View Single Post
Old 03-09-2011, 11:44 AM   #83
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
I would argue that the state intervention benefits noone let alone .0001%.

There is no arguement that private landowners own that stretch of SSB and the owners did not "license, invite, or privilege" Phil's presence.

Under that definition, a person does not transgress when he enters or stays in a place open at the time to the public, unless he is specifically warned not to enter or remain. The fact that some portions of the premises were open to the public, including the defendant, does not mean that he has a privilege with reference to closed-off portions.

Phils and the state's argument is that the waterway should not be closed-off they do not dispute ownership.

That is why it's a simple trespass case.

Said firmly from my armchair.

RE Deshatt: I don't know anyone that wants to defend rights or privileges they currently enjoy in a court of law. Actually that would be unwise, said politely.
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote