidenced by the use of all capitals like PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO. Cedulas and SS numbers etc. are titled by all caps and use the same appellation as the applicant.
BIRGITTE POULSEN AND Birgitte Poulsen are two distinct and different entities. One is real and one is a corporate persona the state must create to prove that she has re-lieged and no longer is under the protection of the preamble. We did not make up the rules; they did when they swore an oath to uphold the constitution.
14) The judge is then seeking a different BIRGITTE POULSEN, because the Birgitte Poulsen who has been threatened and coerced is not the civil entity he seeks. Would it be reasonable then that the public servants cease and desist their coercive behavior against Birgitte Poulsen?
15) If the public servants believe that Birgitte Poulsen has consented to state contracts identified as BIRGITTE POULSEN, number xxxxxx, then based upon the fact that Birgitte has demurred to the officials that such contracts do not exist, it is up to the affiant to provide proof of this civil element that the court can proceed by way of civil action.
16) If it were not this way, Kmart could make civil suit against everybody walking by their store for not having contracts with them, essentially claiming to 'own' the people's free will which of course would indicate totalitarianism. But, of course, articles 25 and 28 do exist.
For those out there who think that we are insane and ought to be forced or harmed in any way, understand the essence of this statement:
What difference does it make to you whether we are part of your religion or not? Quite evidently, by all LAW, no individual can be forced into an association. So, what is the anxiety about us? How do we harm you?
That is the big question.
Let's recap the process of September 6, 2011.
Birgitte Poulsen, without state registration or residency or citizenship, is merely a sojourner. She does not register for free public entitlements for reasons under the preamble of the constitution.
She is threatened (as well as her children) to comply with obligatory public code by public officials. In honor of the 'offers' made by the public officials, she returns them an affidavit and constructive notice that explains the jurisdictional failures of their claims. We invite them to rebut these facts via demurrer. They refuse to rebut.
We go back to the ministry of health and ask them questions and they tell us they do not have to speak with us.(civil dishonor)
They send an official (Dr. Cerdas) who attempts to create a contract (joinder) with their system. We create a conditional acceptance that explains we will comply if they can establish the obligation that we must agree to a civil contract.
Estopped by our testimony, they ask for help from the judge claiming we have abandoned and neglected our children. Seeing that without a bonafide complaint from either a public prosecutor or a police man, the judge can only issue a civil search warrant that would require our 'consent.'
Not getting the consent, they leave our domicile on July 26, 2011. Seeking a remedy for their grievance, we write another testimony explaining our status and understanding of the law and request that they open a dialogue in respect of openness, honesty and truth for the purpose of a proper, lawful remedy and cure. If they have a claim, we will answer to that claim.
They refused to make a claim and even fear speaking with us.
On September 2, 2011, Birgitte Poulsen receives a citation (civil claim) by the judge CARLOS MANUEL SANCHEZ MIRANDA. The citation text style mentions BIRGITTE POULSEN, not Birgitte Poulsen. We are quite aware of the use of civil personas in all capital letters under the principle of capitis diminutio maxima, but believe this is only an error in style due to the clerk's habit of form. We believe the individual sought is Birgitte Poulsen as Birgitte Poulsen is the individual who has been threatened and coerced.
After receiving the citation, Birgitte goes to the court to ask for the case file in order to comprehend the charges.
The clerk refuses to give her the charges unless she has valid state identification (proof that she is BIRGITTE POULSEN.)
Birgitte goes to the PANI office (the affiant on the citation) to ask PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO, what the charges are. Remember, we are seeking a remedy. If these people making threats wouldn't they simply answer (article 27.) Civil law, after all, is all about offer and counter offer. As long as we are making the offer to settle or discuss details, we cannot be brought to court or the judge will tell us to continue our negotiations.
PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO elects (inconsistent with previous statements that she was under no obligation to speak with us,) to recognize Birgitte Poulsen, obviously, as the individual she was seeking to say, 'There are no charges.'
For the first time, having the first reasonable exchange, we now believe that this issue can be dealt with in the court in the primary sense that without a charge, what is the claim?
Birgitte Poulsen arrives at the court on time with witnesses. The affiant from PANI and the ministry of health are there and can identify Birgitte Poulsen as the individual they seek.
The judge elects to remain behind closed doors. The clerk tells the judge that Birgitte Poulsen has arrived, but lacks state identification, yet she has two witnesses and both affiants recognize her as the individual they seek.
However, the judge determines that only 'PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO' did appear, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen.
Here is the trick: the judge does not lie, but speaks the truth. PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO did appear, and some woman claiming to be Birgitte Poulsen. Facts. You are to think the judge is saying BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear. He does not say that. Judges are wordsmiths. They are very clever men. Instead, he gets PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO to perjure the court (again) attesting that the woman who showed up was not the woman they sought, threatened and coerced. The judge wrote it as an offer to which PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO signed so that it was not hear say. The judge involved PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO in his deception.
However, there is a problem prima facie on the constancia. The pseudonym, BIRGITTE POULSEN, is their creation and the name of a potential contract that they are desperately attempting to create with Birgitte Poulsen. (remember articles 25, 13.3, 75, 19)
So, BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear, but my wife showed up, since they were threatening her and not BIRGITTE POULSEN. Frivolous claim of writing style?
Well, if that is the case, the judge, by his own hand and mouth, explained who showed and obviously that was not who they wanted, because he dismissed my wife telling her (via clerk) that the judge would 'get back' to her even after affiants could point directly at her.
So what was the problem?
The judge was attempting to operate a private (United Nations) court. This a commission and is typical in contractual disputes. If no contract is identifiable, the only available option is an article 35 court. Either way, we win because there is no body of crime and no identifiable civil matter.
However, the judge is covered, because although he was aware of our standing in the case file (our standing through affidavits) he felt that he could rely on PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO's participation as a method to take the next step. That next step required stealth and rapidity and a great leap of faith that nobody would ever figure this out. Because he has knowledge of our standing via the case file and admits that Birgitte Poulsen is not he one they seek.
Had we been given the case file, we would have full knowledge of the inchoate crimes being developed and the expanse of the conspiracy to hurt my family by assimilating it into a religion without our consent and over our objection using state force. Had these facts not been concealed from us, we would have left the danger, long before. But, these facts were concealed. By the judge's mouth, Birgitte Poulsen was not the one they wanted. So, before we had a chance to act by creating a summary of events and a cease and desist motion, the judge had to act and act fast in order to divide and conquer. It did not work fully. As incredible as this may sound, our plight could have been worse.
Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda's silence and evasion of Birgitte can only be viewed as fraud when he had full opportunity to greet the woman he sent his invitation to. His silence and slithering behind the inner chamber can only be viewed as fraud while in complete knowledge of Birgitte being present in honor of his request. Where there is an inquiry left unanswered, it would be intentionally misleading to tell Birgitte to leave when they are planning to engage with her again without her ability to defend.
Fraud includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.
A public official is a fiduciary toward the public including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him. If he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. The fiduciary is a trustee and the trust is the constitution as per his oath. So does PATRICIA MESEN ARROYO...IF she is indeed a public servant, which of course in her duties through PANI, is a private attorney, not a public prosecutor. These people are deliberately remaining silent to my wife who they have either threatened, coerced or called to the court. Telling her she could depart the court whilst her accusers stand down was deliberately misleading.
We could not test the judge's fiduciary duty to the trust (constitution) because he hid in his inner chamber and my wife could not ask for his oath of office. If she had, it would reveal either an article 35 court of record, or a private commission under treaty with the affiant. PANI is an autonomous trust following the dictate of the United Nations. This is a clear conflict of interest. Conversely, Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda could not reveal this as then he is now representing the affiant which would disqualify him as a competent judge which is ALSO A REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE 23 IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPER APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SEARCH WARRANT.
Interestingly, why did the judge not simply arrest Birgitte right there or charge her with contempt?
The answer to that is quite simple. She would finally be able to answer to a charge and open a proceeding. Besides, how is the judge going to explain to the police that the bench warrant was issued because she failed to show up, when she was waiting in the gallery, eager to start assist in a remedy for the affiant. Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda needed Birgitte to leave the court first using the testimony of Patricia Mesen Arroyo that BIRGITTE POULSEN did not appear. It was clever but, like all crimes, left some errors. We will get to those. If their goal was to get their hands on our children, it was absolutely imperative that no judicial proceeding could occur while my wife was in that court. We had them cornered and they were defeated by their own dishonor of civil process and they knew it. What followed was pure narcissistic rage.
Satisfied that their conspiracy to ask Birgitte to leave the court and then create a 'hybrid' warrant for further action based on her alleged failure to appear, judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda goes about his nefarious, secretive work. It is interesting at this point to detail the time and dates of these and the subsequent writs of September 6, 2011, for there are some impossibilities on the elapsed time of the sequence of events which suggests that these documents may have been prepared ahead of time. It was imperative that they enter their warrant before we had a chance to witness to the police, in a form of a complaint, the improprieties of the actions of PANI and Ministry of Health individuals, not for the purpose of litigation, but for the foundation of a cease and desist motion. However, we had not had trouble with the courts on a variety of issues, including the Ministry of Health on similar issues in 2002, 2005 and again in 2008 when they had offered their 'obligatory' services. It is true that they are obliged to offer, but our obligation to accept is based upon the law of obligations which is born out of Roman civil law and is the basis governing all civil law world wide.
The judge is in a somewhat compromised position because he cannot issue a search warrant from the bench. The search warrant requires proper protocol. Also, an arrest warrant must entail a criminal action; it has already been admitted by Patricia Mesen Arroyo that no charges exist. What the judge CAN issue from the bench at this time is a bench warrant for the arrest of Birgitte Poulsen for her contempt of a court order to arrive at the call of the court.
Clearly, it is impossible for judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda to issue a bench warrant, as not only will the police apprehend and bring back Birgitte Poulsen to the court, but at such time Birgitte will have the opportunity to ask the police to become additional witnesses. Also, the issue of who showed to the court and who did not 'appear' and the intrinsic difference will become evident as the game token 'BIRGITTE POULSEN' remains a non chargeable entity still sitting in their box. BIRGITTE POULSEN is the title of an incipient contract. As such, Birgitte Poulsen cannot be 'recognized' because BIRGITTE POULSEN does not become a legal entity until Birgitte Poulsen consents to be 'bondable' to the 'bail' that can be charged by the new obligations and commercial liens against the newly created BIRGITTE POULSEN.
By the same lack of token, the judge cannot create a search warrant simply because the process does not allow a judge to search anyone (thank the preamble). He cannot apply for a search warrant, then self authorize and lead the charge down our driveway. Similarly he cannot reinitiate the civil search warrant of July 26, 2011 in the form of a CRIMINAL search warrant which, of course, he does by fabrication, deception and omission. Remember, there are NO charges and no crime. Hence, any warrant still must adhere to the Anton Piller criteria. In his action against us, he is desperately trying to forge a criminal search warrant from the original civil search warrant using his authority to issue a bench warrant. The judicial alchemy of altered facts, fabrications and omissions are clearly for the purpose of justifying the draconian actions requested of the police. Had the judge been successful in the use of this clearly illegal action, our family would be in far worse a position than we are now because they could have incarcerated us and separated our children, completely striking our Achilles heel. We would have had no ability to regroup or report. We will detail his warrant in the next post.
Aside from the fact that a judge cannot apply for and authorize his own search warrant; the warrant originally created from July 26, 2011 and re-initiated by Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda was a civil search warrant which required our consent. The prime reason for this was the lack of a proper applicant, because the affiant (PANI attorney) is not a public prosecutor or police official to which the only form of action authorized can be civil (contractual), not criminal. With the writ of September 6, 2011, the judge is attempting to shift the nature of the warrant from civil to criminal in order to alleviate the need for consent and mitigate the limitations of a bench warrant. However, for the judge to assume that the charges are criminal, there must be a trial in order to asses how NON charges in a civil setting became criminal in order for a search warrant to be applied AND if so, why are the police or public prosecutor NOT involved in the APPLICATION of the warrant? That is a pure, clear breach of protocol. Judges cannot apply for search warrants anymore than police can authorize them. That is a check and balance republics use to avoid abuse of process.
Unfortunately for us AND Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, he chose to desecrate constitutional trust and chose to favor the entity that has subcontracted him in article 7, The United Nations. He is a judicial body acting on behalf of the United Nations when dealing with personas that have entered that jurisdiction. That is, of course, the reason why none of these officials wanted to have an open dialogue whereby we could get our testimony entered into an article 35 court of record. When acting on behalf of the United Nations' mandates, the judge is operating a private court of NO record in that, although minutes may be recorded, the process may supersede constitutional protections and allow an adjudication by opinion. The reason is simple, the defendant, by his own hand or mouth has consented to shift away from his constitutionally derived rights in favor of state entitlements. The pseudonym in ALL CAPS with ensuing number, (cedula) using capitus diminutio maxima is a form of disclosure indicating that the owner of the wet ink signature has knowledge of his rights being diminished. This cedula is required as it provides prima facie evidence that the state is completely within its power to diminish the rights that people believe they still have under the constitution. As such, the court need not explain to the confused defendant as the court does not need to explain its decision. When asked, they will tell you to seek an attorney if you need legal assistance, which is another trap.
This being said, and no state contracts established, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda makes the decision to represent the interests of PANI (The United Nations) and exposes himself to a breach of his fiduciary duty. That is to say, his relationship between the sovereign of Costa Rica (the people article 2) is set out by an oath to the constitution. If he breaches that fiduciary duty he is acting outside the authority set out by the people. If he uses that power to use force against people inside that trust instrument, then he is acting in treason against the sovereign. This is actually more serious than what his actions did to our family. Now, let's go see what Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda said to encite the police, through an illegal method, to act in accordance to the judge's will and use force against us. It is incitement because he no longer stands in his office as he has broken protocol as such is acting sua sponte and ultra vires and against the will of the sovereign expressed in article 2. This presses his own personal will or that of the ministry he represents (United Nations) upon us, leaving him naked of his judicial immunity as he has departed the oath of office and acts not under the power vested by the sovereign, but guided by his own guile and contempt of both sovereigns the constitution commits to.
Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda declares that health and education are more important than religion. By saying this he precludes the authority of the constitution he has taken an oath to uphold by promoting himself as the superior power mentioned in the preamble. This sua sponte self promotion places Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda to be the supreme authority over the sovereign he has taken an oath to serve. The lawful ability for a judge to opine on a matter of what flavor of state permitted religions are restricted is predicated upon the individual first waiving his right to the preamble through registration. At that point, the individual permits judicial opinion to reign supreme over his life and such state permitted religions can be restricted to the decree of the new ruler. However, such action is only by the consent of the governed. Any act that would prevent an individual from exercising the rights granted by the God of Israel mentioned in the preamble would be an act of open treason to those he has taken an oath to serve.
Interestingly, in most cultures religion determines what form of health and education practices apply. However, this judge determines that statism and United Nations' religion is superior to the God of the Costa Rican constitution and thus breaches his own oath to that constitution. That is the CORE reason why he could not address Birgitte in the flesh. He can ONLY create the illusion that we selected statism over the preamble law so that he may impress the laws set out by the United Nations and practiced by those who have practiced statism by civil contract evidenced by registry.
1) Religion predicates education and health in many cultures, so if he determines that we cannot practice some form of education and health system, the judge is determining what God we are allowed to follow and which God we are not. The pledge the judge made to the constitution is predicated upon his accepting subservience to the God of Israel. Therefore, the judge is in breach of his oath of office.
These are not my words or pledge, it is theirs. I am simply heeding it and evidenced that after twelve years of living in Costa Rica, we never violated anyone else that we have been made aware of as reiterated in our affidavit. So, under the constitutional law, including the preamble, he judge can limit a religious activity such as cannibalism or blood drinking, but he cannot limit an activity that is concurrent with the model that the constitution is founded upon. A judicial opinion is only applicable either a) where the civil law has been entered into by religious contract, or b) where proof of a broken scriptural law can be found. Without registration, the judge is limited to scriptural law in his adjudication. The judge knows this because he refused to see my wife for fear that she would expose the limits of his authority.
2) The fact that we never claimed a religious exemption or made any religious presentation makes the judge outlining religion as the basis of his private home invasion not logical. He certainly did not outline what religion we were not allowed to observe. Israelites are a race, not a religion; 99.9% of Israelites do not practice the laws given to them as they have chosen otherwise. To understand that, one must know who Isrealites are, who they are not and who the law is afforded to. This, blended with the preamble of the constitution may come as quite a surprise for those willing to do the historical research. Quite evidently, Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda has decided that he knows the mind of God, yet refuses to allow us to practice those laws.
3) Our issue is not one of religion, but of jurisdiction and adherence to the laws that the judge has pledged an oath to. That preamble ALLOWS for people to reliege and bind themselves voluntarily to state codes, but that remains a choice that is not widely understood and the masters of the judiciary (article 7) prefer to keep it that way. That is the reason he writes the fraudulent orders in assumpsit that he has followed protocol, but indeed has not followed protocol. JUDGE CARLOS MANUEL SANCHEZ MIRANDA is the name of the judge that made the determination that the God of Israel shall NOT be ALLOWED in Costa Rica.
4) The only rights that can be limited are our God given rights when we violate the law of God. For example, if the judge can prove we broke a scriptural health law or a scriptural law dealing with child education, then he would be well within his authority in Romans 13.5. Failing that, he or the other friends of the United Nations or state of Costa Rica attorneys must prove their civil jurisdiction by establishing their rightful claim over us or our property, including the subject matter of jurisdiction over our children. Our affirmative defense, established by affidavits and constructive notices, puts the burden of proof on them. The affiant and judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda knew this and could not provide that proof. However, nothing gets in the way of a narcissist, because such limitation on authority would burst the omnipotent persona they have created for themselves. The narcissist views this as an attack on his persona instead of the correct judicial logic of an affirmative defense. It is widely recognized by psychologists that the narcissist must protect the ego at all cost by eliminating the threat to his power.
Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda, in his next statement, says that we cannot use religion to violate law or deny other people their rights.
1) He suggests that we are not complying with the law.
2) Judge Carlos Sanchez Miranda suggests that we are claiming to use religion in the restrictions of any activity.
3) Judge Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda suggests we are denying some one their rights.
In fact, we are not claiming a religion we are exercising the process of a civil law precept called affirmative defense in matters of jurisdiction. We are complying with the law in accordance with Joshua 24:15, Acts 5:29, Romans 13 and the preamble of the constitution; and we have denied NO ONE their rights, because:
a) Articles 51 and 55 spoken of by PANI as forcible rights are, in fact, entitlement programs which have registry requisites.
b) A right cannot be forced upon someone without consent.
c) The children have been bequeathed to me and my wife and the responsibility of raising our children and source of that authority has been laid out in the preamble. The burden of proof is on the state (or United Nations) to prove the existence of the claim that would obligate the parents to bequeath their children to the state. Ergo, the state, failing to have the requisites of a civil claim, must prove that we have breached a scriptural requirement regarding education or health.
Had we wished, enjoying the benefits of the state, borrowing on our behalf to pay for things we wished to claim as a right, would fall under civil entitlements and the obligation is established by a voluntary creditor/debtor relationship.
Once we voluntarily decide to become personas on that stage, the judge can make many opinions that would appear contrary to the constitution and he is perfectly within his authority to do so as we have given that man the authority by our own hand or mouth.
However, our family does understand that we have no moral right to demand future unborn generations to pay for our liabilities today as Costa Rica pays less than 50% of its budget through taxes. Dr. Cerdas and others keep telling us that their vaccine rituals are free, but they simply obligate other people to pay for the benefit. However, the fact remains that we are charging our 'perceived benefits' to the future generations. Of course, one may also consider the vaccine ritual and whether the God of the Preamble supports this bizarre mixed genetic ritual within his health laws. That is another issue which likely has even deeper incongruencies.
