NO TRESPASS LAW APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT GESTAPO 100%

Unless ANY AUTHORITY is under a sanctioned legal mission, by our KING, or QUEEN, to take goods, or a person into custody under a signed court order, then they are trespassing on your property throughout Australia.

An Australian High Court decision ruled in favour of a family finding a state government, and police, had committed trespass violation on that persons property, because they were on a mission that did not apply with the two rules, therefore they were trespassing.

We have constructed a – “No Trespassing Sign” – under this High Court Decision to place on your property you may download.

Ruth Downey, a 70 year old NSW farmer, had the RSPC Storm Troopers invade her property who execute her cattle, leaving their calves to starvation.

We have seen a family raided by in NSW by Phil Koperberg, Environment Minister, and Malcolm Turnbull, then Federal Environment Minister, heading a military assault, subjecting this family to hours of interrogation, in their home, not to mention the massive legal violations they sanctioned as Reich Marshal’s commanding a convoy of brown shirts mounted in government vehicles.


It is time to shut the gate on this Nazi Germany revisited dictatorship.

During 1990 into 1991, in South Australia, a man stood up for his rights, loosing the case, took his grievance to the High Court of Australia, where it was found police trespassing, under government sanction, had illegally entered property, they did not understand the law that protects you today.

Quotation from the High Court transcript:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.’ So be it – unless he has justification by law.”

Further information from that transcript:

Constable Dillon, accompanied by Constable Will, went to Mr Plenty’s farm, South Australia in 1978, in order to serve the fresh summons either personally on the child or, by non-personal service, on the father.

Their entry onto the farm for this purpose was the occasion of an alleged trespass for which Mr Plenty brought the present action.

He joined as defendants Constables Dillon and Will, their senior officer and the State of South Australia. It is unnecessary to trace the full history of the matter except to say that, in the view taken of the facts by a majority of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Mr Plenty had expressly revoked any implied consent given to any police constable to enter upon his farm in order to serve the summons or any other document relating to the matter concerning his child.

The appeal to the Full Court proceeded on that footing and the defendants were content to argue the present appeal on the same footing.

Thus the issue for determination is simply whether a police officer who is charged with the duty of serving a summons is authorized, without the consent of the person in possession or entitled to possession of land and without any implied leave or licence, to go upon the land in order to serve the summons.

This is an excerpt from a High Court Hearing that upheld the plaintive Mr Plenty that the police did violate trespass law.

There are just two reasons for authority to enter your property without your permission under law, which is as follows:

“It is laid down as a general rule in our books, that the sheriff, in executing any judicial writ, cannot break open the door of a dwelling-house;(note~ entry onto land in terms it relates to breaking into a dwelling-house) this privilege, which the law allows to a man’s habitation, arises from the great regard the law has to every man’s safety and quiet, and therefore protects them from the inconveniences which must necessarily attend an unlimited power in the sheriff and his officers in this respect; hence, every man’s house is called his castle. 5 Co 91: 3 Inst 162: Moor, 668: Yelv.28: Cro Eliz 908: Dalt Shar 350.

Yet in favour of executions, which are the life of the law, and especially in cases of great necessity, or where the safety of the king and commonwealth are concerned, this general case has the following exceptions, one we have listed:

“That whenever the process is at the suit of the king, the sheriff or his officer may, after request to have the door opened, and refusal, break and enter the house to do execution, either on the party’s goods, or take his body, as the case shall be”.

So the question is whether the police officers were engaged in “execution of the (King)’s process – clearly they were not.

The decision of the highest court in our land Judges was (the first part only here):

Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia so far as it dismisses the appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim in trespass to land. In lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed in part and that the judgment of Mohr J. dismissing the plaintiff’s claim in trespass to land be set aside and in lieu thereof judgment for damages to be assessed be entered for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants (police officers Dillon and Wills) and such other defendants as the Supreme Court may hold to be liable in trespass to land.

To read this High Court Transcript – CLICK HERE
This is still the law and SOS-NEWS has for the rural readers, or anyone requiring to stop government invasion of their land, can download a sign, on A4 in pdf format – CLICK HERE – printable from any computer. This warning sign may be laminated and or posted on your property, quoting the High Court reference, along with words required to inform those radical greens and Gestapo jackboot public servants they are legally – “OUT OF BOUNDS” – unless they are on the Kings Mission – IT’S THE LAW.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather