Your Power to Trespass

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

If a government agent or assignee comes to your property, it will be important to those who wish to protect their privacy and property to KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.

** See what EVERYONE is Raving About!  Watch: NonCompliantMovie.com

• You do not have to answer ANY QUESTIONS or make ANY STATEMENTS to ANY GOVERNMENT AGENT or assignee. (5^th Amendment of the US Constitution and corresponding section of your State Constitution)
• Simply asking an agent to identify themselves does not waive your Rights.
• You have the Right to be free from any government agent or assignee entering your property, your home, or your business without a properly obtained warrant. (4^th and 5^th Amendments of the US Constitution and corresponding sections of your State Constitution.)
• Simply demanding a copy of that warrant does not waive your Rights.
• You have the Right to tell any government agent or assignee to leave your property if they cannot produce a properly obtained warrant. (4^th and 5^th Amendments of the US Constitution and corresponding sections of your State Constitution.)
• Simply demanding an agent or assignee of the government to leave your property does not waive your Rights.
• If a government agent or assignee refuses to leave your property or returns to your property after being warned against entering or returning, that agent or assignee has committed the crime of Trespass and is subject to arrest. (State Law, 4^th & 5^th Amendments to the US Constitution and corresponding sections of State Constitution as confirmed by Supreme Court Opinions).
• You have the Right to record through audio, video, or photographic recording of any government agent or assignee on your property, either with or without consent of that agent or assignee. (Multiple Federal Court Opinions recognize that the First Amendment plainly protects the filming of officers and public agents.)

Please click here for a TRESPASS WARNING FORM that you may print and issue to any government agent or assignee that fails to satisfy the requirements of the US and State Constitutions.  HAND THE COMPLETED FORM DIRECTLY TO THE AGENT OR ASSIGNEE WHILE TELLING THEM THEY MUST NOW LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND YOU WILL NOT BE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS.

You should have your address pre-written on form and as the need arises, fill in the date and time.  It is highly recommended that you take a picture of the agent you are serving the warning so you may then prove that this person has been issued a formal Trespass Warning.

If you need to Download and Print a “No Trespassing Sign” I have made one for you: here: https://krisannehall.com/index.php/resources/articles/713-your-no-trespassing-signs

There is a sign for Owners & Renters, choose which one fits your needs.

Liberty First Legal, INC. 7/7/2021  https://libertyfirst.legal/

Introductory NOTE from KrisAnne Hall, JD

America was formed with the understanding that Liberty is the possession of ALL mankind:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Declaration of Independence, 1776 (emphasis added)

America was formed with the understanding that the Constitutional Republic we were creating would be an example to the world as beacon of Liberty.  

“…a just & solid republican government maintained here, will be a standing monument & example for the aim & imitation of the people of other countries…”  Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, March 6, 1801

With these fundamental truths, our legal helps ministry Liberty First Legal is often writing legal briefs and educational essays for people across the globe.  As many are becoming aware, the excuse of pandemic shutdown is actually a well coordinated attack on the Liberties of the people and most aggressively an attack on the Religious Liberty of the people.  (You can offer your disagreement to this statement, however you will be fundamentally and historically wrong and will not be able to support your disagreement with one shred of truth.)  As I type this, a pastor in Melbourne, Australia is being held in custody on a criminal charge of “inciting church.”  I hope that I do not have to explain the gross error of this so-called criminal charge.

Today I am sharing with you an essay that I wrote for the people of Australia to explain the fundamental right of Religious Liberty as established by the nature of our creation and protected by the Constitution and laws of Australia.  

This is not something we need to pass of as someone else’s problem.  An attack on the rights of one group of people is an assault on the Liberties of ALL people.  My hope and desire is that this essay will not only INSPIRE the Australian people to STAND in defense of their own rights, but also encourage people around the world to educate themselves on their own rights and gain a boldness to stand against this wicked attack before its too late.

PLEASE SHARE this article far and wide. Please WRITE and if you are able ALSO CALL the following officials and demand Pastor Furlong’s immediate release. 

Acting Premier James Merlino:

Email: james.merlino@parliament.vic.gov.au

Phone: (03) 9754 5401

Governor of Victoria Honourable Linda Dessau AC

Email: info@govhouse.vic.gov.au

Phone: (03) 9655 4211 

 

THANK YOU from the future of America for taking just a few minutes to DEFEND LIBERTY FOR ALL! 

Australian Religious Liberty and the COVID Closure of Churches

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

When the government can arbitrarily decide that people of faith are not allowed by law, and are subject to fines and imprisonment for exercising their faith, every fundamental human right is in jeopardy.  The current COVID restrictions being placed upon Australian churches are the perfect example of that arbitrary threat to every essential right.  When citizens can freely go into a store and shop without government molestation, but when those same people, later assemble in the church house are threatened with fines and imprisonment, you have the very definition of arbitrariness that must be understood by a reasonable and ordered society as a violation of our most sacred right: freedom of conscience.

James Madison, in his historical essay “Property” (1792), gives us wisdom on the essential nature religious liberty and the limit of government authority over that inherent right:

“Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle…”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion. 

“Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one’s beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.”  Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others [2005] UKHL 15

The Supreme Court of Canada held:

“The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious beliefs by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that.

Freedom can primarily be characterised by the absence of coercion or constraint. If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his volition and he cannot be said to be truly free.” R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295, 336.

It should be of no surprise that Australian courts agree with both Madison, Nicholls, and the Canadian Supreme Court when describing religious liberty. In Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-Roll Tax (1983) 57 ALJR 785, 78, the court calls religious liberty “the paradigm freedom of conscience” and the “essence of a free society.”  Additionally in Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited the court explains that religious liberty is a fundamental right because Australian “society tolerates pluralism and diversity and because of the value of religion to a person whose faith is a central tenet of their identity.”

The Australian Supreme Court in Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Incorporated v The Commonwealth of Australia (1943) 67 CLR 116, explains to the people that the Australian Constitution not only protects religious liberty, but also requires its protection to maintain a fair and ordered society:

“The Constitution protects religion within a community organized under a Constitution, so that the continuance of such protection necessarily assumes the continuance of the community so organized. This view makes it possible to reconcile religious freedom with ordered government.” 

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution makes it known that the Commonwealth is not allowed to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.”  Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for any government to discriminate based upon religion, especially when that discrimination “has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or occupation.”  When a law is passed that says that a person can go shopping but not to church, that law discriminates in favor of grocery stores to the unequal nullification or impairing of those employed in the church. 

Article 2 of the 1986 Human Rights Act establishes that each State will “ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (emphasis added)

Even in times of emergency, the 1986 Human Rights Act declares that government power is LIMITED and denied the authority create laws that discriminate against the fundamental rights of religious liberty.  Yet in this declared emergency of COVID discrimination against religious entities is exactly what we see.  When one can lawfully meet in the stores or go exercising but those same individuals are legally molested for meeting in churches, there is no other term that can be used but discrimination.

In a globally aware society, the government of Melbourne must acknowledge a duty and obligation to the protection and preservation of the most basic human rights of its citizen.  Melbourne must also recognize in a global society, the entire world is watching this gross violation of its duty to the people.

As a government, bound by its Constitution, you must respect the human rights of your citizens.  As defenders of Liberty, we are watching, all over the world, and we will not be silent while this atrocious violation of fundamental rights continues under your watch.

The state governments intervening against federal encroachment on behalf of its residents is a constitutional solution because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States which created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. This intervention is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car. Madison states this principle again in Federalist #49:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

In Federalist #46 he further states:

“should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

The Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States has also affirmed these clear constitutional principles in its articulation of the anti-commandeering doctrine stating, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

Or as Chief Justice John Roberts writes in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), “…we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923) . The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Based upon these principles, there are presently numerous bills moving through the state legislatures to protect Americans’ natural right to keep and bear arms.  These bills need your support.  If you live in these states and you believe you can support the bill, contact your representatives, and tell the bill in your state.  Go to the link below to find your representatives.  Also look for the committee members that are hearing the bill and contact them.

Click Here to FIND YOUR LEGISLATORS

Some things to consider:

1. In the legislative process you don’t always get the perfect bill the first time. What you need to determine is whether it moves in the direction of liberty. Make a first step, then you continue to work to make it stronger going forward.
2. Some law enforcement will oppose such measures to curtail federal gun control. They use the feds as a force multiplier, and they receive funds and equipment that they don’t wish to lose. That it why a constitutional sheriff is so important.
3. Don’t be threatening or obnoxious; you’ll undermine your own cause.
4. If you can, attend hearings where you can make public comment.

Click the Bill to see its status:

Alabama HB157

Arizona HB2111

Florida H1205

Georgia HB597 and SB268

Iowa HF518

Minnesota HF1265

Missouri HB85 – and SB39

Montana HB238

Nebraska LB188

North Carolina H189

Ohio HB62

Oklahoma SB486

South Carolina H3042

Texas HB635

Utah HB76

West Virginia SB353

Wyoming HB124 and SF81

Most of these bills mirror one another to a great extent and follow the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) model which draws largely upon the model legislation created by the Tenth Amendment Center.  Many counties are passing SAPA resolutions as well.  Here is a model from the Missouri counties:

___________ County, Missouri,
Second Amendment  Preservation Resolution

WHEREAS, The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States reads as follows, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; and

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri reads as follows, That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity; and

WHEREAS, The right to be free from the commandeering hand of the federal government has been most notably recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States when the Court held: The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program; and

WHEREAS, The anti-­commandeering principles recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures, and

WHEREAS, In Section 21.750 RSMo, “The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.” And, thereby leaves the statutory defense of the right to keep and bear arms largely in the hands of the general assembly.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of __________, Missouri hereby reaffirms its full commitment to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ considers all federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations restricting firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition to be violations of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution for the United States, the federal government may not commandeer officers, agents, or employees of the County of _______, or any political subdivision of the state of Missouri, to participate in the enforcement or implementation of any federal act or regulatory program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is the intent of this Resolution to support legislation in the Missouri General Assembly that would protect the employees of this county, including law enforcement officers, from orders or other pressure to participate in actions that would violate their oath of office and the individual rights affirmed under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commissioners and Sheriff of the County of ______ express full support for the passage of House Bill 85, as passed by the House of Representatives on February 4, 2021, or Senate Bill 39, as passed by the Senate General Laws Committee on January 26, 2021, including accountability provisions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ urges all other political subdivisions of the State of Missouri, on behalf of their residents, to pass a similar resolution in support of passing House Bill 85 and Senate Bill 39 into law during the 2021 legislative session; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ intends to vigorously uphold the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

__________________________________
Presiding Commissioner

__________________________________
Associate Commissioner

__________________________________
Associate Commissioner

__________________________________

There are several resources that help you quickly identify the gun laws in your state so that you can see how constitutional your state is and what needs to be changed:

Gun Owners of America and the Tenth Amendment Center have SAPA models on their websites.

The NRA-ILA website has a list of gun laws by state which give you a good overview of the status of gun rights in your state even though the NRA has fought for several pieces of legislation that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The ATF website has an excellent resource – State Laws and Published Ordinances – where you can see how they are infringing on your rights in each state.

We must protect state and local authority against federal consolidation.  We are a republic of independent sovereign states.  Our states created the federal government through the Constitution. Our states must do their duty to enforce their compact and protect each state’s residents. Our states must protect each American’s right to defend life, liberty and property. Encourage your state to take this stand.

 

There are also several constitutional carry measures being forwarded, such as the one in Georgia: Georgia Constitutional Carry Act of 2021