A Question about Criminal Mischeif & Trespass

[quasimodo]

OK, here's the story.

An acquaintance of mine (caretaker) offered for my wife, a few friends, and myself onto a piece of private property (which he is caretaker of) that is soon to be covered with houses in the range of $500,000 and up in the Texas Hill Country to retrieve a few Indian, and possibly some palio artifacts before (A) the illegal migrant workers gathered and sell them, (B) they were covered up for ever, or (C) destroyed by machinery.

We have been there several times and dug some holes in the ground, and found a few fairly good pieces without any trouble. And we were told that if anyone were to show up out there asking questions to tell them that we had the caretaker's permission to be there, and they did not, and to go away.

I called the caretaker and told him of our plans for this past weekend, and asked if we could camp on the property the night before so that we could get an early start Saturday morning. He said, "sure that would be fine". So, we get there Friday evening and set camp. The caretaker came over and drank a few beers, got a call (he said) from a lady friend, and that she was coming to see him so, he would meet her at his place (just across the creek from where we were) and that he would return shortly. By the way he never returned.

Roughly 30-45 minutes later we see a flashlight come on, and a loud voice saying, "TEXAS GAME WARDEN, GET ON THE GROUND NOW". You know the routine.

I said, "If you would let me call the caretaker who lives just over there he can tell you that we have permission to be here." The game warden said that may be so but, you do not have the "land owner's" permission to be here. True, we did not. So, since we technically were trespassing, and we did dig holes the land owner does have standing.

The game wardens told us that an "agent" of the property owner's earlier that day came onto the property and saw the holes we had dug, and my Jeep which we had left out there full of camping gear the night before. The "agent" then contacted the property owner, and the game warden. The game warden came out , ran my plates, found out who I was (I figured this out when he told me (in form of a question) my last name after I told him only my first name), and MUST have found that I have 9 warrants out in 2 counties for unpaid (so called) traffic(sic) tickets. However upon the orders/request of the (daddy war bucks) property owner nobody went to jail that night. In addition the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not contacted. (Which would have mothballed his multi million dollar development project)

We (my wife and I) are staunch supporters of property rights and do not dispute the charges. We did dig holes on the property, and we did not have "HIS" (the owner's) permission to be there. Yet the 'state' wants us to pay the 'state' for damages, and infractions, not the property owner. I owe the property 'owner'(sic) as it is his land not the state's.

I have already offered restitution in form of returning to the property owner that which we have found, and to fill in the holes we dug. The offer was declined.

My question; Am I obligated to compensate the state for damages to property which is supposed to belong to a private land owner? If so can anyone here explain why? If not can anyone here explain why not? In legal terms that is.


(question to self) Is the caretaker the "agent"? Were we set up?
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition p238

2. The affirmative defense of having been so induced. * To establish (in most states), the defendant must show that he or she would not have committed the crime but for the fraud or undue persuasion.

We were invited.

Ya know, we were told that this prominent land owner/developer here in central Texas can, quote "get away with murder around here" end quote. This makes me a little nervous, but it will not back me off.

Q

[joseph sugarman]

If you are such a staunch supporter of property rights, why did you trespass on someone's property without the owner's permission? Why didn't you ascertain whether or not the care taker had the authority to permit you onto the property to dig holes in it, and remove artifacts which belonged to the property owner? Did you consider the definition of caretaker is one who protects and takes care of? Do you think inviting strangers to the owner of the property to enjoy and dig it up is an example of the work of a conscientious caretaker?

If you are so concerned about whether or not you owe any fines to the State of Texas, why don't you get a copy of the the Texas statutes, and research it for yourself. Why should any of us do your work for you? Of is your post just another example of your willingness, despite your protestations to the contrary, to trespass on our time just as you trespassed on another's real property?

[palani]

Bit harsh, Joe.

Was the property marked with no trespass signs in a manner prescribed by law?

Was the property surrounded by a legal fence?

Had you previously been notified that this was private property?

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

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?

If you want to really mess with the system go down to the county treasurer and pay the taxes on this property. I believe Texas law states that the owner is the one who pays the tax.

Moles and prairie dogs dig holes. Does the state obtain damages from them?

I have observed that many people who think they own property like to put up no trespass signs. Personally I would rather have a trespasser than an invited guest or service person (check duties of landowners). In fact I have been thinking of posting my property with signs stating
"TRESPASSERS WELCOME
(FEE $500 PER DAY)
SERVICE PEOPLE AND INVITED
GUESTS BY WRITTEN INVITATION ONLY"

The reason for this is that the only duty I owe a trespasser is not to intentionally injure them. A service person (paper boy, mower, etc) I have to inform them of things that can injure them. With an invited guest I have to fix the defect.

[quasimodo]

never mind. I thought I might ask this forum because I can't find what I'm looking for, nor am I a lawyer. It's not that I'm not willing to look for my self, but I do not know where to look to find a definitive answer to my question. Many here do.
As for the rest of your accusations I had the impression we were invited as there are going to be trenchers, and bulldozers on the land in 2-3 months. where's the harm ? In saving a few pieces, or in covering them up, or destroying them?

[joseph sugarman]

Well, Frank, I'll tell you why my response is not a bit harsh. The original poster admits he did not have the owner's permission to be there. My inference, therefore, is he never tried to obtain it. He did not obtain the owner's permission to dig holes and apparently leave them unfilled, creating a walking hazard for others. He admits stealing property belonging to the owner in the form of artifacts. We do not yet know if they were acts of petty or grand theft as no value has been ascertained.

He claims he has made an offer of restitution, but he does not say to whom. I infer it is not the owner as I have the impression the poster still does not even know who the owner is. He claims the offer was declined, but again, not by whom.

The original poster admits to having 9 warrants of arrest in two counties; from which I infer the poster does not take care of any matter in a business like manner. Traffic tickets do not go to warrant unless there was no appearance at arraignment.

The poster then asks the forum a question about jeopard or liability of damages vis-a-vis the state without informing us what kind of complaint the state has served him with. I cannot tell if he was charged with criminal trespass or not from the information provided.

The poster then attaches some information from Black's Law Dictionary, from which I infer he is able to, at a minimum, do some legal research.

But it his second post which confirms the stance I first took. He claims he can't find the information for himself.
He wants us to do it for him. The person who can find information in Black's cannot Google, for example, 'Texas Tresspass Law' just to see what comes up. I found legal and non-legal explanations, as well as a referral to the Texas Penal Code; 30:05 in about one-tenth of a second after typing in the phrase. I did not try for the Texas Statutes, but I am reasonably sure they are there.

The poster then rationalizes his behavior by stating the land was going to be changed at some date in the future, so what's the harm.

I assume the questions you posted are for him and not me, as it should be obvious since the poster did not provide the information I would not be able to answer your questions.

I can offer this, as I have driven the I-40 corridor at least six times; driven from Amarillo to Dallas through Wichita Falls; driven from Dallas to El Paso on I-20 and I10; driven from Tulsa to Dallas on both US 75 and US69/75; spent three weeks (or a lifetime) in Midland; spent several week in and around Dallas; and flew to Houston once for several weeks. There is not much private property in those areas of Texas which are not properly fenced or marked on trees to notify against trespass. The posters remonstrations to invitation, to me, are unavailing.

Your suggestion to pay the property taxes is most probably absurd on two levels. The responsible property owner is, I am relatively certain, current on his obligations. The poster has demonstrably indicated his inalbility to follow your suggestion due to a surfeit of a lack of jack.

I then assume, in summation, you are rationalizing his behavior by equating it favorably with the behavior of lesser animals. Perhaps that is how your world works.

You are definetly the one to help him.

[joseph sugarman]

quasimodo,

Palani is you huckleberry. I set the table; you just have to serve the entree.

[joseph sugarman]

Addendum,

You (sic) your.

[palani]

Joe

Sure hope you feel better now.

Sometimes it helps to vent, doesn't it?

Now you don't have to beat the wife or kick the dog tonite. (sic)

[joseph sugarman]

I bet you think I don't pay attention. Anyway I answer your last post implies I sometimes beat the wife and kick the dog. You have to get up pretty early to get one over........wait a minute, I just answered....oh s&%t, where is that d#@m delete button. OK here it is

[palani]

Glad to hear you still have a sense of humor, Joe.


To support a previous suggestion (no legal advice given and darned little accepted):

§ 71.005. ACT OF OWNERSHIP. For the purposes of this chapter, an individual exercises a lawful act of ownership in property by, personally or through an agent, paying taxes to this state on the property.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3585, ch. 576, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

Found here
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pr.toc.htm
Under Title 6 Section 71.005

An act of ownership might also be considered to be digging a hole, albeit this is an act that the state derives no taxes from and fails to recognize.

Possession can be separated from ownership. Sheriffs do this all the time when property owners are evicted from land due to taxes owed. They are still the owners, just not in possession.

Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot (Common Law maxim)

We possess the part of the globe that we stand on. This simple necessity becomes trespass when we are told to move on and fail to do so (lacking the required tax certificate to show ownership).

quasimodo appears to have been dispossessed.