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 finish this series not only the common statutes used but others commonly associated with the one’s used with the trespass statute.
Let’s briefly look at “Real property:”
63-201: Real property defined: (23) "Real property" means land and all rights and privileges thereto belonging or any way appertaining, all quarries and fossils in and under the land, and all other property that the law defines, or the courts may interpret, declare and hold to be real property under the letter, spirit, intent and meaning of the law,
Webster’s 1828 dictionary real is defined as “Actually existing not fictitious or genuine not artificial, real estate as opposed to moveable property.”
55-101. REAL PROPERTY DEFINED. Real property or real estate consists of:
1. Lands, possessory rights to land, ditch and water rights, and mining claims, both lode and placer.
2. That which is affixed to land.
3. That which is appurtenant to land.
Since the word real property has a direct correlation to trespass, it is important to understand who defines the term and who complicates the understanding or the words and how these definitions are again, turned against the citizens favoring government control over the citizens
If we are talking about trespass as it relates to entry or occupation of government buildings and land, we must include the resisting and obstructing statute which states:
18-705 resisting and obstructing officers: every person who willfully resists or delays or obstructs any public officer… is punishable by a fine…”
(6) "Public officer" means any person holding public office of a governmental entity:
(a) As an elected official, by virtue of an election process, including persons appointed to a vacant elected office; or
(b) As an appointed official by virtue of a formal appointment as required by law.
18-705 does state “resisting and obstructing officers’ but interestingly enough, it doesn’t say anyone it says everyone shall be subject to a fine. So if people enters a building why is only one man arrested? Secondly, shall “any public officer” have the authority to cite or detain another and under what authority is this power delated? Shall a political opposite ask me to leave and I must leave? Shall the book store lady ask me to leave or the chairman to leave when I say something, they may disagree with or show even a bit of emotion as they continue to violate our most fundamental rights? What does this say and do to the master/servant relationship of the government? Can they lawfully rule over the people this way?
Shall I be forced to leave for simply redressing grievance? Who is in control here? If this is so, is this consistent with a republican form of government and how are our rights not violated? Better yet, what then is the proper redress? Shall that be left to the whims of a political party?
I also wanted to cover “Disturbing the peace” since this is also a very frequently used statute by the government to control its people. One should in every instance consider whether the government may have agitated the people to apply the statute first by passing oppressive and unlawful laws, then preventing the people to redress such grievances in opposition to them. Could not one suggest that the government created its own problems that it in turn defends its selves from the people it desires to rule?
RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE
18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the dignity or reverential nature of any funeral, memorial service, funeral procession, burial ceremony or viewing of a deceased person is guilty of a misdemeanor.
If the government can determine the parameters of “disturbing the peace” can it not limit free speech, public assembly, right of redress and more?” yes it can and it will and is doing so right now.
The problem with many of the words is not the words themselves in many cases, it is how they are used to expand authority by those in power. I should also add, my descriptions of how I see the law is not intended as a personal attack on anyone in any government office, it is, instead to point out the systemic issues in the everchanging structure and function of government. These writings are not to advocate any insurrection, it is merely to share a perspective on what the issues are and how to fix them, should we desire to.
Who shall define words like maliciously, willfully, disturbs the peace, loud or unusual noise, tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor?
If one is offended does this constitute criminal action? Is the common language we use up for interpretation by which political party is in office and if it is, how are our rights protected? What constitutes a loud noise, offensive conduct and what is threatening? What constitutes being challenged to a fight and how can firing a gun be disturbing the peace when the right of self defense is a God given right? What constitutes vulgar or indecent language and why would that matter today when we have become immoral and vulgar as a nation and such immorality is actually protected by governments?
Today we prefer to protect the right to kill unborn babies and to rape children and to beat our political opposition to a pulp. What do we do when the government that defines what moral is, what private property is and what trespassing is decides to ignore its own definitions or redefines them over time?
Furthermore who then is the greater law breaker, the citizen or the government since the government violates the constitution and we may only be guilty of a statutory violation that may or may not even be lawful? If Constitutional Supremacy exists today, the citizens should be citing and detaining our officials before they are citing and detaining us.
As I hope I have honored my wishes to make the case that trespass applies to private property, I also hope I may be challenged in any area that may be scrutinized because this issue is extremely important. If we want to remain America where part of being free is the ownership of private property and a government that defends and secures the rights of the people not the opposite, we better not only recognize the problems but be open and honestly willing to find solutions fast.
After reviewing these statutes and laws, it would be easy to see that they would not need to be enforced if we had a government that honored its oath, understood its limitations and didn’t abuse the people. Such statutes may also not need to be enforced if said government bothered to teach the children in its indoctrination centers about the proper role of government rather than sexual deviancy and racial divisions that I argue they also created. Of course, many of these statutes may also not need to be enforced if we were a moral and Godly people that cared more for others than we did ourselves and used Christian forbearance the way Christ commanded us to rather than using it to oppress or divide people.
Aside from including a brief history of the master/servant relationship, limitations on government, moral restraint upon the people and the inherent human trait of controlling others, one other element was mentioned only briefly but generally left out that should be included…the elements of conspiracy.
If the citizens and the government were aware of the dark conspiratorial forces and its agenda plaguing this nation and the rest of the globe, perhaps minor statutory violations would be overlooked because of the ginormity of the Agenda hell bent on destroying this country would far outweigh the trivialities. The sad part is that with the advancements of the Agenda and its level of infiltration into every aspect of our lives, even the minor trivialities work toward the fulfillment of that dark sinister Agenda.
What America faces today is what even J Edgar Hoover warned us about regarding the conspiracy that was so large the average American would never believe it but its real. If you haven’t yet read the United Nations Agenda 21 or the Principles of Agenda 2030 or you haven’t been to the World Economic Forum’s website to compare the three, perhaps you should before you outwardly deny Conspiracy because the longer we deny it, the worse we will suffer in the end and those that will really suffer won’t be you and I as much as it will affect future generations.
If we could convince our local governments, that is if they are not intentionally part of the agenda, that this is real, maybe that exercised right of redress that they are denying may just have save our country and we would have been considered hero’s rather than labeled those that wish to destroy the country we love.
With All that I have said, I hope I did a fair enough job making the case that not only are statutes used by government to force compliance of a free people but that the issue of trespass was a provision law once used to protect the rights of the people, now more commonly used for the government to use against then in an effort to finalize a conspiratorial agenda. Afterall, abolition of private property has always been the first thing to go in a totalitarian state and that's what trespass, Agenda 21, 2030 and The great reset all have in common... control.