I am having a really hard time finding where I can get these signs. I can't even locate any type of standard so that I can have the signs made. What do they have to say? What type of Font? What size? What material? I have called just about ever local government office about where and what I need to have one of these and every response has been "Federal no trespassing? What's that?".
Please help Thank you.
You mean like these...?
http://www.safetysign.com/browser.asp?Subcategory=I3No+Trespassing+Signs&Sta rt=0&gclid=CLOjgPXVr44CFQqgYgodXmukaA
http://www.loghomebuilders.org/constitutional-no-trespassing-signs-appear-be-effective
Originally Posted by jruz
Unfortunately those won't work. They do not have US code on them, so they would not be effective as federal no trespassing signs.
I have seen these signs. But which one is correct? We are talking about a federal requirement that must be met. I need more information such as what size the sign has to be, what type of font, how big the font has to be, and exactly what has to be on the sign for it to meed the guidelines. It won't do any good to use a sign that does not meet the requirements because it will be null and void. Even speed limit signs have to meet certain requirements or they are not considered valid.
Are looking for signs specific to a government installation?
The only areas that I know of that would require 'regulation size font, style and sign schemes' would apply to very specific uses and not a simple posting for a private citizen's land. Now your state may require posted lands to have some sort of "standard format," but that is a different matter all together.
If you can explain the use and application you intend for theses signs it might help to illustrate for others on this forum.
If you are speaking about US code and governmental fiduciary duties, the LHBA's signs do appear to quote them and even give the article numbers.
-Andrew
I did some research on title 18, section 241 of the U.S.C.
First, many (government, and private) websites don't even show sect 241 under the title. (which seems odd). See http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/partii_.html or http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II.html. I finally searched for it, and it still exists, with some (minor) changes to what is published on the LHBA website.
--------------------------------------------(http://www.loghomebuilders.org/constitutional-no-trespassing-signs-appear-be-effective)
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with the intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured ?
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.?
--------------------------------------------(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html)
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured?
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
which version is (currently) correct? Does LHBA have a lawyer on staff?
Peter, in essence they are the same, we just ended the quote before the stuff you underlined.?
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an "official Federal no trespassing sign."
Our signs were carefully researched by people who regularly engage in Guerilla-Lawfare with the Man -- folks who also happen to be our good?friends :)
Our signs are based on circuit court rulings, SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution, et cetera.? We have personally ?had good results with these signs, and?we've received reports from members that?they too have found them to be very effective.
We always use, and recommend, both signs.? I'm not sure if only one or the other would be as effective as both.?
Our crack legal team, comprised of people who actually know the law (unlike most of those with Esq. after their name), are also not sure if only one or the other sign would work.?
I suppose you could squish it all on to one sign, but?I understand that the signs are less effective if they are not legible ;)?
Do these signs have a tendency to antagonize public officials in a way that would paint a bigger target on my butt...
I like to lay low and I wonder if this would draw more attention.
What has your experience been with that.
AdrienneW,
My experience is that in today's legal/social/political climate, jurys and many judges tend to rule in favor of any citizen that can demonstrate a government official transgressed against their fiduciary duties.
What this means is that unless the public servant gets a court ordered warrant for their actions, they cross the line. Most will not seek one. If it ends up being a case of a personal vendeta by the public servant, that is more fodder for your lawyers.
I would venture to guess that postings like these simply keep them honest and remind them of both their fiduciary duties and the LIMITS of the powers of their office.
If they antagonize, it is simply a "personal problem." In that case, it probably would not be difficult to prove that any adverse actions by government officials in response to them is beyond the scope of their offical capacities.
-Andrew
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks