Updated: Mar 15
In the previous five parts, I covered Principle and Rights and delegated authority, provisions in our constitutions and the Spirit and letter of the law and how they affect the context of what we are talking about. We covered the Constitutions preambles, statutes and of course I left my commentary for what it was worth along the way. We will continue the rest of this series finishing up with not only the common statutes used but others commonly associated with the one’s used with the trespass statute.
A continuation of the statute: “In addition, a person has reason to know that his presence is not permitted on real property that meets any of the following descriptions:”
(i) The property is reasonably associated with a residence or place of business;
(ii) The property is cultivated;
(iii) The property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary. Provided, however, if the property adjoins or is contained within public lands, the fence line adjacent to public land is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at the corners of the fence adjoining public land and at all navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the private land from the public land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would-be put-on notice that it is private land; or
(iv) The property is unfenced and uncultivated but is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at all property corners and boundaries where the property intersects navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would-be put-on notice that it is private land.
In (i), one could and probably should consider that this would not apply because government property (the Capitol in this case) is not a residence or a place of business as it related to private business. It would be easily misconstrued and therefore further empower the government to contort the meanings to also include government business. If this is the case, I argue that the people then are in fact “reasonably associated with the place of business” therefore shall have access to said place of business anyway.
In (iii), the property is not fenced nor are there any signs that clearly state “No trespassing’ which to me allows for the government to arbitrarily control who shall enter and who shall not. In other words, there are no signs stating that we are either entering private property or are there any “No trespassing" signs indicating we should not enter. Now the law would seem to become subjective as well as easily abused. Furthermore in (iii) and (iv) there are instances that refer to private land that can and should be private relating to permission being granted upon entry. As for entry on public land as somehow permission would be needed to access the property is lawfully impossible.
What I found most interesting was the following part of the statute that defines who shall not be guilty:
(1) A person shall not be guilty of trespass under this section for entering or remaining upon real property if the person entered or remained on the property pursuant to any of the following rights or authorities:
(a) An established right of entry or occupancy of the real property in question, including, but not limited to:
(i) An invitation, whether express or implied, to enter or remain on real property including, but not limited to, the right to enter property that is, at the time, open to the public, if the person is in compliance with lawful conditions imposed on access;
(ii) A license to enter or remain on real property; or
(iii) A lease, easement, contract, privilege or other legal right to enter, remain upon, possess or use the real property;
(b) A lawful authority to enter onto or remain upon the real property in question, including, but not limited to:
(i) Any law enforcement officer during the course and scope of fulfilling his lawful duties;
(ii) Any paramedic, firefighter or other emergency personnel during the course and scope of fulfilling his lawful duties; or
(iii) Any licensed professional otherwise authorized to enter or remain on the real property during the course and scope of fulfilling his lawful duties; or
(c) Any other person with a legally prescribed right to enter or remain upon the real property in question.
Pertaining to the provisions in (5)(a), According to principle, and both Constitutions and even in many statutes, the “established right” exists. The question is whether the statute defines the “established right” as established by government, or God. If Rights come from God, we indeed have the Rights as free men to enter any “government property” as long as crimes are not committed. If the “established right” comes from government, it appears that it really isn’t a Right but a privilege that they can also take away and clearly have.
In (6)(a)(i-iii) Since we have the lawful Right to enter, a license, lease or invitation is not required. (yet)
What is interesting in this statute is the use of the word “lawful authority” in (5)(b) as it describes government entities first then “Any other person” but “any other person” only seems to be those that possess a “legally prescribed right.” Why did they not use the word “lawful?” From what I know of law, lawful is lawful law and “legal” is what may be considered “Color of Law” as in it looks like law, smells like law but may be no lawful no law at all. In other words, by the exchange of one word with another, they may have just taken that lawful Right, and reduced it to a privilege that may require permission to enter. In my final post as part of this series, I finish up with the last of the statutes that may be commonly used with citations of trespass and resisting unlawful authority. I also hope to conclude with exposing the real crux of the issue which is the Globalist agenda that seems to destroy this country using the Great reset to bring about the replacement of America with the New World Order or what I call global enslavement.