Shoal Creek Tresspass Closure!

[Chief Grey Bear]

Ok, this is funny. Just as soon as I said I hadn't heard anything, I had apperantly recieved a letter in the mail yesterday from my lawyer. Here is what it says:

I have met again witht the prosecuting attorney and he has made a recommendation on your tresspass charge from last summer. He is willing to dismiss the charge against you if you voluntarily agree in the future to avoid going on Mr. Prater's property.

The prosecutor understands and argrees that there is a difference of legal opinion as to the ownership of creek property, its usage by passers-by, versus claims of property owners.

However, he is mostly concerned that there be no personal confrontation between a canoer or fisherman and a property owner that might escalate into a physical or violent confrontation where one party or the other may be hurt or worse.

If you would be in agreement to this, the can be dismissed and no further court appearance necessary.

If you want yoiur date in court about the usage of gravel bars or creek property and make it a test case, then we will have the judge set it for trial and we will have a hearing about it.

We are scheduled back on February 15th. Please le me know whether you are willing to be done with this at this time and close the file, or proceed with trial.

[Trout Commander]

:eats popcorn:

[snagged in outlet 3]

Thst's a typical tactic.

Force you hand, via your wallet.

Bummer.

[jim1]

Where do we sent the donations.

[moguy1973]

How is there a difference in legal opinion? It's a Supreme Court case that decided what is legal and what isn't...It's pretty written in stone I think...The prosecuting attorney must not be able to read...

[fishinwrench]

Obvious from his wording that he has NEVER been to trial. What you have there, Sir Chief, is a local plea bargaining douche of a lawyer that is in the habit of "working things out" with that particular prosecutor.

Oh man, I have so played that game before and it makes my blood boil. He is assuming, and banking on you not having 1500.00 at your disposal. I wish I could see his face when you say...."Thanks, I'm going to trial, but you're not.....cuz you don't know your way there"

[drew03cmc]

Umm, tough call, but court would be kind of funny, just show up with the entire case of Elder v Delcour in your hands, hand it to the judge and walk home

[Feathers and Fins]

Take it to court and get the press involved.. Press involved with the High Courts ruling will make the local DA look horrible. A judge presented with the high court ruling will be forced it would appear to side with you.. IMO

[fishinwrench]

Then again.... you CAN agree to those terms and have charges dropped, then just "not go on Praters property'.... after they tell you FOR SURE what is HIS property. which means you still have the same rights on the creek as you assumed you did, unless they can prove differently.

Not too sure that isn't the best move, way cheaper too.

[FishinCricket]

I wouldn't agree to it, you were NEVER ON HIS FRIGGIN PROPERTY!!!

What a crock of crap. I'd go to court and then counter sue for court costs and damages. Of course, it ain't MY wallet I'm talking with.