A Question about Criminal Mischeif & Trespass

[quasimodo]

My last post was in haste. I now have time to clarify my position, and offer a proper response.

I am indeed a staunch supporter or property rights, and property ownership. As the right ‘should’ belong to the owner. Right?
I would have thought that I had shown that by my admittance to my trespass I am willing to make good that which I have wronged to he who possesses the right, and that would be the private property owner, not the State as it was not State property upon which I trespassed.

Allow me to illustrate my point if you will.
Let’s say I knocked a baseball through your window. I admitted that it was I who did it, but to make it good, I’m going to give $1000 to someone on the other side of nowhere. Someone whom I’ve never met, whom I will never meet because he exists only on paper, and who has no steak in the claim of damage. Is that just?

No, I do not wish to trespass on your time, or your intellectual property anymore than I wanted to I trespass on another's real property. Despite the fact that I asked several times if what we were doing was acceptable, and that I was told by the caretaker/agent/representative in the absence of the owner, what we were doing was fine and were given physical parameters. The exception being the trail/tire ruts was off limits to digging. Anywhere else was fine.

My question is, what is “real property”, and who truly owns it?

Yes, I can look up a word in the dictionary. Yes, even in Black’s, but am I knowledgeable in legal research? Again I admit my ignorance. The cure for ignorance is knowledge, and that is why I come to this forum.

Thank you Joseph for the information. You have offered me many directions in which to seek knowledge though disguised as bitterly angry rhetorical castigation, and sufferable ridicule.

palani,

Yes, the gate that has a posted sign was left open for us. The fence is barbed wire.

Can you get the caretaker (agent) to give you a statement or is he reluctant because he will lose his job?

Now there’s where it gets interesting. Caretaker/.../... says cool, dig anywhere but here, sure camp here I’ll come drink some beer with you, leaves the gate open for us, when we get there he comes over, drinks beer, helps set camp, gets a call, says he’s going 100yrds from where we are (across the creek) to meet a girl, says he’ll be back after while, leaves, game wardens show up, (he never did), once the GW’s gone we go where he is, talk, he says “ah man, that’s BS. I’ll talk to the boss/property owner and get it straightened out, and he has not returned my calls.
What does that sound like to you.

[qoute]Did the caretaker (agent) make any statements in front of multiple witnesses from whom you can obtain notarized statements to prove your reliance on this information?[/quote]

Yes, but all of whom are involved in this debacle. Conflict of interested?

I may have given the wrong impression in my original post. I wasn’t asking for anybody to do my research for me. I would rather someone point in the right direction and I will do the footwork. I would learn so much more along the way.

Is it worth $1000 th prove to 50 or so people that the don’t own anything? Perhaps.
Will I show the property that he really owns nothing? Probably not since he can still make a worldly profit from it.
Will the lesson at my expense stick between the ears of anyone in the court room? Doubtful, but time will only tell.

Thank you all for your input.
Q

[quasimodo]

Through correspondences with the property owner all has been forgiven by the property owner, but the so called State won't let it go.
I have attached the letters I have sent to the property owner.
It would seem now the State(sic) is acting as a debt collector. should I lay on the table TITLE 15, CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER V, § 1692?
I still cannot comprehend why the State(sic) won't let this go. It stands to reason that if the property owner has forgiven all that ALL is forgiven.
You and I both know there is seldom if ever a property "owner". but is the State(sic) willing to admit to this in open court?
The court clerk stated that the State(sic) would not let go because of the word "criminal" in criminal trespass, and criminal mischief.

All stipulations in both the offer of remedy, and the acceptance have been met by both parties.
How can the State(sic) have a stake in the claim of damages on private property?
Color me stupid, but I just don't get it.
Q

[quasimodo]

Well it would appear that the attachment option didn't work for me, so;

Date; 11/13/2007

Offer of Remedy

Dear (Name Protected),

With all due respect, I write you this letter in regard not only for my own concern but for yours as well.

Upon the evening of Friday, November 2, 2007 you received a call from the Texas Game Warden to inform you that three individuals were on your property. I am one of those individuals. My name is (Name Protected). The other two individuals who were with me were my wife (Name Protected), and a friend (Name Protected).

I, rather we were under the impression, though be it a false impression, that we had permission to be on the property granted by your agent/caretaker, one, Johnny (Name Protected) henceforth Johnny (I am unsure of the correct spelling of this gentleman’s Christian, or surname at this time) who is domiciled on the property in question located between (Location Undisclosed)Texas.

We were told by Johnny that our presence there was perfectly acceptable both to him, and by proxy yourself as he was given permission by you to, “do whatever he wanted to do on the land” which would include having guests for whatever reason he would so choose as there were no limitations placed on him. Or, so we were told.

We were also encouraged to dig as we were told that the property was to be developed and that all that lay just beneath the surface was to forever be covered up, destroyed by machinery, or gathered up and perhaps sold by illegal migrant workers in the very near future, and that it would be great if someone were to save some of this country’s history before this occurred. Furthermore, we were aided by Johnny in setting camp on the property on the evening in question.

As a result, the three of us received tickets for Criminal Trespass, “for being there” and Criminal Mischief “for digging”. We are to appear before Judge (Name Protected) (Court Location Undisclosed)on or before 10:00AM the 30th day of November, 2007 to make our plea in this case.

I have only my own ignorance, and sense of trust in the words of others to blame for this infraction upon you and your land. Please do trust that had I known, or had the slightest inclination that Johnny did not have your permission to extend to us this hospitality I would have never set my feet on your land for any reason other than to visit. I do regret, but do not dispute that I was on the land. However, I do dispute, and will dispute in open court the State’s attempt to generate revenue from this private matter as we were not on State property. Therefore, the State has no stake in the claim of damages. Rather it was your property that we were on, and your property upon which we had dug holes into the soil.

I take pride in being an honest man. I will not lie either to you, nor will I lie on the stand in open court as to the reasons we were there. Even though it may be more costly to me it is not in my nature to be dishonest as I feel it is only my integrity that I will leave here when I pass from this world, and consequently the only thing I will take with me when I go. This court procedure I fear may get the unwanted attention of parties that neither you, nor I wish to be involved in this private matter for obvious reasons. This can be averted.

Therefore, I do hereby offer you the landowner remedy. My offer to you is as follows. If you could find it in your heart to use the same influence which you displayed on the night in question in having these charges dropped, thus preventing a court case wherein the mention of artifacts would then never be mentioned. I will in return place back the soil to it’s original location, and will return to You, not the State, that which was rendered from your land. Furthermore I do give to you my solemn oath that neither I, nor my wife will ever knowingly set foot on your land again for any reason from this time forward.

In the event that you should decline this offer, or by the tacit nature of nonresponse you should choose not to respond to this offer I will have no other choice but to consider my debt to you fulfilled, or discharged with prejudice, but this will not expunge this case from court. Furthermore I will be using the tacit nature of nonresponse as part of my defense in court.

I think it important to let you know of my reason for this offer;

1) I feel that we were misled into believing that we did indeed have permission by proxy, and were welcomed to be on the land doing what it was we were doing, yet we are being severely punished for having done so. This would border on entrapment. (See; Black’s, Bouvier’s, or Ballentine's Law Dictionary)
1,b.) The issuing officer, Officer (Name Protected) told us during this episode that, “the land owner wanted to make sure that no one went to jail, and that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not contacted” that night because he/you felt that we “were the victims here”. I am in full agreement with that statement, hence the question must be asked, why are victims being punished? This is likened to putting a woman in jail for being raped.

2) My wife has a spotless nursing license that will be forever blemished by these charges. What this will cost her in the long term cannot at this time be determined.

3) I found work as of November 6, 2007 and I fear that this misunderstanding may very well cost me this position, and furthermore prevent my wife from obtaining work.

4) The resulting consequences caused by this gross misunderstanding I feel will cause a ripple effect which could very well cost me my job, prevent my wife from obtaining a job, and as a result we would stand the very real chance of losing our home, and much more.

I feel reasonably sure that neither you, nor I wish for any of the above to come to pass.

It is my wish to make right with you that which I am responsible for, and for this situation to be resolved in a manner that would be in both our interests. But, in good conscious I cannot consent to adjudication, nor allow the supposed State to generate revenue from this private matter when the issue of subject matter jurisdiction has not been determined. All of your consideration, and benevolence in regard to this matter are appreciated well beyond your present understanding.


With all sincerity,

(Name Protected) of the family (Name Protected) No Recourse

(Printed Name Protected)/ No Recourse


My contact information;

(All Protected)

[quasimodo]

Offer of Remedy
Accepted by Property Owner

I (Name Protected), having the full legal, and lawful authority granted to me by Mr. (Name Protected), who is henceforth referred to as the “property owner”, do hereby act, and/or speak on his behalf in the capacity of an agent to the property owner, and do declare the following;

An Offer of Remedy given by (Name Protected) of the family (Name Protected) has been accepted by the property owner.

This Offer of Remedy is a follows;

It is agreed that upon the land owned by the property owner located between (Location Undisclosed) Texas, the soil which has been moved will be replaced to the original location, and condition of the soil on, or before 12:00 AM/CST Monday the 2nd day of December 2007 weather permitting. In addition, that which was rendered from the land be returned to the property owner as per instructions given via telephone conversation by the authorized agent Mr. (Name Protected). Furthermore, in return it is agreed the property owner will dismiss with prejudice all charges of Criminal Trespass, and Criminal Mischief issued to (Name Protected), (Name Protected), and (Name Protected) on November 2nd, 2007 by Texas Game Warden (Name Protected) by contacting the office of, Judge (Name Protected) (Court Location Undisclosed)on or before 10:00 AM/CST the 30th day of November, 2007 thus preventing these charges from proceeding to warrant.

Upon completion of all terms of this agreement by both parties herein it will be considered that all trespasses have been forgiven with prejudice, and that this matter is closed.

Upon signing this document bellow all terms of this Offer of Remedy have been accepted by, and agreed to, and will be met pursuant to the terms herein by the following parties;




Authorized agent, (Name Protected)

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I think at least you have a good defense available- you believed in good faith that what you were doing was innocent. No "mens rea". A caretaker, as far as you know, IS the agent for the owner. What makes anyone an agent? It comes down to reasonable belief. Digging holes in open land is hardly "damage", and open-land trespass does require certain warnings, fences, etc, and I think you have to be told to "move on", first, before you can be charged with, what is essentially, "defiant trespass", which no one is claiming.

Go to www.findlaw.com, look up the Texas Code, and pull up the definitions of the charges you are facing. Post them here. There may even be references within each statute, to other relevant law.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

ok, I went ahead and found them

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes...0.htm#28.03.00

"criminal mischief"

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes...0.htm#30.01.00

"criminal trespass"

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:

(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;

What allegations are made in your case as to the above?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight
inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark
is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet
from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily
visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other
than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a
crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the
process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time
of entry.

same deal- what allegations are being made? Not "what you know happened", what is the claim made by the prosecution? They have to allege all the elements of the offenses charged to sustain jurisdiction. Do they say you had "notice"?

[Jerry Pitts]

The question; 'should I be liable to pay the state..." (or words to that effect).

The answer is found in a document entitled "contracts payable in gold" see http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com...resolution.pdf

I believe it was on page 11 or 12 wherein the Congress of the United States declared that 'The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State." read it yourself, as I already have read it and know the truth of what it says from real life experience.

Jerry

[Shoonra]

First, the caretaker is not the owner of the property, nor necessarily its manager, and probably has no authority to sell digging or other rights on the property any more than the janitor of a hotel has to hand out free room reservations.

Second, I'll bet that Texas, like most states, has some sort of law restricting digs of Indian antiquities. I am not sure if even the outright owners of land can dig in violation of those restrictions.

Third, this fellow seems to be in serious legal trouble now and I suggest he not try to handle this by himself.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

The answer is found in a document entitled "contracts payable in gold" see http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com...resolution.pdf

I believe it was on page 11 or 12 wherein the Congress of the United States declared that 'The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State....."

I have read that booklet and the mentions of it in the Congressional Record. It was not the expression of Congress, nor even written up at Congressional request. A Congressman got special permission to print up this booklet at public expense because the manuscript had been sent to him by a constituent (this was a favor that was not uncommon many years ago but now very restricted) -- a retired Navy JAG lawyer who had previously written a substantial textbook on military contracts. But at that time this man was in a military nursing home and died a few years after this booklet was published. It represents only his own interpretations, and the Congress did not even know of its content when it allowed this booklet to be printed as a favor.