Superior man arrested for trespassing on his own land

Ricc9

Ricc9

New member
Published December 04 2009
Superior man arrested for trespassing on his own land
The latest chapter in a saga over an easement for a pipeline ended with Jeremy Engelking going to jail.

Jeremy Engelking will appear in Douglas County court this afternoon to face a trespassing charge. But here’s the kicker: The Superior man allegedly trespassed on his own property.

Engelking, 27, aimed to hunt deer Wednesday morning when he noticed a pipeline crew on his land. He hopped on his ATV and told workers they had no right to be on his property because he had received no compensation from Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. for an easement.

Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.

But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached ""with a Taser drawn.

“He ordered me to 'get down on the ground now!' And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.

When Engelking protested, pointing out that he was on his own property, he said Sgt. Robert Smith told him: “It doesn’t matter. You’re going to jail. You can tell it to a judge tomorrow"".”

Engelking offered no resistance, but Smith placed him in handcuffs then transported him to the Douglas County Jail. After posting a $200 bail bond, Engelking was released that afternoon. He also had to pay about another $100 to recover his impounded ATV.

The incident report says Engelking parked his ATV in front of pipeline equipment, stopping workers. Engelking said it wasn’t his intention to physically block work.

Lorraine Grymala, a community affairs manager for Enbridge, said access to work sites is restricted in the interest of safety.

"We can't have people in the right of way without an escort and the proper gear," she said. "People could get hurt."

Engelking’s arrest Wednesday is the latest episode in a long disagreement he and his father, Jerry Engelking, have had with Enbridge, dating to the company’s last pipeline expansion in 2002.

Jerry Engelking, who owns 200 acres next to his son, said he refused to sign off on changes proposed to the original 1949 easement across his property because he felt the revisions put too many restrictions on how he could use his property. That original easement said future pipes laid along the same route would require payments in advance.

According to court documents, Enbridge sent a $15,000 check to Jerry Engelking and also tried to hand-deliver payments, but Engelking refused to accept them.

Engelking said that to claim the money he would have had to broaden the scope of the existing easement across his property, so he turned the checks down. When the latest pipeline project came along, the Engelkings again refused to modify the original 1949 right-of-way agreement. ( HIS RIGHT TO DO SO )

The family sought a restraining order against Enbridge on Sept. 24, arguing the company intended to use the pipeline for transporting petroleum products other than those originally allowed, protesting that they had not been paid and citing damage to property.

Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings. ( TO H@LL WITH HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS JUDGE GLONEK )

Jerry Engelking said the fight’s not finished yet.

Officers reported no similar incidents along the path of the Enbridge pipeline construction in Douglas County, said Lt. Gerald Moe of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department.

Grymala said that Enbridge has worked with about 1,500 landowners as part of the pipeline project.

“We recognize construction is an inconvenience to people; people want access to their land,” she said. “We strive to be respectful of that, to have a good working relationship.”
 
Last edited:
Private property rights and the rights of individual americans are in jeopardy all across this country.It's what happens when politicians get in bed with powerful special interests.
 
This is one of the few times I will say that a good lawyer is required. Given I think the guy can sue both the local police department and the gas company, he should be able to find a good one that will work on contingency.

Private property rights is one of the cornerstones of America. If this dangerous trend is not turned around it is another sign America as we knew it is over.
 
Property owners have been getting taken to the cleaners for years by the Gov't. Most disgusting lately that I remember is where the Gov't seizes private property for commercial development so as to increase their tax base. I don't know if the case above evolves from Iminent Domain or not but it is a disturbing trend and getting more common.



Eminent domain (United States, Canada), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada's common law systems) is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.[citation needed] Some jurisdictions require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain. The legal doctrine of eminent domain, like the doctrine of seizure of contraband, allows expropriation of property within the existing system of law. Otherwise, expropriation may imply either a criminal or a revolutionary act.
 
I am a hard-core property rights man, but this story is not about the government taking land through eminent domain. Instead, this is a dispute between private parties over an easement.

Unility easements are super common, most of us have them on our real property. This is just a more elaborate situation because it is a pipeline.

An easement is a a nonpossessory interest in another person's land, ie the right given to another party to trespass on one's land. Typically they are given in exchange for money, but in some cases and circumstances one can take them for free (Easements by prescription).

Here's the rub: Courts have long held that interference with an easement is a form of trespass, so I would like to hear the other side of this story. Believe it or not, and as odd as this sounds, the LEO may have made a good arrest on this case--depending, of course, on what the owner of the servient estate was doing at the time.
 
If then their is no Eminent Domain issues it would seem that the 1949 Easement should be binding until another agreement is mutually agreed upon. To just offer up some money and expand the easement to Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. desires seems to be a one-sided arrangment. The property owner and Enbridge should sit down and hack it out. Seems like the Deputy could have handled it better but I don't all of the circumstances.
 
I am reluctant to disagree with Jave on this for two reasons: 1) I nearly always agree with Java's position on issues and consequently trust his judgment and 2) I nearly always side with law enforcment and prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt in matters such as this. But, assuming that the information in the above article is true and accurate I must disagree with Java's position. I would specifically refer to the following sentence as it appears above: "Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings."
That statement, by the presiding judge, clearly tells me that an agreement between the two parties (land owner and utility company) was never reached. If payment was attempted but not accepted by the land owner and in the absence of an ammended contract tell me how the utility company could be legally entitled to seize the land owners property? In my opinion the land owner should sue.


 
+1Quote:That statement, by the presiding judge, clearly tells me that an agreement between the two parties (land owner and utility company) was never reached. If payment was attempted but not accepted by the land owner and in the absence of an ammended contract tell me how the utility company could be legally entitled to seize the land owners property? In my opinion the land owner should sue.
 
Originally Posted By: ADKI am reluctant to disagree with Jave on this for two reasons: 1) I nearly always agree with Java's position on issues and consequently trust his judgment and 2) I nearly always side with law enforcment and prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt in matters such as this. But, assuming that the information in the above article is true and accurate I must disagree with Java's position. I would specifically refer to the following sentence as it appears above: "Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings."
That statement, by the presiding judge, clearly tells me that an agreement between the two parties (land owner and utility company) was never reached. If payment was attempted but not accepted by the land owner and in the absence of an ammended contract tell me how the utility company could be legally entitled to seize the land owners property? In my opinion the land owner should sue.

OK...here is my reading of the facts in this case:

1. An easement had existed on the property since 1949.

2. The property owners objected to the scope of the easement with respect to this new project.

3. The terms of the 1949 easement required additional payment and the energy company tried in good faith to pay the money but the property owners did not accept the checks in the mail or by hand delivery.

4. The property owners filed suit to stop the work on the basis that they had not been paid as required. The trial court judge would ultimately not enjoin the utility company because it tried to tender payment but the property owners just would not accept the checks. "Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings".

5. This is not a new matter, it is a fight over an existing easement from 1949. This is not the company coming in out of the blue and just taking somebody's land, it had an easement there for 60 years.

6. One trial court, which has had the benefit of more facts than we have from this--rather poorly--written news article, has held that the company was within the scope of the 1949 agreement. Based on that decision and the lifting of the TRO, the company put it's equipment and men out there and went to work. The company was not just there on the land out of the blue, it was there working under the color of the 1949 easement.

 
Java, wouldn't you think that the money part of it would have to be agreeable to both parties not just Enbridge Energy , the property owner may be holding out for a bigger payday, he may be reasonable or not. I don't know how much of an expansion onto his property the company was making but it evidently infringed on what he thougt they could do. Just playing the advocate.
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinitJava, wouldn't you think that the money part of it would have to be agreeable to both parties not just Enbridge Energy , the property owner may be holding out for a bigger payday, he may be reasonable or not. I don't know how much of an expansion onto his property the company was making but it evidently infringed on what he thougt they could do. Just playing the advocate.

You may be right, but we don't have the facts--just the news article and it gives few details. We do know a judge looked at the agreement and rejected the landowner's claim. He held that the power company was acting within that agreement. Since I have not seen the agreement it is hard for me to say. This is a pretty typical property dispute and so while I am quick to bash liberal courts, this kind of routine case is usually not the subject of liberal judicial activism.

I also think companies like this are pretty cautious and would have had their in-house counsel thoroughly review the deeds related to this pipeline before they moved ahead on the project.

The property owners very well may have a case here, I don't have enough facts to speculate, but what I do not think happened is the power company just showing up with heavy equipment out of nowhere and 'seizing' this man's land.

I expect this entire matter hinges on the language of the 1949 easement.
 
"Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings".

That's what appears to be at the heart of the dispute. Perhaps "Big Oil" is taking actions outside of the easement restrictions. Rarely does an easement allow it's user carte blanche use of the property. Unless we could see how the ORIGINAL easement and any modifications agreed to by both parties reads, it will be pure speculation on both sides of the debate here.
 
Matt, we were posting at the same time and said basically the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: javafourOriginally Posted By: jumprightinitJava, wouldn't you think that the money part of it would have to be agreeable to both parties not just Enbridge Energy , the property owner may be holding out for a bigger payday, he may be reasonable or not. I don't know how much of an expansion onto his property the company was making but it evidently infringed on what he thougt they could do. Just playing the advocate.

You may be right, but we don't have the facts--just the news article and it gives few details. We do know a judge looked at the agreement and rejected the landowner's claim. He held that the power company was acting within that agreement. Since I have not seen the agreement it is hard for me to say. This is a pretty typical property dispute and so while I am quick to bash liberal courts, this kind of routine case is usually not the subject of liberal judicial activism.

I also think companies like this are pretty cautious and would have had their in-house counsel thoroughly review the deeds related to this pipeline before they moved ahead on the project.

The property owners very well may have a case here, I don't have enough facts to speculate, but what I do not think happened is the power company just showing up with heavy equipment out of nowhere and 'seizing' this man's land.

I expect this entire matter hinges on the language of the 1949 easement.


That and the Judge. I guess that is what appeals are all about.
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgMatt, we were posting at the same time and said basically the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.
crazy.gif



OH BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL
 
Originally Posted By: STUMP49Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgMatt, we were posting at the same time and said basically the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.
crazy.gif



OH BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL


this could get scary
grin.gif
 
Easement dispute with Enbridge ends in arrest
Jeremy Engelking will appear in Douglas County court at 1:30 p.m. today to face a trespassing charge. Here’s the kicker: He was cited for the violation without ever leaving his own property in Superior.
By: By Peter Passi/ppassi@duluthnews.com/Maria

The 27-year-old man was going out to hunt deer last Wednesday morning when he noticed a work crew installing a new pipeline for Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. on his property. He rode his ATV over to the trench and shouted down to the workers about 10 a.m.

“I told them I didn’t want the pipe to be put in because I hadn’t been paid for an easement across my property,” Engelking said.

Workers told Engelking he was not standing in a safe place and asked him to come around to a staging area on the other side of the trench. He complied and continued his conversation in this designated area

Engelking said he talked to a right-of-way agent there, and at about 11 a.m. the Enbridge representative agreed to pull workers off the job until the easement issue could be resolved.

But just as Engelking said he was turning to leave, an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser pointed directly at him.

“He ordered me to: Get down on the ground now! And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.

When Engelking protested, pointing out that he was on his own property, he said the officer told him: “It doesn’t matter. You’re going to jail. You can tell it to a judge tomorrow.”

Engelking said after placing him in handcuffs, Sgt. Robert Smith, chided him for “trying to stop a multi-million-dollar project.”

Engelking’s ATV was impounded following his arrest, and his cased rifle was seized as evidence. He was released later that afternoon, after posting a $200 bail bond. He reclaimed his rifle but had to pay about another $100 to recover his impounded ATV.

In a subsequent report, Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Knutson said Michael Bradburn, the lead right-of-way agent for Enbridge, told him that Engelking “had parked his ATV in front of their equipment, stopping workers.”

But Engelking said it was never his intent to physically block workers or their equipment. He pointed out that he came around to the area where the equipment was positioned at the company’s request.

Lorraine Grymala, a community affairs manager for Enbridge, said access to work sites is restricted in the interest of safety.

“We can’t have people in the right of way without an escort and the proper gear,” she said. “People could get hurt.”

Jeremy Engleking and his father, Jerry Engleking, who owns 200 acres next door to his son, have had a long-running disagreement with Enbridge, dating back to the company’s last pipeline expansion in 2002. Jerry Engelking said that he refused to sign off on changes proposed to the original 1949 easement agreement across his property because he felt the revised document put too many restrictions on how he could use neighboring property in the future. That first easement said any future pipes laid along the same route would be predicated on additional payments being made to affected property owners.

According to court documents from the Sept. 25 hearing, Enbridge sent a $15,000 check to Barbara and Gerald Engleking, and also tried to hand-deliver payments, but the couple refused to accept them.

Engleking acknowledged that Enbridge repeatedly offered him money to sign a revised lease agreement. But to claim the money he would have had to broaden the scope of the existing easement across his property, so he turned the checks down.

When the latest pipeline project came along, the Engelkings again refused to modify the original 1949 right-of-way agreement.

The family filed a petition and complaint for a temporary and permanent restraining order against Enbridge on Sept. 24.

Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day and upheld Enbridge’s claim to a valid easement.

Officers have had no similar incidents along the path of the Enbridge pipeline construction, said Lt. Gerald Moe of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department.

Grymala said Enbridge has worked with approximately 1,500 landowners as part of the pipeline project.

“We recognize construction is an inconvenience to people; people want access to their land,” she said. “We strive to be respectful of that, to have a good working relationship.”
 
Last edited:
OK, a little more info, but not quite enough for me to have a sense of what happened there.

It now sounds to me like the prudent thing for the LEO to have done would have been to advise the property owner to move his ATV and work the dispute out in court. But it may still have been a legal arrest, though I am confident our LEO friends here would say that sometimes NOT making a legal arrest can be the best move in a given situation.

The way the news reporters have described the facts and easement situation it does not make sense. On one hand it sounds like the company was out there because the judge OK'ed it by lifting the TRO, but then it contradicts itself by implying that thee landowner needed to sign off on a modification--so I'm confused!

Obviously, IF under the language of the 1949 easement, the landowner has to accede to a modification for this project, and he does not choose to do so, for whatever reason, then that is his legal prerogative and his right.

IF, on the other hand, the 1949 easement covers this new pipeline job and all the company has to do to adhere to the easement's terms is pay, then the company CAN be there, irrespective of whether or not the property owner hides when the guys come around to drop off the check.

Great post, though, Ricc, this is a fascinating case. I just wish more facts would emerge.
 
Back
Top