The Cellar - Man Arrested for Trespassing on Own Property

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Man Arrested for Trespassing on Own Property (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21557)

Man Arrested for Trespassing on Own Property

He will never win this fight...

Quote:

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 that wasn’t his intention.

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.

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.

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.”

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/eve...icle/id/153801

They should have just shot him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 614849)

They should have just shot him.

See what happens when the Liberals take over... :headshake

I guess he could have legally shot them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 614852)

See what happens when the Liberals take over... :headshake

I thought that's how conservatives solve all their conflicts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 614863)

I thought that's how conservatives solve all their conflicts.

If that were the case you would have been gone a long time ago. :lol2:

joking!

I've reconsidered. He should have just shot them.

Just goes to show how business is hand in pocket with the government. If you're a little guy, one or both will roll right over you. :eyebrow:

Dude belongs in jail.

He shows up with a gun* to argue with a business partner after the judge ruled against him in the contract dispute. If he didn't want the pipeline on his property, he shouldn't have sold them those rights 60 years ago.

*Doesn't actually say he had a gun, but he was out hunting, so you do the math.

Quote:

That original easement said future pipes laid along the same route would require payments in advance.

Quote:

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.

The company tried to change the rules on the original agreement from 1949. Sounds fishy to me.

Yes. There was a dispute. A court resolved the dispute. Guy was upset. Took matters into his own hands. Goes to jail.

Tell me if I am reading this wrong. Jerry E., the father, signed the agreement in 1949, and the company tried to pay him but he refused.

The man arrested was Jeremy E., the son, who owns property next to his father's. He did not sign any agreement (at least not described in this excerpt). Therefore any agreement previously made, payments previously made, would only affect the father's property, not the son's.

Eminent domain is a bitch, but at least he ought to get some compensation for being wrongfully arrested and be reimbursed for the impounding of his ATV.

I think Kelo vs. New London says it's not his at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 614863)

I thought that's how conservatives solve all their conflicts.

See, Spexx, there's your problem. The only thoughts you can think about conservatives are stupid ones like the above. Even if you're just joking, your mentality is such that you think this is funny. I call that ball Low and Unenlightened.

Your failure to "get" the conservatives demonstrates how carefully stupid you must remain to remain well to the left -- and how wilfully you insist on that. And you want to call me a moron?? You haven't the standing.

Not being into staying stupid, I am a non-Leftist, and I urge the same for you. I know it keeps me happier than you. It's not like genuine ratiocination is a drug on the market.

Sr signed the 1949 agreement, and that agreement was expanded in 2002.
What the fuck were they doing on Jr's land?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 614862)

I guess he could have legally shot them.

He should have taken out a shotgun and given them until the count of 10 to get off his property, and called the police himself. They have no right to an easement on his property unless he agrees to the compensation being offered. We're not talking about eminent domain either. And if they laid pipe down while he was in jail, he should take a backhoe to it.

The judge who reviewed the facts in the case said you are wrong, Radar. He initially sided with the landowner, but then when presented with the evidence, ruled against the landowner. Imma trust a judge who was actually in a position to review the legal documents and evidence in the case.

He initially sided with the landowner, but then when presented with the money/political pressure, ruled against the landowner.:eyebrow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 615014)

Sr signed the 1949 agreement, and that agreement was expanded in 2002.
What the fuck were they doing on Jr's land?

I assumed jr inherited some of the land with the easement on it - and that the disagreement started in 2002 because he/they didn't agree to any expansion of the easement.

Agreed that's one possibility, but I don't see any clarification in the article.
The internet better get on the damn stick, and clear this up. :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 615065)

I assumed jr inherited some of the land with the easement on it - and that the disagreement started in 2002 because he/they didn't agree to any expansion of the easement.

That was my assumtion as well. The gas thing in PA is going to bring this up again and again. Once you allow that first easement, you've opened the door to broader interpretation.