The Founders believed the basic rights of mankind came directly and exclusively from God. Therefore, they were to be maintained sacred and inviolate. William Blackstone, in “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” wrote “…natural rights...no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.” (Commentaries, 1:93).
These “natural” rights are inherent rights given to us by the Creator, and thus “UNALIENABLE.” Among Unalienable Rights are 1) the right to own, develop, and dispose of property and 2) The right to privacy.
As owners of the Old Washington School in Esko, Minnesota, we were told by building inspector John Gulland what and when we could do something. Even though he was wrong on several accounts, Thomson Township (Esko) officials stood behind him under the guise of “immunity.” The argument of the state is that individuals would not take these jobs (building inspectors, guardian ad litems, fire chiefs, etc.) if they were held liable. All of us in one capacity or another are liable for our actions. Why would a person turn down these jobs, which are like any other job? The argument is moot and has been largely discarded by the majority of the states. Minnesota, however, holds onto this “false” concept, refusing to allow exceptions to immunity that are written into law and is there to afford individuals some form of protection.
Case law and appellate court decisions continue to support the ideology of “absolute immunity” to all city, state, county, and local municipal workers. Without liability, there are many individuals being persecuted and forced into secrecy. They are afraid of retaliation or future problems. From my own personal experiences, these fears are well founded. The protection afforded these protected individuals is so great they embolden them to take whatever actions they want without fear of liability or consequence.
The building inspector and local fire chief made entry onto our private property without consent, or even attempted consent. They also had no subpoena or emergency reason for justifying entry. These were clear trespasses. These were continued attempts by local officials to thwart progress and create problems. More disturbingly is how they may have gained entrance in the first place. As the building was locked, how did they gain entry? The best guess is that they had retained their keys to the building after Thomson Township sold it. Many of the doors had not had their locks changed and they simply let themselves in. It turned out that Thomson Township didn't have a full accounting of keys for the building and these individuals would potentially have had these keys.
There were no vehicles in either lot when entry was made, so consent could not possibly have been sought. Both owners were just a simple phone call away and yet no attempt was made.
These entries were clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Blackstone included the right of “private property” as one of the three principals or primary articles of “natural rights.” He wrote that this right was our civil immunity “in their largest and most extensive sense (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:219-220: emphasis added.)
Frederic Bastiat, in “The Law,” pages 5-6, wrote “…the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand [before law] that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place [Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc, 1974.
The Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity, among other, “The duty not to trespass on the property or privacy of another.” They also include the “duty to support personal and public standards of common decency” and “the duty to follow rules of moral rectitude.”
Gods’ revealed law provided true “justice” by requiring the wrong to pay the damages for losses he had caused. Punitive damages were assessed for the trouble he had caused and to remind him not to do it again. This was the law of “reparation” – repairing the damage.
As laws followed the need to protect the unalienable rights to property, trespasses lacking emergency life measures cannot be taken lightly. The fact that police require subpoena’s to search one’s property when the owner refuses shows the importance of private property rights. Even when a search is agreed too, consent may be withdrawn at any time by the owner.
Subpoena’s themselves are restricted, allowing its carrier to search only those areas specifically agreed to by the court. These are not intended to be mere fishing expeditions, but specific searches.
The manner in which the building inspector and fire chief made entry to our private property lacked proper consent, subpoena, or emergency justification. The right to privacy on ones property preceded law, and the law ultimately was created to legalize enforcement.
There is no law, nor could there be among man, that can supercede the unalienable right provided to all of us by our Creator. The duty of the court, judges, police, legislators, and county prosecutors is to protect this right to private property. There are only limited exceptions, when missing, must result in trespassing charges.
The biggest question in this matter is why the County Attorney, Thomas Pertler, has drug his feet on this matter for a year and a half. Is he afraid of upsetting Thomson Township and its Fire Department, perhaps wanting their vote for his elected position? One broken promise after another leaves one to wonder what justice is truly being served when the law is not upheld by those entrusted to enforce them.
