In the previous four 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 so we will now look at the statutes.
As we read through the statutes, according the Principles outlined above, we need to understand that any law repugnant to the Constitution is “null and Void” or seen “as no law at all” according to our Founder’s. It is also important to remember that governments were to secure rights not dictate them and elected officials took an Oath to the Constitutions in the name of “public trust.” Let us not also forget that lawful laws must be consistent with both the letter and the Spirit of the law.
Ammon was cited for the following violations which of course include many others. I will cite them then offer my commentary.
Idaho Code 67-1602: Capitol Building and grounds:
67-1602(1) Public space- Director shall maintain all public space. (2), (3) specify which three branches can determine the sue of the particular floor.
67-1603 Director shall have exclusive control of the grounds…”to equip, maintain and operate such exterior, grounds and systems. For this section, “system’s means electrical, HVAC, ventilation and telecommunications systems.
Remember, the Director is an unelected administrative bureaucrat. His proper and lawful duties are administrative as clarified in 67-1603.
67-1604 Director may promulgate rules pursuant to Chapter 52, Title 67 governing access and use by public. In determining the rules, the director shall consult with the governor...and presiding members of senate and house.
In 67-1604, it states he may "maintain public space," as in maintenance, in a purely administrative capacity. He may also promulgate “rules” after consulting with the Governor and the legislature. Shall the governor have such lawful authority when laws that apply to people must only be created by the legislature accompanied by an enactment clause? And do rules created by administrators have lawful force and affect or law and should they? And shall rules created by the legislature control the people they elected when voicing their strong disappointment to their elected officials? If they can, have they not denied our right of redress or controlled it which is arguably the problem people are having in the first place which is why they are there?
18-7008(2) Criminal trespass: Trespass consists of:
“when a person enters or remains on the real property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted.”
According to an attorney friend of mine, the Title 18 statute went through some big changes a few years ago:
Important words in the statute:
“Knows’- a person “knows” he is not permitted on someone’s property if he
(1) Fails to depart after being instructed by the owner, (2) returns to said property after being instructed not to return, or (3) has reason to know he is not to be on the property
(2) “Enter “or enters meaning going upon or over real property either in person or by causing any object, substance or force to go upon or over real property.
(3) “remains” means fail to depart from the real property of another immediately when notified to do so by the owner or his agent,
(4) “permission” means written authorization from the owner or his agent to enter private land, which shall include the signature of the owner or his agent, the name of the persons giving permission and appropriate dates etc.
Regarding 18-7008(2) you will notice the phrase: “Someone’s Property” which refers to a property owner, referring to private or business because government can’t or doesn’t own land or property because it did not purchase it- it manages it. Further evidence is in (1) “instructed by owner.” In (3), you will also notice “Has reason to know he is not to be on the property.” Not only does this statute not apply to those charged, it doesn’t because the statute refers to property ownership and having a reason. Those charged with trespass had both the Right and reasons for being on the property.
In (3) “remains” failure to depart from the real property of another. “Another” as I see it clearly indicates another property owner. If an agent exists, the agent lawfully acts on behalf of the owner. In our case the Agent was chosen by our government to act publicly in a private capacity to treat public property owned by the tax payer as private. The issue with this is that the government doesn’t own land and cannot convey power and authority to control property it doesn’t own so the agent, would appear to be an illegitimate entity from the duties outlined in the criminal statute and unlawfully applied as they are used against the people.
In (4) “permission” clearly identifies what should be obvious. No person would need to seek permission to enter “government property” because the People own it, the government doesn’t own it but they will force you to believe they do. Permission clearly therefore means and applies only to private property owners.
Additionally, and principally speaking if government’s job is to secure the rights of the people, this statute was clearly originally created to defend private property owners from encroachments from another, not to prevent people from entering the Capitol… “Their house.”
In part 6, we continue reviewing the statutes that apply and could apply to the issue of trespass.
Comments