Wrongful arrest options

[CdwJava]

Sounds like a bunch of people behaving in a childish manner and playing some possible brinkmanship. This would not be an organization I would want to continue being a part of.

Unless you can show that this guy is demeaning you and KNOWS there is no imminent arrest, you likely have no real case.

If you call the prosecutor's office they may or may not talk to you about it ... they might tell you if they have sought a warrant, they might not.

But, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but out here you do NOT generally go to the DA without first going to the police. And in either event, the police or the DA's office will talk to or attempt to talk to the suspect before they doing anything. So, if the authorities have not spoken to you and you are not in hiding, then I think the guy's full of it - he's either lying or mistaken.

 

[justalayman]

E=theland;2691404]The issue is trespass, which can be criminal or civil.

absolutely but generally if the police are involved, they are dealing with the criminal aspect of it. If only a civil trespass, the guy would be relegated to suing you in court.

You are one of the owners of a C corp which owns land. You own a house on the property that comes with a license granting non exclusive use and enjoyment 'unless the company needs the land for another purpose.' The company's Articles of Incorporation require a super majority vote for significant actions including things like sales, leases, dividends, and "the disposition of any real property."

Wow, my personal net worth just skyrocketed. How much am I worth now?


So, how does this LLC claim control of the property owned by the C corp?

If the LLC can claim control of the property, this could be a criminal issue. I just haven't figured out how the LLC can claim control of property owned by the C corp. (I suspect you are of the same mind).

So, to the false arrest situation. If the police acted in good faith that there was reason to believe their actions were proper, you have no action against them. They are not expected to litigate your situation in order to determine which of you is correct. They will act on what they are presented as long as it is reasonable. If nothing else, they may take an action on the premise it is correct and if/when it is determined there was no criminal act, the charges would rightfully be dropped. This does not give a cause of action against the police or courts though.

Your action, if any (and that is stressed strongly), is against the LLC as they are who made the complaint and claimed the legal control of the property which has caused you to suffer the criminal actions.

So, as I see it, if the LLC is believed, this is a criminal action. The question is: do they have the legal control of the property in question so as to be able to lodge a criminal complaint.

 

[theland]

Sounds like a bunch of people behaving in a childish manner and playing some possible brinkmanship. This would not be an organization I would want to continue being a part of.

Yes and yes, but it's about the land, not the people.

So, how does this LLC claim control of the property owned by the C corp?

The Company grants the LLC exclusive use of the land. The agreement says the company, not the LLC, is responsible for trespass issues. The company can't overturn articles of incorporation or license agreements by creating a wholy owned entity and saying it can.

If the LLC can claim control of the property, this could be a criminal issue. I just haven't figured out how the LLC can claim control of property owned by the C corp.

The LLC is owned 100% by the C corp.

Your action, if any (and that is stressed strongly), is against the LLC as they are who made the complaint and claimed the legal control of the property which has caused you to suffer the criminal actions.

Most likely the complaint comes from the company. That shouldn't matter since creating an LLC is not a way to ingnore license agreements or Articles of Incorporation.

So, as I see it, if the LLC is believed, this is a criminal action. The question is: do they have the legal control of the property in question so as to be able to lodge a criminal complaint.

An owner can obviously make a trespass complaint, so can a landlord or a tennent and one can't over rule the other. The definition of trespasser is a person on private property without the express permission of the owner/agent/tennent. My standing to make a trespass complaint would come from being a license holder (tennent). I'm saying only a supermajority approval of shareholders can dispose of the property in a way that prohibits my non exclusive use and enjoyment. But why is the prosecutor getting involved?

 

[justalayman]

The LLC is owned 100% by the C corp.

right, not the other way around. the c corp's property does not come under control of the llc simply by creating an llc.

Most likely the complaint comes from the company. That shouldn't matter since creating an LLC is not a way to ingnore license agreements or Articles of Incorporation

the company, or a person acting on behalf of the company is the only entity that would have the right to make a complaint. No individual has the right to make a complaint because it is not their property but my point was; you most likely have no action against the police or courts. Your action would be against the LLC.

An owner can obviously make a trespass complaint, so can a landlord or a tennent and one can't over rule the other.

the C corp is the owner. The claim is the LLC has assumed the position as rightfully in control of the property so they are who can make a complaint. Any person has to make the complaint on behalf of the rightful owner or controlling entity of the property. No individual would have a right to make a complaint.

Each entity often has their status of being able to express control over the other entities. It is based in the specifics of any given case. In this case, if the LLC does in fact have control as the members of the LLC state, their rights would supersede all others. The pecking order would have to be determined to be able to figure out who has what rights.

My standing to make a trespass complaint would come from being a license holder (tennent).

You would have no right to make a trespass complaint as a person or as a tenant. As a person, you own nothing nor have any rights. As a tenant with non-exclusive rights, you have the rights to use, not control

. I'm saying only a supermajority approval of shareholders can dispose of the property in a way that prohibits my non exclusive use and enjoyment.

that is something apparently yet to be decided. Obviously there are others that believe your position in incorrect.

. But why is the prosecutor getting involved?

I suspect because he believes the LLC members claim that they have exclusive rights of control and have lodged a trespass complaint with the police against you. In order to defeat such a charge, you will have to prove that the LLC does not have the right to control they claim.

 

[theland]

the company, or a person acting on behalf of the company is the only entity that would have the right to make a complaint.

The Michigan trespass law reads, an action can be brought by the owner or 'his or her lessee or agent." A person with a "license" granting use and enjoyment should be the same as someone with a "lease". I would argue there may be some differences between a lease and a license but not when it comes to trespass. Otherwise an indifferent or hostile owner could subvert the license by not allowing the tennant to protect his privacy, security, etc.

you most likely have no action against the police.

Given standard of evidence those actions have to be few to none.

Each entity often has their status of being able to express control over the other entities. It is based in the specifics of any given case. In this case, if the LLC does in fact have control as the members of the LLC state, their rights would supersede all others.

The license holder argues that the LLC does not have exclusive use because that is a disposition that hasn't been approved by a supermajority of shareholders.

The pecking order would have to be determined to be able to figure out who has what rights. that is something apparently yet to be decided. Obviously there are others that believe your position in incorrect.

Should the prosecutor give the benefit of the doubt to the 6 month old LLC or to the license holder of 40 years when deciding if the matter is civil or criminal?

I suspect because he (the prosecutor) believes the LLC members claim that they have exclusive rights of control and have lodged a trespass complaint with the police against you. In order to defeat such a charge, you will have to prove that the LLC does not have the right to control they claim.

In a criminal action isn't the burden of proof always on the accuser to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If the license holder appeared in criminal court on trespass he would freely admit to going on the restricted land and has a right to do that that can't be taken by less than a super majority of shareholders. Then jury would then have to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt about the meaning of language in company Articles and a license agreement. That screams for a civil court and a judge rather than a criminal court and a jury. The prosecutor should understand that better than me.

 

[justalayman]

theland;2691532]The Michigan trespass law reads, an action can be brought by the owner or 'his or her lessee or agent." A person with a "license" granting use and enjoyment should be the same as someone with a "lease". I would argue there may be some differences between a lease and a license but not when it comes to trespass.

what you continue to miss; there is no universal set of rights afforded a licensee or lessee. The persons rights are determined by the contracts and facts of the situation.

Otherwise an indifferent or hostile owner could subvert the license by not allowing the tennant to protect his privacy, security, etc.

and there are situations that that could legitimately happen.

Given standard of evidence those actions have to be few to none.

No idea what you mean by this.

The license holder argues that the LLC does not have exclusive use because that is a disposition that hasn't been approved by a supermajority of shareholders.

and the LLC argues th opposite. As I said before, this is something you and the other within these corporations will have to settle. The criminal courts are not going to do it for you.

Should the prosecutor give the benefit of the doubt to the 6 month old LLC or to the license holder of 40 years when deciding if the matter is civil or criminal?

they should give the benefit of the doubt to the one that appears to be correct. The length of time is meaningless. You could have 100 year old rights that become inferior to some rights that are instituted today

.In a criminal action isn't the burden of proof always on the accuser to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

No. It is the States duty to do so.

If the license holder appeared in criminal court on trespass he would freely admit to going on the restricted land and has a right to do that that can't be taken by less than a super majority of shareholders.

well, there you have a problem. A statement is not proof. You will have to prove you are correct and the LLC does not have the authority they claim.

Then jury would then have to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt about the meaning of language in company Articles and a license agreement.

No, that is not the duty of the courts. They are not going to decide for you who trumps whom. They will simply decide if there is enough evidence to support the States argument.

That screams for a civil court and a judge rather than a criminal court and a jury.

There is both here. The problem is; you apparently refuse to litigate this matter in civil court and one of the parties is claiming superior rights to yours and they have accused you of criminal trespass. So now it comes down to whether you can provide reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor should understand that better than me.

I'm sure the prosecutor understands it quite well. It is you that appears to not understand it.

simply put;

the LLC has filed a claim of trespass against you through the criminal courts. Apparently their claim of rights and control has been supported to a great enough extent the prosecutor accepts their claim to their rights.

You will have to provide enough evidence to show there is a reasonable doubt they have those rights which will translate into a reasonable doubt of your guilt of the crime charged. Like it or not, you are behind the 8 ball on this one.

 

[dave33]

To answer your question. If you were arrested than options for a wrongful arrest stay open regardless of what happens in the later court proceedings. Also if the state decides to drop the charges than you cannot insist otherwise.Gdlck.

 

[CJane]

The issue is trespass, which can be criminal or civil. Why is the prosecutor involving himself in this?

You are one of the owners of a C corp which owns land. You own a house on the property that comes with a license granting non exclusive use and enjoyment 'unless the company needs the land for another purpose.' The company's Articles of Incorporation require a super majority vote for significant actions including things like sales, leases, dividends, and "the disposition of any real property."

Doesn't the bold clause make all of the other arguments pretty moot? The "other purpose" that the company needs the land for, is to allow the LLC to use the land. Therefore the license that grants non-exclusive use and enjoyment is over-ridden by the 'unless' clause.

They didn't sell, lease, divide or dispose of property, they simply reallocated it's use to an LLC that happens to be wholly owned by the parent company (C-Corp).

And around here - it rises to criminal trespass when you choose to ignore a formal notification that you are or will be trespassing on specific property. You stated that you decided to ignore their notification - and therefore you knowingly and willfully trespassed upon the property when your license to do so had been essentially revoked.

 

[theland]

Doesn't the bold clause make all of the other arguments pretty moot? The "other purpose" that the company needs the land for, is to allow the LLC to use the land. Therefore the license that grants non-exclusive use and enjoyment is over-ridden by the 'unless' clause.

Is "another purpose" a limitation on the company's discretion? If the answer is yes then what is that limitation? Hunting is a recreational activity that can and does coexist with other recreational activities on millions of acres of public and private land. If "another purpose" can be anything then the company could start a Hiking Club LLC and grant it exclusive use of the land for the remaining 9 months of the year. Then they accept themselves as members and decline to accept the minority owners as members until they are more obediant to the majority's wishes.

They didn't sell, lease, divide or dispose of property, they simply reallocated it's use to an LLC that happens to be wholly owned by the parent company (C-Corp).

If they had leased the land directly to individuals and granted them exclusive use would we agree that is a disposition? They attempt to accomplish the identical purpose by creating a wholly owned LLC and claiming it has the authority to do what the company does not.

And around here - it rises to criminal trespass when you choose to ignore a formal notification that you are or will be trespassing on specific property. You stated that you decided to ignore their notification - and therefore you knowingly and willfully trespassed upon the property when your license to do so had been essentially revoked.

Licenses are not so easily revoked. There is a process. The opinions of my fellow owners/license holders is one kind of "official". A warning from law enforcement is something else altogether. My fellow owners would like to get their way by criminalizing a civil dispute.

 

[justalayman]

.Licenses are not so easily revoked. There is a process. The opinions of my fellow owners/license holders is one kind of "official". A warning from law enforcement is something else altogether. My fellow owners would like to get their way by criminalizing a civil dispute.

and they followed any process that would have been required (as long as they do have the right to control the property as they claim). They told you to stay off. That is all it takes to revoke your license to enter.

While I do not know who is in the right in this matter, if the LLC is, you have committed a crime. The civil dispute is what it takes to determine who actually has the right of control. The criminal action is when you broke a criminal law by entering the property once you have been given notice to not enter. So, if the LLC is correct, you have committed a crime and it would be proper to prosecute you as such.