BTHPhoto wrote:

Time doesn't grant pardons.

...by Parole Board/Governor etc. whatever legal framework is in NC. Here it  is done by a separate institution - Parole Board of Canada.

291 wrote:
assholes like this deserve some similar justice.  you can provide that with very little effort on your part.

contact the county, state and federal tax agencies that you believe this person has not complied fully with filing proper tax records.  demand an audit, which is your right to do as you will be compensated a percentage for any tax owed.  tell them you believe improper tax credits are being applied for that property.

even if they don't find anything, that audit will create some living hell.

Don't act like an infant over a situation that you (seemingly) know little about.  If I was a judge and you wound up in my court because you turned a tax agency onto a person or corp out of spite, I would take you to the mat and do my best to rape you with the letter of the law.

1.)  Most people here have no idea how many times the property owner had to chase people off the property, nor how many times someone got hurt on the property.

2.)  Most people here have no idea whether or not the property owner has been sued (under his/her name or a corporate entity) over an issue that had an element of trespass as part of, or being somehow relevant to the suit.

3.)  If it was my property I would've handled it differently, however in the litigious world that we live in today I can understand others being not so understanding about people being on *their property*.

Do YOU know what his/her attorney insisted he/she do if people were found trespassing?  What about whether or not the land owner has friends who own property and have been successfully sued?  ... all of that can *reasonably* come into play on an owners attitude.

The land owner might have a little something going on around that property that he/she wants kept under wraps... So what you see as a "a big deal over nothing" might really actually be a big deal

4.)  The property owner isn't a "dick", "a-hole", "jerk" just because he/she met minimal standards and was able to successfully win in court.  If you have a problem with that, then it's the LAW that you should be cussing at.   Kinda like idiots blaming rich people for limiting their tax exposure w/in the bounds of the law.  If you don't like it... move to change it!  ... but no one is at fault in this case for using the law to their advantage.

5.)  Public property is like uncontrolled airspace in the U.S...  there almost isn't any of it anywhere if you want a rule-of-thumb.

I applaud the OP for writing such a refreshingly written straight-to-the-point post; I am also sorry that she and the others got caught up on such a situation.  I would've handled it differently most likely.  However, I am 100% behind a land owner operating within the bounds of the law, and am fully cognizant that it is my responsibility as an adult to keep my behind off of people's property.  Ignorance is honestly no excuse... especially in a case like this where it's just too easy to find out what is or isn't public property; If you can't find out in a reasonable amount of time then assume it's private.  It really is that simple

Many thanks to the OP for posting.

Best in llamaing and photography to all of you

MKPhoto wrote:

...by Parole Board/Governor etc. whatever legal framework is in NC. Here it  is done by a separate institution - Parole Board of Canada.

BTHPhoto wrote:
That's right. Criminal records are only expunged by time if you become a criminal before you become a legal adult.  Adults are expected to be accountable for their actions, so an adult who becomes a criminal is stuck with it.

You're missing the point. The question was how long before a criminal record goes away.  The answer was that time doesn't make it go away.  The mechanism for obtaining parole is irrelevant because that mechanism is not time.

B R E N N A N wrote:

Thanks! And eek, that was your 666th post

Stan is such a devil!!

NC Art Photos wrote:

You went in front of a district court judge - right?  Not a superior court judge where you could get a new jury trial.  Might cost you more, but might be worth it not to have a criminal record.

The 10 day window to appeal is over as of yesterday. Also, I couldn't get an attorney to touch an appeal for less than 5 grand (fuck. that.).

B R E N N A N wrote:
I've had a few local people see this and message me for the location information, so they don't run into the same issue. Mission accomplished.

And i see that as the main purpose of this thread.  To bring attention to your experience to your area so that others in your region can inquire about it and avoid it.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
This is all kinds of suck.

Move to LA!!  We're more forgiving of our criminals.

Actually, Los Angeles (and anywhere within 100 miles) is about the worst place to be shooting without permits.

As a result of the movie and television industry being located here, every cop, parking enforcer, park ranger, fireman, and anybody else in the LA area that has a public service job is acutely aware of zoning restrictions and the need for location shooting permits and proper insurance certificates.

BTHPhoto wrote:
If the landowner's objective is to spend his time mitigating the potential negative impacts of criminals while doing as little as possible to stop the criminal activity, then yes just kicking them of might be enough.  However if you were a landowner at risk of being sued, suffering repeated trespass and vandalism, and potentially being dropped by your insurance company, would you take the apologetic approach and do what ever you could to ensure the practice could continue?


To me, the vindictive sonsofbitches seem to be MM members who think trespass should be a right and the concept of private property should not apply to photographers.

That's what we in the human world like to call "black and white thinking."  Protecting your rights is one thing.  Calling in the law to exercise that protection is perfectly understandable.  Intent to damage in response, when clearly there was no malice in the first place, is vindictive.

They didn't go in thinking they had the right to trespass and they left immediately.  There was no need to prosecute, regardless of the fact that the owner was within his rights to do so.  This was purely out of the desire to do so, if only because it was an opportunity to use them as a scapegoat to set an example.  Perhaps in the name of self-protection, perhaps not.  But it was so much so that he went as far as to commit perjury to win the case.

That is 100% pure unadulterated vindictiveness.

/threadjack

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Actually, Los Angeles (and anywhere within 100 miles) is about the worst place to be shooting without permits.

As a result of the movie and television industry being located here, every cop, parking enforcer, park ranger, fireman, and anybody else in the LA area that has a public service job is acutely aware of zoning restrictions and the need for location shooting permits and proper insurance certificates.

Ken, you're such a camerablocker!!  Get outta here!! I'm trying to work some bidniss!!





Plus, LE has always let me go.  As long as the girls keep their clothes on.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Don't act like an infant over a situation that you (seemingly) know little about.  If I was a judge and you wound up in my court because you turned a tax agency onto a person or corp out of spite, I would take you to the mat and do my best to rape you with the letter of the law.

1.)  Most people here have no idea how many times the property owner had to chase people off the property, nor how many times someone got hurt on the property.

2.)  Most people here have no idea whether or not the property owner has been sued (under his/her name or a corporate entity) over an issue that had an element of trespass as part of, or being somehow relevant to the suit.

3.)  If it was my property I would've handled it differently, however in the litigious world that we live in today I can understand others being not so understanding about people being on *their property*.

Do YOU know what his/her attorney insisted he/she do if people were found trespassing?  What about whether or not the land owner has friends who own property and have been successfully sued?  ... all of that can *reasonably* come into play on an owners attitude.

The land owner might have a little something going on around that property that he/she wants kept under wraps... So what you see as a "a big deal over nothing" might really actually be a big deal

4.)  The property owner isn't a "dick", "a-hole", "jerk" just because he/she met minimal standards and was able to successfully win in court.  If you have a problem with that, then it's the LAW that you should be cussing at.   Kinda like idiots blaming rich people for limiting their tax exposure w/in the bounds of the law.  If you don't like it... move to change it!  ... but no one is at fault in this case for using the law to their advantage.

5.)  Public property is like uncontrolled airspace in the U.S...  there almost isn't any of it anywhere if you want a rule-of-thumb.

I applaud the OP for writing such a refreshingly written straight-to-the-point post; I am also sorry that she and the others got caught up on such a situation.  I would've handled it differently most likely.  However, I am 100% behind a land owner operating within the bounds of the law, and am fully cognizant that it is my responsibility as an adult to keep my behind off of people's property.  Ignorance is honestly no excuse... especially in a case like this where it's just too easy to find out what is or isn't public property; If you can't find out in a reasonable amount of time then assume it's private.  It really is that simple

Many thanks to the OP for posting.

Best in modeling and photography to all of you

If the property owner cared so much about people going into his land, he could have put a fucking fence up.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Hey...you should have someone go in and REMOVE signs.  Then the next day, you go there and slip and fall.  Sue them.



If you decide to do it, I'll delete this post.  Please no one quote this.

Your post wouldn't even need to be brought up actually...

I'm sure even you can see the flaw in your logic (though I'm sure you're just teasing) ... especially after she now knows with certainty that she'd be trespassing. 

What would be a wicked twist is if she tried that, but in the process, tripped, and broke her femur (compound break) in three places, and the land owner and his kids witnessed it...

... and subsequently sued HER because he and his children had to witness such an emotionally distressing event which wouldn't have happened if not for her willing 2nd trespass.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Your post wouldn't even need to be brought up actually...

I'm sure even you can see the flaw in your logic (though I'm sure you're just teasing) ... especially after she now knows with certainty that she'd be trespassing. 

What would be a wicked twist is if she tried that, but in the process, tripped, and broke her femur (compound break) in three places, and the land owner and his kids witnessed it...

... and subsequently sued HER because he and his children had to witness such an emotionally distressing event which wouldn't have happened if not for her willing 2nd trespass.

Damn you and Ken...trying to ruin my mojo!!

Brennan, pay no attention to them!!

While I'm a no body, I'm on a protected status.  No one ever really messes with me because some people think I'm really cool and a sweetheart.  The only people that don't see this is my employer as they continue to not pay me in the millions that I am probably worth.

Fashion Photographer wrote:

If the property owner cared so much about people going into his land, he could have put a fucking fence up.

I pretty much said the exact same thing a few pages ago lol. This was apparently an ongoing problem for this company, so knowing that, you would think they would gather that the bare minimum standards they had met were clearly not effective.

BTHPhoto wrote:

That's right. Criminal records are only expunged by time if you become a criminal before you become a legal adult.  Adults are expected to be accountable for their actions, so an adult who becomes a criminal is stuck with it.

Bullshit

Fashion Photographer wrote:

If the property owner cared so much about people going into his land, he could have put a fucking fence up.

Contact the property owner and volunteer to put a "fence" up (which legally means a lot of things) and the property owner might take you up on it.   Lastly, many people don't like the looks of fences, especially out in the country.  In fact, many people frown on it.

How 'bout these apples...  "If people cared enough about staying out of the "clink" or courthouse, they'd do what other reasonably intelligent adults do when it comes to discerning a piece of property and find out if it's public land... or not"

Your logic is funny...  like a person who tells his neighbors that if they don't want his offending dog pooping in their yard, THEY should pay for, and put up a fence.

Hmmm.... think about that for a bit.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
That's what we in the human world like to call "black and white thinking."  Protecting your rights is one thing.  Calling in the law to exercise that protection is perfectly understandable.  Intent to damage in response, when clearly there was no malice in the first place, is vindictive.

They didn't go in thinking they had the right to trespass and they left immediately.  There was no need to prosecute, regardless of the fact that the owner was within his rights to do so.  This was purely out of the desire to do so, if only because it was an opportunity to use them as a scapegoat to set an example.  Perhaps in the name of self-protection, perhaps not.  But it was so much so that he went as far as to commit perjury to win the case.

That is 100% pure unadulterated vindictiveness.

Enough threadjacking.  This is not why Brennan posted the thread.

You are 110% correct on that, actually. I've refrained from posting the details as to why this is, because I'm an adult or professional or something like that, but yeah, this guy had an obvious hard on for this type of thing. Note a few pages ago where I posted that he was not the property owner, but just a worker for a construction company that had bought the land. H stood nothing to gain from all of this, and missed several full days of work to "fix some damn kids."

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Damn you and Ken...trying to ruin my mojo!!

Brennan, pay no attention to them!!

While I'm a no body, I'm on a protected status.  No one ever really messes with me because some people think I'm really cool and a sweetheart.  The only people that don't see this is my employer as they continue to not pay me in the millions that I am probably worth.

I'm sure you're worth millions and I'd bet you're truly a "sweetheart" 

Star wrote:
This taught me to take cell phone photos of any location before entering and to email them to myself before entering. I would then have proof of what was and was not posted and a time stamp to prove it.

+1

Excellent call.

Star wrote:
This taught me to take cell phone photos of any location before entering and to email them to myself before entering. I would then have proof of what was and was not posted and a time stamp to prove it.

In ca I qualify for a free lawyer through an arts npo.

I have time stamped video of the location. Shown in court. Showing no signs. According to NC law though, just because you can't see them, doesn't mean that it doesn't meet the bare minimum standards for keeping people out!! *eye roll*

Cherrystone wrote:

Bullshit

Actually it seems from some NC websites that it applies only to certain group of people below 18 or 21 for minor drug stuff...Something like that. Getting a pardon does not expun...   the criminal record according to these websites.

Loren Fiedler wrote:

+1

Excellent call.

Not sufficient. I had time stamped video of the location, shown in court.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Contact the property owner and volunteer to put a "fence" up (which legally means a lot of things) and the property owner might take you up on it.   Lastly, many people don't like the looks of fences, especially out in the country.  In fact, many people frown on it.

How 'bout these apples...  "If people cared enough about staying out of the "clink" or courthouse, they'd do what other reasonably intelligent adults do when it comes to discerning a piece of property and find out if it's public land... or not"

Your logic is funny...  like a person who tells his neighbors that if they don't want his offending dog pooping in their yard, THEY should pay for, and put up a fence.

Hmmm.... think about that for a bit.

No it like telling a neighbor I am suing yu for parking on my land, after stealing their car and moving it there. They were on public property, they accidentally went a few feet onto unmarked private property. The landowner lied about what they did on the stand.

You might still have a civil case. The standards for civil actions are much lower than criminal, and if you can reasonably prove perjury by the landowner you can take him to court. Contact your local urban explorers web sites and see if anyone knows someone who wants to help.

Also I would contact the landowners insurance company and apprise them of the situation. Take photos now, from public land while being videoed by another to prove it, to show the signage is not adequate. Etc...

Gary Melton wrote:
....Think about it - if any of you owned a piece of land (even fenced it in)...and people continually came onto that property uninvited - would you just do NOTHING about it?....

There's a book I've used a few times.  I think the title is "Liability in Parks and Recreation", by Dan Kaiser.   It has numerous real life cases of land owners being sued.  It amazed me how often the cases hinged on duty owed due to the implied consent of how the property owner reacted to people on their land.

In the case the OP points out, the duty owed is between what the difference of what has traditionally been called a trespasser and invitee.  (Someone invited or allowed onto a property, but from which the land owner usually does not profit)

Another place that duty owed on land could come up that I rarely see discussed here is when a  photographer goes from shooting someone on their property for fun (hobbyist) to doing it to make money from that person.  It seems to me that difference would reflect the more traditional invitee. vs licensee duty owed to that person.  It's one reason, it may not be worth ones while to accept low rates of pay.  The relatively small amount received may not justify the increased duty owed and increased liability exposure that goes with it.

I think it's unfortunate our society is as litigious as it is, but I certainly can't blame land owners, especially higher risk land owners for reacting to the realities of that litigation risk.

Cherrystone wrote:

Bullshit

What crime, once convicted, goes away from an adult's record based on nothing other than time?

ei Total Productions wrote:

I'm sorry, enforcing property rights is one thing, criminally charging someone who thought they were on public property and who immediately left is another.  Had she put up a stink, OK.  She didn't.  She admitted her mistake and immediately left.  I thought it was excessive, but ... the property owner was within his rights.  There is clearly a risk when you do a guerilla shoot.  We all know it.

You've been around the block a few times... surely you know how many people gush out "OMG... is THIS private property?  Oh I'm soooooooo sorry we didn't know..."

Even I've heard that more than once out of the mouths of people that I knew had full knowledge that they were trespassing.

Lorayne York wrote:
thanks for this information. I frequently find myself on random bits of land. I will be more careful from now on.

Ditto!

Loren Fiedler wrote:

That's what we in the human world like to call "black and white thinking."  Protecting your rights is one thing.  Calling in the law to exercise that protection is perfectly understandable.  Intent to damage in response, when clearly there was no malice in the first place, is vindictive.

They didn't go in thinking they had the right to trespass and they left immediately.  There was no need to prosecute, regardless of the fact that the owner was within his rights to do so.  This was purely out of the desire to do so, if only because it was an opportunity to use them as a scapegoat to set an example.  Perhaps in the name of self-protection, perhaps not.  But it was so much so that he went as far as to commit perjury to win the case.

That is 100% pure unadulterated vindictiveness.

/threadjack

You're looking only at a single incident.  You have no idea how many times this has happened before, whether the owner has been sued before, whether his insurance company was prepared to drop him unless he pressed charges, whether adjacent land owners had been pressuring him to not be an avenue for trespass on their property, etc.  You may believe, based on the information provided by one party in one instance that this was vindictiveness, but that has no basis in fact.  It's simply a story you made up based on incomplete information.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

You've been around the block a few times... surely you know how many people gush out "OMG... is THIS private property?  Oh I'm soooooooo sorry we didn't know..."

Even I've heard that more than once out of the mouths of people that I knew had full knowledge that they were trespassing.

How do you know they had full knowledge? The person in this case had placed no visible signs in the location where public land met private land. Do y have signs up? If you do then you are talking apples and oranges.

BTHPhoto wrote:

You're looking only at a single incident.  You have no idea how many times this has happened before, whether the owner has been sued before, whether his insurance company was prepared to drop him unless he pressed charges, whether adjacent land owners had been pressuring him to not be an avenue for trespass on their property, etc.  You may believe, based on the information provided by one party in one instance that this was vindictiveness, but that has no basis in fact.  It's simply a story you made up based on incomplete information.

Which is more productive, lying in court or putting up proper signage?

Star wrote:

Which is more productive, lying in court or putting up proper signage?

Honestly, that's a stupid question.  The only evidence you have that anyone lied in court is a statement by the convicted defendant to that effect.  The only evidence you have that there was not proper signage is a statement by the convicted defendant that she didn't see it.  Both of those are irrelevant to the possibility of pressures from neighbors, insurance companies, past lawsuits, etc.

Star wrote:
How do you know they had full knowledge?

Star wrote:
The person in this case had placed no visible signs in the location where public land met private land.

Probably the same way you know that.

Star wrote:
No it like telling a neighbor I am suing yu for parking on my land, after stealing their car and moving it there. They were on public property, they accidentally went a few feet onto unmarked private property. The landowner lied about what they did on the stand.

You might still have a civil case. The standards for civil actions are much lower than criminal, and if you can reasonably prove perjury by the landowner you can take him to court. Contact your local urban explorers web sites and see if anyone knows someone who wants to help.

Also I would contact the landowners insurance company and apprise them of the situation. Take photos now, from public land while being videoed by another to prove it, to show the signage is not adequate. Etc...

1.  The land owner moved his land under their feet?  How many feet doesn't negate the fact that they were on his land period.

2.  "Accidentally" doesn't mean diddly. That's like a pilot claiming that he "accidentally" flew into prohibited airspace.  What's "accidentally" have anything to do with it?  Nothing is what.

3.  He said/she said... whether or not anyone "lied" isn't known.  Obviously the attorneys didn't have a shred of good evidence that perjury was being committed either.  (unless the OP has a treasure trove of info that she isn't sharing).

4.  Civil suit?  In this case?  Dream on!  ... and the "damage" would be what?  I don't think there's any money in the case even if the guy did lie.   Look how much innocent people put in prison for 40 years get in monetary compensation... so how much do you think she'd get in this case, best case scenario?

Cost to appeal/or bring civil suit subtracted from best case compensation... Hmmm... 

.... my point exactly

Star wrote:

Which is more productive, lying in court or putting up proper signage?

Holy shit, Star, I actually agree with you for once

Or, what is more productive: putting up proper signage, or having to waste day after day in court serving as a witness in BS trespassing charges?