Superior man arrested for trespassing on his own land

Yeah Java, I have been digging around for more info, but it's thin. I think the biggest problem here is and was the super hero cop. He added more conflict to the situation then need be. It seems both parties were in agreement to hold off till they could work it out. The cop showed up and made a mess out of it. Now they want to add disorderly conduct on him. Money wasn't the issue, future property rights are the reason for the conflict. I fault the cop as the problem here and his over use of power. The parties had agreed to stop and talk it out, what was the reason the cop has for his actions????
Sadly, he should work out for the best $$$$ he can get, cause in the end the utility company will get there way. We don't have property rights in America any more. I did some searching on WI property law and the company should have notified him of there work before they started and all that was going to be done 60 days in advance. It seems they didn't do this.
I still go back to super cop and his unnecessary actions that made the situation worse then it was. A good lawyer is needed here and maybe justice will win out and this dumb cop will get the neutering he should get. Another teaser happy idiot!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Private property? There is no such thing any more. Stop paying your property taxes and you will find out who really owns it. You just rent from the state, you are not a landowner, you are a serf. There must be some big changes in this country and return land ownership back to the people.
 
I've read through this entire thread again and agree that we just don't have enough facts to really decide one way or another. However, it sounds like mistakes were made on both sides. Does it warrant an arrest? Pretty thin in that area, too. Unless the guy was making threats, I don't see arresting him.

If anyone gets further information on how this plays out I'd be glad to see it.
 
We don't have all the facts but it's obvious the police acted stupidly.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinitOriginally Posted By: redeyeddawgWe don't have all the facts but it's obvious the police acted stupidly.
wink.gif


Seems I've heard that before
smile.gif


Thanks Jump I would have missed Dawg's humor there if you hadn't pointed it out.
 
Not to beat a dead horse here but I'm wondering how there just happened to be a sheriff's deputy on the construction site? In my state the sheriff's dept. does not assign deputies to construction sites on private property in rural locations. Also, I am pretty certain that the deputy was at the location because he was told to be there by his superiors. Nope, I believe the local politicians had the utility companies back on this with the attitude that the land owner's property rights be damned.
 
Originally Posted By: ADKNot to beat a dead horse here but I'm wondering how there just happened to be a sheriff's deputy on the construction site? In my state the sheriff's dept. does not assign deputies to construction sites on private property in rural locations. Also, I am pretty certain that the deputy was at the location because he was told to be there by his superiors. Nope, I believe the local politicians had the utility companies back on this with the attitude that the land owner's property rights be damned.

Yeah, that's a real interesting point, too.

Lot's of big unanswered questions here.
 
There are going to be people who cannot afford attorneys to secure their liberties. And you shouldn't need an attorney to prove you have a right to walk on your own land. When they have had enough they will protect their personal property which physical force. Espcially since the "proper authorities" are part of the problem. This includes protecting against the illegal police forces and others who trespass.
 
Originally Posted By: chepThere are going to be people who cannot afford attorneys to secure their liberties. And you shouldn't need an attorney to prove you have a right to walk on your own land. When they have had enough they will protect their personal property which physical force. Espcially since the "proper authorities" are part of the problem. This includes protecting against the illegal police forces and others who trespass.

I'd say no, you don't have a right to walk in front of a construction crew and block work on your land if an easement exists, as one has here since 1949, and if the company in question is working under the color of that easement, which may or may not be the case here.

If you buy acreage with such an easement then the existence of that easement is reflected in the price you pay for the land. You can't buy land knowing there is a utility easement and then gripe about it and play the victim when the utility shows up to do something.

Guys, easements are not some diabolical liberal plot--they are an old, old mechanism whereby we can get done infrastructure such as power, sewers and the like. Property law seeks efficiency and maximizing the productivity of one's land--in fact, liberals typically hate the old tenets of property law because they are so pro-Capitalistic.

I guess if I really want to get a reaction some time I'll make a post about Adverse Possession, lol! That one's a DANDY!
 
I didn't say if an easement exists. I said what I said. And it sounds to me like this easement might be in question. As in not even legal.
 
Originally Posted By: chepI didn't say if an easement exists. I said what I said. And it sounds to me like this easement might be in question. As in not even legal.

I think we are on the same page, no one disputes that an easement exists, the question goes to its scope. Did it or did it not permit a petro-pipeline.

One trial court held that the petro-pipeline was permissable under the 1949 easement and on that judge's OK the work proceeded.

IMO, the landowner can try to re adjudicate the easement issue and/or seek charges against the police dept for excessive force viz the taser incident. Based on the new stories that might have legs with a local jury.
 
BTW, Chep aren't you up on or near Rose Hill?

Speaking of property legal fights, one of the all-time great Eastside land disputes took place up there over decades, back in the 1960-70's.

It was the old Primeau Pigfarm/Junkyard. It was ~13 acres where the firehouse now stands off 124th. What a saga that was, lol!
 
The Kirkland-area was still mostly rural and had folks like this living there when I was a kid, lol!

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19930304&id=r0wPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=doYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3879,4059754
 
Yes, I was aware that the area I currently call home was once owned by an older man and it was mostly rural. When I was young I lived in Nevada.
 
I wonder if this took place on his fathers place or on his place. From the info provided by the pipeline company the attempted payment was to his father, not the son. If this land is the fathers and not his land it changes a lot of facts that the reporter gave.
 
Originally Posted By: chepYes, I was aware that the area I currently call home was once owned by an older man and it was mostly rural. When I was young I lived in Nevada.

Yeah, the mall went in over by you in '73. Before that the land there belonged to our family friends' aunt and uncle (Our friends were the McAuliffe's, of today's McAuliffe Park, on NE 116th and the aunt and uncle who owned today's mall site were named Johnson) That little lake there was never called "Totem Lake" until the mall, we knew it as Lake Witttenmeyer. Back around 1900 there had even been a small shingle mill on it. The east side of the lake was settled by a well-regarded black man named I.I. Walker, who had made some good money during the Yukon gold rush and bought the land there where he ran a truck farm the rest of his life. He used to have to take the ferry into Seattle to socialize with other black people in their area off Madison St. b/c he was then about the only black person in the Kirkland area, though he was well-liked by the locals. I went to AG Bell Elementary and our custodian's wife grew up over there and years ago told me all she remembered about him and the other settlers up there. It is kind of funny because back then, that area and today's Kingsgate, etc. actually associated themselves more with Woodinville and Bothell back then than Kirkland, which to them was going into town, lol.

When I was born in '64 Kirkland's population was 4500. When I moved to MD in '96 it was 45,000. The growth there during my lifetime has just been supercharged!

Sorry for the thread hijack, Ricc, lol!
 
I think that the issue is that the gas company offered payment with an AMENDED easement. Basically they wanted to change the wording in the easement that gave them more access to the land. I have been offered easements that gave the company unrestricted use to ALL of my property. The easement also gave the company the right to destroy or demolish anything they wanted if deemed necessary. When presented with an easement like that, my first reaction is to deny access at all. The landowner needs to get a good lawyer and go after compensation with no amendments. You can bet that the amendment lessens the property owners rights on his own property.

Dirtman
 
Back
Top