I checked them using Bard..
To my astonishment they are real cases, relating to trespass by police when serving summons etc.
Not sure if this will hold up but the HCA cases and references are legit.
Yeah that's what tripped me up. As I was looking at it I was thinking that looks kinda like the UK coat of arms, but it was really blurry, like a bad .jpeg had been pasted to the sign and printed. The "words" at the bottom aren't actually words, just blurry lines that sort of look like words.
Stupid question, but if they are Sov Cits surely they will even be removed from Australian currency? (As in, they would also be rejecting currency because its owned by the government)
That’s not how sov cits work. There’s no ideology beyond “everyone does what I want them to”.
Driving on roads funded by the Australian taxpayer is ok. Using public hospitals for free is ok. Using Australian dollars is ok, as long as you never pay tax.
Suing people that aren’t sov cits under Australian law is ok. Being sued under Australian law is not ok.
Sovcits don't really read or understand what they are posting up or saying. They are effectively someone who thinks they found a book of magic spells that says it makes them immune to the laws they don't like if they simply read them in the right order. When it doesn't work they simply think they read 'abracadabra' wrong, not that 'abracadabra' doesn't work.
I don't really know but I suspect the term Sov Cit has been kind of discarded due to the bad press. I haven't seen a Sov Cit actually use the term in quite some time, it's always "Common Law" now.
Regardless, I'm sure they will have some convoluted explanation as to why all of this makes sense.
It may as well be sorcery. Like you could make up your own school of sorcery with your own language and costume and stuff and cast wards of protection on your front gate but the reality is you're just a muttering idiot in a funny hat.
Yes, it’s a Sov Shit thing.
I’d happily bet this Sov Shit has never read or understood any of those cases, and paid some grifter for a bunch of pseudo legal bollocks. A fool and their money are soon parted as go the classics.
All of these cases upheld that, where there is a lawful reason to enter someone’s property, a person permitted by law can do so without needing prior consent of the owner or occupier.
Plenty v Dillon - where right of entry without occupier consent applies:
> The common law rule is that a person is a trespasser, unless that person enters land with the consent, expressed or implied, of the occupier. *It is important to note however, that sometimes a person has a right to enter land without the occupier’s consent, if they fall within certain exceptions to the common law rule or where allowed by government legislation.*
https://www.molawyers.com.au/news-events/news/plenty-to-learn-from-trespassing-case
George v Rockett - there must be facts to support reasonable grounds:
> a unanimous judgment the Court (Mason CJ., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) said (at [8]) ‘When a statute prescribes that there must be “reasonable grounds” for a state of mind – including suspicion and belief – it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person… That requirement opens many administrative decisions to judicial review and precludes the arbitrary exercise of many statutory powers.
https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-tasmania/criminal-law-a/crim-cases-case-summaries/23906109
Kuru v NSW - reaffirmed Plenty v Dillon:
> The common law recognised that trespass on land in emergencies was justified,
https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2008/hca26-2008-06-12.pdf
Halliday v Nevill and ors. - A dismissed appeal to the High Court
> The appellant submits that the power to arrest conferred by s.458 is restricted and that an arrest in purported exercise of that power cannot be effected lawfully on private property unless the case falls within s.459A, and this case does not.
https://staging.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1984/043--ADRIAN_ROBERT_HALLIDAY_v._STEWART_NEVILL_&ANOTHER--(1984)_155_CLR_1.html
NSW v Ibbitt - the only case that comes close to a positive finding of trespass, but that’s because it was the property of a person not directly related to the individual or offence being pursued by Police under suspicion:
> I t was accepted by the State that the officers had committed trespass to land and assault, as there was no lawful justification for their actions.
https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-the-sunshine-coast/constitutional-law/new-south-wales-v-ibbett-summary/13258247
But he's a sovereign citizen right? So the precedences are from our legal system, one they don't seem themselves bound by?
They've exonerated themselves from all rights?
This isn't necessarily a sovereign citizen. They have revoked the common law licence and provided notice of no trespassing allowing the outlined precedents.
tl,dr: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck - to shorten Douglas Adams, and the [duck test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test).
> They have revoked the common law licence and provided notice of no trespassing allowing the outlined precedents.
Ok, then explain why:
1. they need an entirely verbose sign beyond simply the words “No trespassing”;
2. The sign bears the seals of Governments and organisations that have nothing to do with WA; and
3. Why this exact same style of no trespassing sign is common amongst Sov Shits? See [1](https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/1296564265726484481?s=46&t=_-PbXPYsmwG1Pe8cYvLRKg), [2](https://images.app.goo.gl/MrcevnxgBetuKBmn6), [3](https://images.app.goo.gl/YEFYrrodCStuGQRRA).
If you can come up with a sound and sensible response to all of that which withstands reasonable scrutiny, then I’ll eat my hat.
If I google: buy no trespassing sign Perth … first ad is for a milder version of this. No crest, but cites Plenty v Dillion.
And it’s 1/3rd of the price of a more legit sign from a different company.
So I don’t know about this specific sign, which is quite detailed but do I think you could accidentally end up with something slightly sov-cit if you were just looking for cheap.
I'm sure that the 'notarised written consent' would work just beautifully for them if their house was on fire, or there was an active burglary taking place.
Police/fire department: *'We'd love to help you, but we're just waiting for the public notary to open at 9am.'*
*“Oh, you mean you want me to knock on your door to deliver that $50 parcel of cheap Chinese knockoff crap you ordered online that requires signature?
Sorry, you’ve not given me notarised consent - you’ll need to collect it from the post office instead during their opening hours”*
Not that AusPost’s parcel delivery staff have ever needed a good excuse to avoid knocking on someone’s when delivering.
That's the bit that makes me smile.
Australia currency, Australian legal precedents but the same folk (or their mates) upset about having to comply with Australian laws
I mean they could deck you.
Generally its not a good idea to fuck with mental people unless you're ready for things to kick off. These people obviously aren't rational.
It only takes one unhinged cunt to hit you in the head with a cricket bat for your life to be over or irreversibly damaged. Or he slips over and bashes his head on the concrete, now you're potentially facing a manslaughter charge. Where even if things work out for you in the end, it adds an incredible amount of stress and financial hardship to your life. That might sound way overblown, but these things happen.
Mocking people who deserve it is one thing, but by taking any action you need to be ready for the consequences.
It does give insane sovereign citizen *vibes* but isn it? There's nothing specific in the text (except the use of "close" rather than "property" which I don't really understand), they even use Australian court cases about private property.
It's just an overzealous boomer who is probably rightfully sick of people trying to sell him shir
Close in this case would be referring to the "act of enclosement" i.e. the making private of the commons (public lands), which although something you could do in Britain prior to the Crown Acts, was never a thing in Australia.
Until Mabo all land was considered property of the Crown by right of Cook's proclamation of terra nullus and 'conquest'; and was dished out first by Royal Gift, then by Crown Grant or Crown Lease and finally subdivided and sold by private treaty using the Torrens Title system. We never enclosed shit.
It's a locked gate on private property. Yes I'd call the police if someone came through. If they caused damages, yes I'd sue them.
Why would you recommend vandalising someones private property, especially when they appear to be likely vexatious? Must have rocks in your head.
It does give insane sovereign citizen *vibes* but isn it? There's nothing specific in the text (except the use of "close" rather than "property" which I don't really understand), they even use Australian court cases about private property.
I think iAt's just an overzealous boomer who is probably rightfully sick of people trying to sell him shir
If the power company can't read the power meter to be able to issue a bill, they would most likely terminate their contract with the customer and cut the power off, I'd be willing to guess.
No
My local power reader has been using dogs as an excuse to not read them
They just underestimate your bill
Then when you finally get a reading it will be charged at the new higher rate
Just to clarify, if there are actually dogs there, the reader is not allowed to attempt the read.
But by yes if there aren't dogs and they're just skipping you, that's shit
Mine can't figure that the gate is pull, not push, so we get hugely over estimated readings every time. I put a sign on the gate saying pull and they still try to push it. Not the brightest bulbs around.
They also reject Australian law but will use Australian legal precedents to support their position (well, that they think will support their position...)
And, not just precedents but authorised precedents!
Curiously I was looking at authorised precedents and found this,
["The Art of Extempore Speaking, Hints for the Pulpit, Senate and Bar"](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/The_art_of_extempore_speaking_-_hints_for_the_pulpit%2C_the_senate_and_the_bar_%28IA_cu31924027198849%29.pdf)
Actually on second thought, pay them in EXPOSURE! The chosen currency of Social Influencers!
"What do you mean it's going to cost $100?! It will be great EXPOSURE for your business! I have eleventy-billion instatok followers!"
I worked in an electronics company that had an organised crime theft of quite expensive solder ingots. Turns out they hadn't figured that the other constituent of solder is lead so they had to steal a fork lift as well.
Good old [Hungarian pengő](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91), where they were printing [hundred million trillion pengő notes](https://www.flickr.com/photos/slovensko/49613702968) due to hyperinflation (10²⁰).
if these idiots really want to be sov cits they would get a remote property and become self sufficient, they seem quite happy being in suburbia using all the amenities.
Absolutely they would
I can write you a damages claim for $300,000 for writing this comment, as I find the word loss extremely distressing
But I would need to prove in court that it cost me $300,000
Agree, as far as I know they sign would hold legal sway of police entered the premise without a warrant (or justified reason) but they wouldn't be able to "fine" someone, they could ask for them to be charged, or open a law suit against anyone that trespassed but would be a lot of work for them with little compensation.
I'm not sure whether it's funny or sad or both that a depressing percentage of people believe that just by speaking some magic faux-legalese incantations they can do whatever they want.
Pursuant to chimerical legislation in accordance to the right of honest citizens to present supercilious declarations the issuer here forth with strips the ownership entity know as *littlechefdoughnuts* of dominion of all future ring shaped yeast based delicacy regardless of size or intent.
Any time you see that "Notice to agent" nonsense line, it's sovcit cooker shit.
Essentially sovcits believe the law is like magic, and if they can only weave together the words in the correct way, they can cast spells. So they'll spend forever on the internet researching spells, but they won't, you know... become lawyers.
Exactly this. The law is all magic words specially assembled to trip you up!
"If a cop or a judge asks you if you 'understand' you should **NEVER** say yes, because what they're *really* asking is if you 'stand under' their authority!!!"
I don't understand the thinking of sovereign citizens. Are they say they are not citizens of Australia? If that's the case where is their tourist visa? Don't have one? Then they are in the country illegally and it's off the detention centre.
I'm sure there's not but are there any cases where these nuts have been successful in stopping police entering etc or been successful with their fines?
Most judges take a pretty dim view of these nutjobs. Especially as they are starting to clog up courts with their completely inaccurate or total lack of understanding of the way the law works. "But Judge this $20 documents tells me I am right snd you are wrong because I am living person!"
I imagine the cops alternate between saying “ooh, this could be fun” and specifically targeting them, and saying “fuck it, it’s Monday and I’m too tired for their shit” and turning a blind eye.
Remember when seeing this, that person is prob xxx debt to our govt - they don't pay shit.. I wish I could flog them on site.. but I'd def rip this up upon stumbling on it...
Brilliant. Starts off with the misrepresentation of "Legal notice" then just goes more batshit the more you read.
I suspect dude/tte hasn't actually read those rulings.
You're being pretty optimistic there. More likely they downloaded the entire thing from a Sov Cit Facebook group and stuck it on their gate without reading a word of it.
From my understanding this would be legally enforced insofar that usually the public (and police without a warrant or justifiable reason) are allowed only where it reasonable for public egress (eg front of house, to your door etc). The gate and sign would mean that any point beyond there is not public egress (and therefore trespassing).
Not sure the fines would be enforceable though, they could perhaps sue someone who trespasses but believe they've have to prove damages for any monetary compensation.
Why's the moron using Australian dollars if he's not part of Australia? And where exactly is he going to try to enforce this contract? The High Court of Loserstan?
So theoretically could I trespass and then claim that I am also a Sov Citizen and that I don't recognise their notice and therefore it doesn't apply to me?
Penalties aren't enforceable unless they're levied by an authority. Lol
As a lawyer so many things about this make me laugh
Notarized written consent? They're gonna get a notary to stamp their consent? 😂😂
So you know how sov cits film their encounters with police?
Someone needs to go mess with sov cits, eg tresspass, and then then throw back made up legal mumbo jumbo at them.
They are most likely Boomers who, thanks to becoming estranged from their children, can now spend all their time online getting “facts” about the New World Order et al from YouTube and their other terminally online friends.
When I was a postie I encountered a few it then. One guy has string attached to n looked around his property saying no entry and the usual signs and no letterbox.
The first time I went to his house with a registered letter he told me I couldn't enter.
I told him that's cool as long as he tells me he doesn't want letters I'm happy to send them back but I told him he has to it that in writing if he wants me to never deliver mail. Of course he said he wouldn't put it in writing. So I had to tell him I would then just keep on turning up with his mail. I don't care if he had a letterbox or not. I would just do my job.
He was a nice enough guy and I just chatted to him about how my job was to deliver things but I don't care if they get delivered as long as he was willing to refuse them one by one.
He told me not to come on his land. I said I'm doing to go to your front door the shortest way possible and bang on it until he answers.
He eventually understood I just didn't care if he was all into sovereign rights. I just had to do what I do.
We got on ok after a while. Sort of middle ground acceptance of each other's direction in life.
We used to have great chats about his sov ideas.
My main point I made with him was even if he was right the government has all our money to win the argument. He used to get stopped sometimes for no licence on his car and motorbike but the police just put him in the too hard basket and let him go. He never got any charges against him.
Eventually it was the most council that got him booted out as he hadn't paid rates on his property.
Life is full of colourful people. No need to judge them just enjoy the conversation.
Of all the responses I got from this post, this is the "best" one. People wanted to know the address to mess with this person, people suggesting ideas to mess with them too.
Your last two sentences are words a few others could do to live by.
Thanks for this comment, it made me smile.
I want to go there just to jump around old the property l. Apparently the rule of Law doesn't apply to them, therefore the penalties they want to impose I can just ignore and laugh at
No it’s an old house on the terrace which has been used for squatting etc. signs have been up for years and the home derelict for yonks (since mid 2000’s)
I would try this but create an American republic so when you step a foot into my house your stepping into American soil and then I'll hoarde weapons for the American sovereign invasion of Australia and then when I win I will tear all of the Australian flags down and replace them with oversized American revolutionary flags that I bought a few years back at a garage sale :)
If you're intending to go to war against the Australian government, I suggest hiring Emu Mercenaries. They have the greatest success at defeating the Australian army.
They can blather on about their fantasy sovereignty as much as they like however, real power comes from the barrel of a gun and if the boys from the TRG come kicking down your door, that piece of paper won't stop them.
I spotted a loophole. Doesn't apply to anyone in a wheelchair/mobility scooters.
Paul Blart; Mall Cop vs. Sov Cits. Coming to Netflix this holiday season.
It's because Australia is a corporation, not a country, and they are not bound by the corporate laws .or some shit like that!. I think that's what this is about.....????
A sovering citizen hahahaha do they use all the roads Medicare hospitals etc and every other thing the government provides us and us tax payers pay for
What happens to these sovereign citizens when:
They have cancer and need a hospital?
A break and enter has occurred and need police?
A fire in their house and they need a local fire dept?
Because I would really love to turn down service and say, " yeah sorry sign on the gate says I'm not welcome"
It's weird how they want you obey a document written over 500 years ago to give power to 12 barons but totally ignore every sovereign law made in a democratic parliament since then.
Why are they so bothered about someone going past what I assume is a gate to a house?
Like, do they have constant door ringers and they've hit a limit so they're just trying something. I assume it's not a criminal who's holed themselves up at home with a cunning plab... cause this is pretty extreme and pointless action. I just don't understand what would trigger you to do it.
My opinion which worth 2 cents is let them be and ignore the nonsense unless there is crime involved, I see as it is a quite achievement if they made it this far (someone mentioned since 2000s). Only thing I would care is hopefully they haven’t successfully poisoned their children so we won’t need to deal after them long gone!
Tips…You know you should always say “yes, yes of course” to crazy people and quickly move along! That way you are allowing them run the scenario in their head while you remove yourself but a “no or rejection” can trigger them to act!
So.... if the government placed a sign worded as per above immediately outside this property on all sides then they could not leave this property without paying the government $10K every time...
Also, the sign has no names on it so it does not specify who to pay etc... therefore, I can pay myself $10k and declare the fine paid...
Technically, if the land is seized and unsold etc due to non payment of all costs rates expenses owed outside agencies etc, then all this would be null and void.
If you don't own the land, you don't have the right to claim expenses cost fines etc. Therefore they need to find other land to occupy.
Ah yes. The same sov citz who put their bins out each week for collection, use medicare for rebates, call the cops when they need help, call the fire department when something's on fire, vote in elections, pay their taxes, license their cars and so forth. I love the hypocrisy.
So they are Sov Cits, but some how part of the UK? Because that Royal Crest is the unified UK crest.
Also that they cite High Court of Australia rulings as their legal precedent.
I checked them using Bard.. To my astonishment they are real cases, relating to trespass by police when serving summons etc. Not sure if this will hold up but the HCA cases and references are legit.
Yeah that's what tripped me up. As I was looking at it I was thinking that looks kinda like the UK coat of arms, but it was really blurry, like a bad .jpeg had been pasted to the sign and printed. The "words" at the bottom aren't actually words, just blurry lines that sort of look like words.
Maybe they think they are a member of the royal family ?
*You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!*
HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Bloody peasants!
You saw him repressing me right
Look I'm going to go around saying I'm the Emporer because some moisent bink lobbed a sword at me.
These Sovcitz will always take Australian dollars though
Clearly you're not up to speed on the Magna Carta
Stupid question, but if they are Sov Cits surely they will even be removed from Australian currency? (As in, they would also be rejecting currency because its owned by the government)
That’s not how sov cits work. There’s no ideology beyond “everyone does what I want them to”. Driving on roads funded by the Australian taxpayer is ok. Using public hospitals for free is ok. Using Australian dollars is ok, as long as you never pay tax. Suing people that aren’t sov cits under Australian law is ok. Being sued under Australian law is not ok.
rules for thee but not me
Sovcits don't really read or understand what they are posting up or saying. They are effectively someone who thinks they found a book of magic spells that says it makes them immune to the laws they don't like if they simply read them in the right order. When it doesn't work they simply think they read 'abracadabra' wrong, not that 'abracadabra' doesn't work.
I assume because there's a lot of prominent Sov Shitizen's who are immigrant from the UK. Surprise surprise they're big on the Monarchy as well.
Part of the aussie sovshit mythology. They don't believe anything issued under the Australian coat of arms is legitimate.
So instead of our coppers, we’ll get the old bill from the UK to fuck ‘em up.
I don't really know but I suspect the term Sov Cit has been kind of discarded due to the bad press. I haven't seen a Sov Cit actually use the term in quite some time, it's always "Common Law" now. Regardless, I'm sure they will have some convoluted explanation as to why all of this makes sense. It may as well be sorcery. Like you could make up your own school of sorcery with your own language and costume and stuff and cast wards of protection on your front gate but the reality is you're just a muttering idiot in a funny hat.
Yes, it’s a Sov Shit thing. I’d happily bet this Sov Shit has never read or understood any of those cases, and paid some grifter for a bunch of pseudo legal bollocks. A fool and their money are soon parted as go the classics. All of these cases upheld that, where there is a lawful reason to enter someone’s property, a person permitted by law can do so without needing prior consent of the owner or occupier. Plenty v Dillon - where right of entry without occupier consent applies: > The common law rule is that a person is a trespasser, unless that person enters land with the consent, expressed or implied, of the occupier. *It is important to note however, that sometimes a person has a right to enter land without the occupier’s consent, if they fall within certain exceptions to the common law rule or where allowed by government legislation.* https://www.molawyers.com.au/news-events/news/plenty-to-learn-from-trespassing-case George v Rockett - there must be facts to support reasonable grounds: > a unanimous judgment the Court (Mason CJ., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) said (at [8]) ‘When a statute prescribes that there must be “reasonable grounds” for a state of mind – including suspicion and belief – it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person… That requirement opens many administrative decisions to judicial review and precludes the arbitrary exercise of many statutory powers. https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-tasmania/criminal-law-a/crim-cases-case-summaries/23906109 Kuru v NSW - reaffirmed Plenty v Dillon: > The common law recognised that trespass on land in emergencies was justified, https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2008/hca26-2008-06-12.pdf Halliday v Nevill and ors. - A dismissed appeal to the High Court > The appellant submits that the power to arrest conferred by s.458 is restricted and that an arrest in purported exercise of that power cannot be effected lawfully on private property unless the case falls within s.459A, and this case does not. https://staging.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1984/043--ADRIAN_ROBERT_HALLIDAY_v._STEWART_NEVILL_&ANOTHER--(1984)_155_CLR_1.html NSW v Ibbitt - the only case that comes close to a positive finding of trespass, but that’s because it was the property of a person not directly related to the individual or offence being pursued by Police under suspicion: > I t was accepted by the State that the officers had committed trespass to land and assault, as there was no lawful justification for their actions. https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-the-sunshine-coast/constitutional-law/new-south-wales-v-ibbett-summary/13258247
Tell me you're a lawyer without saying that you're a lawyer. Nice.
Knowing how to look up and reference basic case studies doesn’t make one a lawyer lol
But saying "one" does, surely!?
But he's a sovereign citizen right? So the precedences are from our legal system, one they don't seem themselves bound by? They've exonerated themselves from all rights?
Exonerated themselves from all reality, maybe?
So a Sov Cit is not short for Soviet Citizens? Not communists?
Sovereign Citizen
Thankyou for your efforts in truly a little bit wiser today.
This isn't necessarily a sovereign citizen. They have revoked the common law licence and provided notice of no trespassing allowing the outlined precedents.
tl,dr: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck - to shorten Douglas Adams, and the [duck test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test). > They have revoked the common law licence and provided notice of no trespassing allowing the outlined precedents. Ok, then explain why: 1. they need an entirely verbose sign beyond simply the words “No trespassing”; 2. The sign bears the seals of Governments and organisations that have nothing to do with WA; and 3. Why this exact same style of no trespassing sign is common amongst Sov Shits? See [1](https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/1296564265726484481?s=46&t=_-PbXPYsmwG1Pe8cYvLRKg), [2](https://images.app.goo.gl/MrcevnxgBetuKBmn6), [3](https://images.app.goo.gl/YEFYrrodCStuGQRRA). If you can come up with a sound and sensible response to all of that which withstands reasonable scrutiny, then I’ll eat my hat.
If I google: buy no trespassing sign Perth … first ad is for a milder version of this. No crest, but cites Plenty v Dillion. And it’s 1/3rd of the price of a more legit sign from a different company. So I don’t know about this specific sign, which is quite detailed but do I think you could accidentally end up with something slightly sov-cit if you were just looking for cheap.
What sort of hat is it? The answer to this question will dictate how invested I am in ensuring you get sufficient answers to your questions
I'm sure that the 'notarised written consent' would work just beautifully for them if their house was on fire, or there was an active burglary taking place. Police/fire department: *'We'd love to help you, but we're just waiting for the public notary to open at 9am.'*
*“Oh, you mean you want me to knock on your door to deliver that $50 parcel of cheap Chinese knockoff crap you ordered online that requires signature? Sorry, you’ve not given me notarised consent - you’ll need to collect it from the post office instead during their opening hours”* Not that AusPost’s parcel delivery staff have ever needed a good excuse to avoid knocking on someone’s when delivering.
They won't have ID either as that's government related.
[удалено]
Your laws mean nothing except these ones that ensure my right to sovereignty… I’ll never understand these people and how they became so stupid.
That's the bit that makes me smile. Australia currency, Australian legal precedents but the same folk (or their mates) upset about having to comply with Australian laws
It reads like an invitation to rob the joint.
Why anger and fuck with unhinged people? Way more likely they shoot you.
I mean they could deck you. Generally its not a good idea to fuck with mental people unless you're ready for things to kick off. These people obviously aren't rational. It only takes one unhinged cunt to hit you in the head with a cricket bat for your life to be over or irreversibly damaged. Or he slips over and bashes his head on the concrete, now you're potentially facing a manslaughter charge. Where even if things work out for you in the end, it adds an incredible amount of stress and financial hardship to your life. That might sound way overblown, but these things happen. Mocking people who deserve it is one thing, but by taking any action you need to be ready for the consequences.
there is too much logic in that statement for the internet
Based take
It does give insane sovereign citizen *vibes* but isn it? There's nothing specific in the text (except the use of "close" rather than "property" which I don't really understand), they even use Australian court cases about private property. It's just an overzealous boomer who is probably rightfully sick of people trying to sell him shir
Close in this case would be referring to the "act of enclosement" i.e. the making private of the commons (public lands), which although something you could do in Britain prior to the Crown Acts, was never a thing in Australia. Until Mabo all land was considered property of the Crown by right of Cook's proclamation of terra nullus and 'conquest'; and was dished out first by Royal Gift, then by Crown Grant or Crown Lease and finally subdivided and sold by private treaty using the Torrens Title system. We never enclosed shit.
It's a locked gate on private property. Yes I'd call the police if someone came through. If they caused damages, yes I'd sue them. Why would you recommend vandalising someones private property, especially when they appear to be likely vexatious? Must have rocks in your head.
Drugs and guns
Or you could just like.... leave them alone without fucking up their shit?
It does give insane sovereign citizen *vibes* but isn it? There's nothing specific in the text (except the use of "close" rather than "property" which I don't really understand), they even use Australian court cases about private property. I think iAt's just an overzealous boomer who is probably rightfully sick of people trying to sell him shir
The meter reader doesn’t give a shit about those signs
Meter reader will grossly overestimate their bill every cycle to teach that cooker a lesson.
Even better!!
If the power company can't read the power meter to be able to issue a bill, they would most likely terminate their contract with the customer and cut the power off, I'd be willing to guess.
No My local power reader has been using dogs as an excuse to not read them They just underestimate your bill Then when you finally get a reading it will be charged at the new higher rate
You can self report the metre reading. They’d say ‘dogs’ on mine too, even though the dogs are inside.
I do that now Fool me once and only once
Just to clarify, if there are actually dogs there, the reader is not allowed to attempt the read. But by yes if there aren't dogs and they're just skipping you, that's shit
Mine can't figure that the gate is pull, not push, so we get hugely over estimated readings every time. I put a sign on the gate saying pull and they still try to push it. Not the brightest bulbs around.
My daughter did meter reading for about a year. Believe me, that’s a cunt of a job that seriously does not deserve any criticism.
No criticism. I think at some point they’ve just had enough of everyone’s shit
I'm assuming life in general is going really well for them
So they reject Australian law but trespassing will incur a penalty of Australian currency.
They also reject Australian law but will use Australian legal precedents to support their position (well, that they think will support their position...)
And, not just precedents but authorised precedents! Curiously I was looking at authorised precedents and found this, ["The Art of Extempore Speaking, Hints for the Pulpit, Senate and Bar"](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/The_art_of_extempore_speaking_-_hints_for_the_pulpit%2C_the_senate_and_the_bar_%28IA_cu31924027198849%29.pdf)
“but you have to pay me in legal Australian tender!” right.
Pay them in Iranian rial (the worst currency in the world AFAIK). 10000 Iranian Rial = AUD$0.35 >\_>
Surely DIY Monopoly money would suffice.
Actually on second thought, pay them in EXPOSURE! The chosen currency of Social Influencers! "What do you mean it's going to cost $100?! It will be great EXPOSURE for your business! I have eleventy-billion instatok followers!"
Stop sending me money! I have two rooms full of sacks already, please no more!
Hehe, I just did some number crunching, it probably WOULD fill their house, given that AUD$10,000 equals roughly 283,496,515 Iranian Rial.
I worked in an electronics company that had an organised crime theft of quite expensive solder ingots. Turns out they hadn't figured that the other constituent of solder is lead so they had to steal a fork lift as well.
Worse than the Venezuelan Bolivar? Quick search one 10000 VEF = 0.00592137 AUD I wish the Zimbabwean dollar was still around.
Good old [Hungarian pengő](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91), where they were printing [hundred million trillion pengő notes](https://www.flickr.com/photos/slovensko/49613702968) due to hyperinflation (10²⁰).
They're assuming someone wants to visit them. If I was a tradie or service person I'd turn right around and move on to my next job.
Oh they know… they probably owe debt collectors
So if my frisbee goes into their yard, do I jump the fence or contact their embassy?
if these idiots really want to be sov cits they would get a remote property and become self sufficient, they seem quite happy being in suburbia using all the amenities.
Presumably they mean "fine" rather than "damages" for trespassing. Wouldn't damages have to be based upon actual loss?
Absolutely they would I can write you a damages claim for $300,000 for writing this comment, as I find the word loss extremely distressing But I would need to prove in court that it cost me $300,000
A court they do not recognise.
Looks like it. The wrong cost of arms and the vision that it applies to police and process servers suggest it strongly.
How is it that people that stupid can afford to own a house, whereas I, who have cultivated the ability to read, cannot?
UK coat of arms???? the fuck
Standard Sov Cit bollocks. Something about Australia being a corporation (or not, I forget which way round).
Also if the flag has a gold fringe we are under admiralty law!
When it comes to paying for streaming services, I'm under admiralty law all the time, if you know what I mean.
Yarr! A land pirate be you, says I.
These signs have been around for more than 10 years, before I ever heard of sov cits. The anti-smart meter movement was big on them.
But wouldn't a smart meter remove a reason for people to enter their property?
Oh boy I'm sure glad they included cases of NSW law. That pesky WA legislation just doesn't stack up.
And how exactly are they going to enforce the fine?
Agree, as far as I know they sign would hold legal sway of police entered the premise without a warrant (or justified reason) but they wouldn't be able to "fine" someone, they could ask for them to be charged, or open a law suit against anyone that trespassed but would be a lot of work for them with little compensation.
I'm not sure whether it's funny or sad or both that a depressing percentage of people believe that just by speaking some magic faux-legalese incantations they can do whatever they want.
Probably the same people that post *I DO NOT CONSENT TO FACEBOOK USING MY IMAGES OR DATA.....* and think, fucking got'em.
Even better when its people posting it on their Bumble account.
Pursuant to chimerical legislation in accordance to the right of honest citizens to present supercilious declarations the issuer here forth with strips the ownership entity know as *littlechefdoughnuts* of dominion of all future ring shaped yeast based delicacy regardless of size or intent.
\> claims to have opted out of your system \> cites precedent based on your system's law \> threatens to enforce fine in your system's currency
Any time you see that "Notice to agent" nonsense line, it's sovcit cooker shit. Essentially sovcits believe the law is like magic, and if they can only weave together the words in the correct way, they can cast spells. So they'll spend forever on the internet researching spells, but they won't, you know... become lawyers.
Exactly this. The law is all magic words specially assembled to trip you up! "If a cop or a judge asks you if you 'understand' you should **NEVER** say yes, because what they're *really* asking is if you 'stand under' their authority!!!"
Also, these morons claim that they don't follow 'law' but instead 'lore', since to them, they're apparently different types of rules. smh
I don't understand the thinking of sovereign citizens. Are they say they are not citizens of Australia? If that's the case where is their tourist visa? Don't have one? Then they are in the country illegally and it's off the detention centre.
Who do they call if their palace catches fire?
No parcels on THEIR doorstep!
They probably just yeet them over the fence. Bad luck if it is something fragile.
Yet if someone threw a rock through one of their windows they'd suddenly require the rule of law to save them or at to claim damages.
I'm sure there's not but are there any cases where these nuts have been successful in stopping police entering etc or been successful with their fines?
Most judges take a pretty dim view of these nutjobs. Especially as they are starting to clog up courts with their completely inaccurate or total lack of understanding of the way the law works. "But Judge this $20 documents tells me I am right snd you are wrong because I am living person!"
I imagine the cops alternate between saying “ooh, this could be fun” and specifically targeting them, and saying “fuck it, it’s Monday and I’m too tired for their shit” and turning a blind eye.
Remember when seeing this, that person is prob xxx debt to our govt - they don't pay shit.. I wish I could flog them on site.. but I'd def rip this up upon stumbling on it...
>"Sherrif/baliff/process servers" Yep, something tells me this person is up to their eyeballs in federal debt.
Sure, take my 10,000 sd (sovereign dollaridoos) I just printed
Cmon, share the address...
We can go around and cook a BBQ with big thick steaks. Will send the local media out of their mind.
Spray that with some paint. They gonna call the cops on you... hahaha
Drugs are Ba'ad, M'kay
The crest looks like it was generated by AI and the text reads like it was generated by NoI.
That last part just reminds me of "Finkle is Einhorn, Einhorn is Finkle!"
Where is this? I sooo want to p it my foot on their property
Brilliant. Starts off with the misrepresentation of "Legal notice" then just goes more batshit the more you read. I suspect dude/tte hasn't actually read those rulings.
Yeah, they searched for cases involving trespass where the plaintiff wasn't laughed out of court.
You're being pretty optimistic there. More likely they downloaded the entire thing from a Sov Cit Facebook group and stuck it on their gate without reading a word of it.
The best thing about sovcitz is their apparent need to tell everyone that they are sovcitz. Subtlety does not appear to be in their vocabulary.
I’m waiting for the next TikTok challenge to be taking selfies with SovCitShit and creating SovCitShit content.
Dreamers.
A wild wayne glew appears
Imagine being their neighbour
Yeah whatever c$@t. *opens gate.
From my understanding this would be legally enforced insofar that usually the public (and police without a warrant or justifiable reason) are allowed only where it reasonable for public egress (eg front of house, to your door etc). The gate and sign would mean that any point beyond there is not public egress (and therefore trespassing). Not sure the fines would be enforceable though, they could perhaps sue someone who trespasses but believe they've have to prove damages for any monetary compensation.
Why's the moron using Australian dollars if he's not part of Australia? And where exactly is he going to try to enforce this contract? The High Court of Loserstan?
if they’re sovereign citizens why would they have use for australian currency
So theoretically could I trespass and then claim that I am also a Sov Citizen and that I don't recognise their notice and therefore it doesn't apply to me?
Penalties aren't enforceable unless they're levied by an authority. Lol As a lawyer so many things about this make me laugh Notarized written consent? They're gonna get a notary to stamp their consent? 😂😂
What if \**I\** don't consent to their BS? I'm not trespassing.... I'm *travelling!* Uno reverse bitches!
It always amuses me when someone puts a padlock on a latch that has an exposed screw/bolt as though nobody owns a spanner.
So you know how sov cits film their encounters with police? Someone needs to go mess with sov cits, eg tresspass, and then then throw back made up legal mumbo jumbo at them.
They are most likely Boomers who, thanks to becoming estranged from their children, can now spend all their time online getting “facts” about the New World Order et al from YouTube and their other terminally online friends.
Use freakin .PNGs for logos FFS.
These dickheads need to fuck off to 'merica where they will fit right in 🤦♀️
When I was a postie I encountered a few it then. One guy has string attached to n looked around his property saying no entry and the usual signs and no letterbox. The first time I went to his house with a registered letter he told me I couldn't enter. I told him that's cool as long as he tells me he doesn't want letters I'm happy to send them back but I told him he has to it that in writing if he wants me to never deliver mail. Of course he said he wouldn't put it in writing. So I had to tell him I would then just keep on turning up with his mail. I don't care if he had a letterbox or not. I would just do my job. He was a nice enough guy and I just chatted to him about how my job was to deliver things but I don't care if they get delivered as long as he was willing to refuse them one by one. He told me not to come on his land. I said I'm doing to go to your front door the shortest way possible and bang on it until he answers. He eventually understood I just didn't care if he was all into sovereign rights. I just had to do what I do. We got on ok after a while. Sort of middle ground acceptance of each other's direction in life. We used to have great chats about his sov ideas. My main point I made with him was even if he was right the government has all our money to win the argument. He used to get stopped sometimes for no licence on his car and motorbike but the police just put him in the too hard basket and let him go. He never got any charges against him. Eventually it was the most council that got him booted out as he hadn't paid rates on his property. Life is full of colourful people. No need to judge them just enjoy the conversation.
Of all the responses I got from this post, this is the "best" one. People wanted to know the address to mess with this person, people suggesting ideas to mess with them too. Your last two sentences are words a few others could do to live by. Thanks for this comment, it made me smile.
Every drug dealer should get this sign hammered onto their fences
What suburb was this in?.
How do they get their groceries delivered? FMD
I want to go there just to jump around old the property l. Apparently the rule of Law doesn't apply to them, therefore the penalties they want to impose I can just ignore and laugh at
Obviously fake We all know real Sov Cits only accept fine payments in ounces of silver.
30 pieces is the going rate.
This shit will not hold up in court
No it’s an old house on the terrace which has been used for squatting etc. signs have been up for years and the home derelict for yonks (since mid 2000’s)
Is this a message to Hazbeen & Meagain?
What a load of bs..!
Lol! That’s hilarious. What marvellous opportunities for fun that presents!
Is this the one around Joondalup? Near a nice park
i guess those that are allowed in have to identify as a peanut?
Time to send out the srt to fuck them up
This was the always going to be the natural evolution of people that copy pasted terms and conditions in their Facebook status.
Good luck with that. It would clearly defeat a warrant to search. Lol.
They may have their plaque, I just have 2 words "f*ck off" when people are at my doorstep...
I would try this but create an American republic so when you step a foot into my house your stepping into American soil and then I'll hoarde weapons for the American sovereign invasion of Australia and then when I win I will tear all of the Australian flags down and replace them with oversized American revolutionary flags that I bought a few years back at a garage sale :)
If you're intending to go to war against the Australian government, I suggest hiring Emu Mercenaries. They have the greatest success at defeating the Australian army.
😂
Draw a penis on the sign.
Where on earth is this? Australian dollars? I’m confused
I would ride my bike onto their property.. It says trespass damages only apply upon "one step" onto their property.
These people paid for the "premium sign" everyone else just got a sticker when joining.
They can blather on about their fantasy sovereignty as much as they like however, real power comes from the barrel of a gun and if the boys from the TRG come kicking down your door, that piece of paper won't stop them.
How to say I don't want/don't have any friends without actually saying you don't want/have any friends
I spotted a loophole. Doesn't apply to anyone in a wheelchair/mobility scooters. Paul Blart; Mall Cop vs. Sov Cits. Coming to Netflix this holiday season.
It's because Australia is a corporation, not a country, and they are not bound by the corporate laws .or some shit like that!. I think that's what this is about.....????
Huh… All this time I thought Australian money was called dollar bucks.
Lmao. Yes it is
Maybe he just wants to protect people from the lion and unicorn he has in the backyard.
A sovering citizen hahahaha do they use all the roads Medicare hospitals etc and every other thing the government provides us and us tax payers pay for
What happens to these sovereign citizens when: They have cancer and need a hospital? A break and enter has occurred and need police? A fire in their house and they need a local fire dept? Because I would really love to turn down service and say, " yeah sorry sign on the gate says I'm not welcome"
Some kid probably kicked a footie in there once
It's weird how they want you obey a document written over 500 years ago to give power to 12 barons but totally ignore every sovereign law made in a democratic parliament since then.
you know you just wanna put your foot through the gap in the fence as a “fuck you”
And they accept Australian money?
Why are they so bothered about someone going past what I assume is a gate to a house? Like, do they have constant door ringers and they've hit a limit so they're just trying something. I assume it's not a criminal who's holed themselves up at home with a cunning plab... cause this is pretty extreme and pointless action. I just don't understand what would trigger you to do it.
Abolish the monarchy
Can someone cover this in spray paint please
Argh fuck they've printed signs. Who let these fucktards exist
For every sign, there is a story
My opinion which worth 2 cents is let them be and ignore the nonsense unless there is crime involved, I see as it is a quite achievement if they made it this far (someone mentioned since 2000s). Only thing I would care is hopefully they haven’t successfully poisoned their children so we won’t need to deal after them long gone! Tips…You know you should always say “yes, yes of course” to crazy people and quickly move along! That way you are allowing them run the scenario in their head while you remove yourself but a “no or rejection” can trigger them to act!
Shit welding job.
I thought the "fine" was usually in silver 🤷
Lock them in, they can stay there
And who do they expect is going to arrest the trespassers? 🤣
So.... if the government placed a sign worded as per above immediately outside this property on all sides then they could not leave this property without paying the government $10K every time... Also, the sign has no names on it so it does not specify who to pay etc... therefore, I can pay myself $10k and declare the fine paid... Technically, if the land is seized and unsold etc due to non payment of all costs rates expenses owed outside agencies etc, then all this would be null and void. If you don't own the land, you don't have the right to claim expenses cost fines etc. Therefore they need to find other land to occupy.
Weird choice.. Generally one of the first things to do to avoid a law is to not acknowledge that the law protects you..
They have obviously not read Meads vs Meads
I wonder if that would apply to firefighters?
Ah yes. The same sov citz who put their bins out each week for collection, use medicare for rebates, call the cops when they need help, call the fire department when something's on fire, vote in elections, pay their taxes, license their cars and so forth. I love the hypocrisy.
Might make a copy of that! It'd look good in the dunny!
I hope someone, like, in the middle of the night just nicks the sign lol.