In the first post I made my introduction on this topic and stated that my desire was to show a side of trespass that few seem to talk about. Maybe what I am espousing here is wrong and if it is, I still think the discussion is a worthwhile. I believe I also mentioned what we already know about how governments contort well intended laws and bend them not only in their favor but to utterly destroy the rights of the people in the process and I feel this issue is no exception to that rule. As the series continues, I hope to maintain your attention by offering a compelling perspective and/or to prompt further dialogue as we walk through the details of this issue.
Rights come from God not government
First off, a basic understanding of Rights and government would be all that would be needed if we had an informed electorate as well as an informed government that’s sole desire was to protect the rights of the citizens but today, the government does everything it can to protect itself from the people and trespass in my view is one great many ways they do it.
I have mentioned in many of my posts the simple fact that a basic acknowledgment of true Americanism includes the understanding that Rights come from God. These Rights understood by our Founders were considered Unalienable which means that no man or government could take them away. Additionally, the Founders created a Constitution that bound government to the powers only specificized within that Constitution. These limitations forced the submission of government to the people by the consent of the governed while today we and they are controlled by the corporations.
God given Rights existed before the creation of governments, governments were created to secure rights and tax payers own all property not the government. The People own private land and they own the land that government occupies because we funded it and we maintain it and we can lawfully alter or abolish it.
Rights existed before governments existed
If Rights existed before governments and they were rightfully and lawfully ours, any attempt to undermine those rights would be unlawful. Right? If governments were created by the people to secure our Rights, how then can a government undermine these rights? If property owning tax payers own land and are masters over our government, the land and the government becomes property of the people. Private property, one could conclude then is private ownership and public property is collective public ownership, which means both are owned by the citizens because we privately or collectively purchased and own both. If this is true, it would be ludicrious to remotely suggest that the government owns anything and if it can’t say that it does, the trespass statute on our land falls on its face! In other words trespass only applies only to private property.
The Constitution is supreme to the statutes and in order to alter a right or the Constitution, one must pass an amendment through the lawful process.
In my view, statutory Supremacy is the subversion of the hierarchy of law. In other words, today’s government uses statutory supremacy rather than any supreme law of the Constitution or even basic common law. Again, it’s about the government maintaining its control over you as authoritarians not servants that maintain our republican form of government. Watch governments across the country that deem public property as private property so they can enforce the statute to prevent disgruntled citizens from seeking their God given right of Redress of Grievances on public property. In other words, the government changes the meaning of words designed to defend you to defend them.
Oath- an acknowledgment of limitation of authority
If our Founders agreed that governments were to have no more power over the citizens that we would have over each other, that sets a pretty clear precedent. If this statement is true, the government wouldn’t be able to redefine words against the citizens any more than we could redefine them to violate our neighbors so where do they believe this lawful power comes from? I suspect under the “Because I said so” statute! If you are saying to me there is no such statute, I would agree which further makes my point but today laws have become so inconsistent and arbitrary we literally have no more use for the written law because they now make it up as they go along to further subjugate the people. Why have written law if they get to define its meanings and change them at will?
Lawful powers only when properly applied and properly delegated
Before I continue, it may be worth the time to explain that the delegation of lawful authority is crucial as we discuss this topic. Lawful delegation of authority means that any of the three branches wanting to delegate authority must have lawful delegated authority to do so outlined in the Constitution and if they don’t have the lawful authority, any law of attempt to enforce is unlawful even if passed by statute.
We covered principle, let’s now look at some real-world scenarios:
So far in Idaho I know of at least 9 people arrested for trespass just these last two years, just in Southern Idaho. The first case I ever heard about was back during Occupy Boise when my friend Daniel was arrested on “government property.” The system according to Daniel, screwed him so bad he is still being harassed and is afraid to leave him home. My friend Tara years ago was looking into the law regarding Adverse possession and even though she followed the law to the letter, was arrested and according to her, went through hell trying to get out while she was allegedly harassed by law enforcement as well. Then there were the Capitol protests and the protests at the Health Districts and there were many such instances and now those added to the nine this year signify, at least to me, that rather than the government harassing its people applying the letter of the law, it should instead question itself on why these arrests are happening and consider the Spirit of those laws.
They should really also ask what mechanism triggers these people to do these things? If they would have cared enough to ask, they would have realized these were all attempts to seek redress from government abuse. Instead of the government honoring the Right of Redress that lawful redress, they instead further beat down the citizens to where they aren’t even allowed in our own house at the state capitol or in D.C. Shall they barricade the statehouse too?
All 9 cases in the last year or so that I know of were trespassing because the citizens felt they were wronged and wanted to seek redress and it seemed that certain members in the Capitol wanted them to comply and be silent after their continual inability to seek redress of grievances. When a peaceful people desire to seek redress to Rights violations and they are continually denied, those denying that redress are either tyrants or are representing an entity that is not the people. As we could have predicted, the news even said that these instances of “trespass” were Unamerican? Who are they kidding? America was founded upon rebellion to tyrants!
In the following parts of the series, I would like to get into what the law says and offer some commentary for what it is worth to help make my case. I hope you will find it interesting enough to follow me as I try to make some sense out of what I have learned. If you can offer clarity at any time where I seem to be weak, I invite you to do so.