Harborwalk developer John Burwell appeared in Ridgeland Municipal Court before Judge Hal McCurley to defend himself against simple assault charges on July 19. Jackson resident J.T. Clerk, 55 years old, filed the charges against Mr. Burwell after a confrontation between the two at Main Harbor on the evening of April 26, 2011.
Dressed in a dark blue blazer, Mr. Clerk testified he had been fishing in a spot in Main Harbor for 22 years and at times took his sons. Mr. Clerk said he got there between 7:30 and 8:00 PM and was alone but for two other people fishing on the bank. Both sides agreed an employee of Mr. Burwell's drove up and told them no fishing was allowed. Mr. Clerk testified he said "ok" but then his line got caught in the rocks and he worked for fifteen minutes to clear his line so he could leave. He said he then "broke my line and started carrying stuff to my truck. It took two to three trips. On the last trip a white Escalade drove up."
The following is Mr. Clerk's testimony:
Burwell "You dumb s.o.b., can you read?" and then said "you're a dumb s.o.b., you can't read. You need to learn a lesson."
Clerk: "You'd do better if you got along with people. I'm gonna leave."
Burwell: "You can't leave until I say you can leave".
Clerk: "I could smell liquor. This man was highly intoxicated. He shoved me three times. He went to his truck, opened the door and repeated, "you can't leave until I say you can leave."
Mr. Clerk testified he stopped when a man sitting in a nearby car said "that's enough, John." Mr. Clerk admitted "I never saw a gun" and that "after he shove me, he got on my truck and started opening my stuff. He got up on the bed and said 'this shit, you come up here to get this shit? I got in my truck after he got down and left." Mr. Clerk testified he was a diabetic and has nerve damage in some of his limbs.
Dana Kelly represented Mr. Burwell and subjected Mr. Clerk to a cross-examination that was contentious, colorful, but at times effective. Mr. Kelly first challenged Mr. Clerk's assertion he was "blocked in" by Mr. Burwell's truck. Mr. Clerk first said he could not remember if or when the truck was moved and then "his truck was in front of me." Mr. Kelly then held up a sign, 18" X 18" or so that said "No trespassing" in red and white letters and then told Mr. Clerk "You ignored this sign". The complainant admitted he ignored the sign. Kelly then comically tried to use the fact Mr. Clerk earlier sat on a bench that had a sign "reserved for attorneys' in the courtroom to show Mr. Clerk shows a pattern of disregarding posted signs. Everyone but the judge almost laughed Mr. Kelly out of court on that trick.
However, Mr. Kelly then challenged Mr. Clerk's assertion that he tried to leave within fifteen minutes after he was told to leave. Mr. Kelly used phone records to show 45 minutes passed between when he was told to leave and when Mr. Burwell appeared. Mr. Kelly stated the other fishermen left and didn't have a problem and said "You were there for 45 minutes and only left because you were forced to leave." The attorney requested dismissal but was overruled by the Judge. Mr. Clerk was again forced to admit he never saw a gun although he said he thought Mr. Burwell was making a "gun break" when he went to his truck.
Mr. Clerk stepped down and Mr. Burwell assumed the stand. He said there were 25 "No trespassing signs" posted and that "reluctantly posted them" after having problems such as trash and debris left by fishermen. He stated his employee twice told Mr. Clerk to leave and Mr. Clerk was standing on the rocks with a fishing pole when he arrived. He said he was not in the parking lot by his truck and he wanted to argue. Mr. Burwell, who appeared to be in a jovial mood before the hearing started, said "I should have called Ridgeland Police. Its hard for me to imagine someone wants to ignore a sign. I never moved my car. You couldn't block in an 18-wheeler in that parking lot." He later said "I think its kinder not to call the police."
Mr. Burwell heatedly stated "I never touched him." Mr. Burwell was asked if he had exclusive rights to the property. Mr. Burwell strongly replied "I own the property. I own the water." Mr. Burwell later reiterated his point near the end of his testimony: "I don't claim they are my property, they are." Mr. Burwell stated he paid $647,000 to the PRVWSD on July 2 as well as $170,000 in ad valorem taxes and $700,000 in sales taxes. He disputed Prosecutor Boty McDonald's contention his leases allowed people to fish even when Mr. McDonald pulled out a copy of the lease and said the leases granted the public access to Main Harbour. The prosecutor pointed to another section of the lease and claimed it allowed people to fish as well.
Lamar LeBlanc testified after Mr. Burwell. Mr. Leblanc was fishing on the bank when Mr. Burwell's employee told him to leave. He stated he told Mr. Clerk "let's leave, we really are not supposed to be here." Mr. LeBlanc rents a houseboat in Main Harbour. Jim Timmons testified last. He observed the exchange from his vehicle and said it grew heated at times. He stated Clerk said "I've been fishing here for 15 years" and he never saw the defendant push Mr. Clerk. He said he lives out of his car and Mr. Burwell lets him park his car in the parking lot at night.
Judge McCurley said he would issue a ruling on August 1.
35 comments:
burwell owns the water too!! what a joke!
This is one shady character. Despite his belligerence, he no more owns the water than Ross Barnett's heirs. He only holds a lease on the land and has done a less than stellar job at that. His management of Main Harbor and his false promises of Harborwalk are a disgrace. I don't care that he's paid up with the PRVWSD. He has an obligation to the public which includes access to the water (which he doesn't own) and a responsibility to keep his area presentable. The PRVWSD needs to make him clean up that disgraceful plot of land, from the old Boat Works building to the rusting metal beams strewn about. He has not proven himself to be a good steward of the public property with which he has been entrusted. The fact that he spews foul-mouthed insults at a fisherman only makes him more execrable in my estimation.
I only wish that I had been this fisherman! I've never met Burwell, never have I seen him. I don't agree with trespassing. However, Burwell had no right to climb into or upon the man's truck and question the ownership of the contents. Calling the fisherman a son of a bitch is reason enough for the judge to admonish and fine this arrogant son of a bitch.
Hearing testimony from a man who admittedly 'lives in his car' as 'allowed by Burwell' is a hoot.
Burwell seems to fancy himself one important son of a bitch; however, unless the PRVWSD authorities post signs advising the public that the water in the harbor is privately leased, anybody is at liberty to fish it by accessing it from the reservoir.
Any body of water in this state that is accessible from a public right of way or publicly accessed ramp or private property accessible to the public can be freely fished or boated upon by any member of the public, sons of bitches notwithstanding.
Was he under oath when he claimed he owned the land and the water? Is that perjury?
If property is posted
"NO TRESPASSING" then that means
no trespassing.
Clearly, Mr Clerk didn't think
it applied to him. Talk about arrogance.
If I were Burwell, I'd be pissed too.
Hey Shadow - I also wish YOU had been that fisherman - you probably would not have lied about me climbing into the back of that truck in flipflops - My problem is with trash and liability - I have been here 7 years and have never met a fisherman who litters - Oh and by the way I have never seen a fish throw a beer can on the bank - have a nice day - john burwell
So, John @3:25, what did you really do to get him off of your lease? Because you know you can't resort to self-help, right? And had you been drinking or not? And, more importantly, when are we going to see some construction out there on your lease? And do you know the difference between a lessee and an owner in fee simple?
John: Admit it. You were intoxicated and you're an arrogant asshole. If you have solid evidence of this man (the one who sued you) littering, throwing beer cans on the premises, bring it forward. Or counter sue him for trespass. Get the man who lives in his car to be your witness, and bring forward that man's written permission to be there without trespassing. However, this lawsuit is neither about trespassing nor littering. As you know, it's about assault. And as you surely know, since you own the land and the water (and probably the air), beer cans can wash up overnight from six miles out. Flip Flops?
I just wanna know when is the Dock coming back?
Anon - NEVER - per RPD, Res Patrol, Madison Sheriffs Dept. and ME - and by the way get over it
John at 3:25. Unless you hurry up and get something started there your legacy for the rest of your life will be "The guy who screwed up Main Harbor."
Ah, give it another 10 years, probably will resemble the area around Lake Hico around there anyway ~sigh~
FYI, the Judge's name is "McCarley," not McCurley.
Mr. Burwell; disagreements like yours are unfortunate. We have two sides to the story and the court will decide credibility, I suppose, or maybe not. I remember once being told by a landowner at Lake Washington that he owned the lake out to the middle of the lake. That was inaccurate according to DWFP and county court. He also said not to hang lines in the cypress trees near 'his' bank because his dog didn't like them. He lost that one too.
I drove out there and saw the so called 20 inch no trespass signs at the area you lease. No doubt the area is posted. I'm left wondering why you did not simply call the constabulary when it was apparent that the man was not going to leave after the passage of 30-45 minutes. Then there would have been no disagreement nor confrontation.
I believe you did call the man an S.O.B. and probably told him he could leave when you said he could leave, as you weren't through dressing him down yet. I don't know his race but assume he is black and also assume you lorded yourself and your perceived position over him.
I saw quite a few houseboats and other watercraft there and it's unclear to me who might be littering. And if people are 'living out of their car' with your permission, I'm of the opinion that such transient folk might not be above littering themselves.
As I said, this was unfortunate and it's my guess both of you were to blame for the confrontation and fallout. You would come across as a much better citizen if you would simply say, we were both at fault and I should not have told him 'I own the water too'.
At least that would affect MY personal opinion of you, not that that matters to you. Regards.
This Burwell guy seems to me to be a real dumbass. He should be building good will with the community and thanking his stars he's still got his lease -- which expressly provides he is to maintain the public's access to the water. Instead he's running off fishermen.
Now if there were a bunch of classy condos surrounding Main Harbor and a mixed use development, then maybe he could restrict fishing to a few designated places, but as it is? As he's left it? Seems to me he's got no political or business sense. Someone needs to send his sorry ass packing.
dead piece of property...open space to allow a man to fish off the bank / rocks...is it that big a deal? You allow a man to live in is car around unprotected boats...but a man cant fish off the bank...I have never met a fisherman hurt anyone...flips or not.
Let this same mr Clerk stumble and fall into the water and drown and you would have 'one call, that's all' sue Mr Burwell for millions because he didnt run him off.
OK, my thoughts on the hearing. Mr. Clerk made his points but there were holes in his story. They were able to get him to change his statement about how long he was out there after he was told to leave.
Fact is, there are no trespassing signs and he was told to leave twice. The other people that left didn't have a problem. Even though Mr. Kelly engaged in cheap theatrics at times, the fact is Mr. Burwell had two witnesses and one of them testified Mr. Burwell never touched Mr. Clerk. Frankly, I'm not sure who I believe. I have a feeling Mr. Clerk ignored the signs and stayed out there as long as he wanted to stay out there. He testified he has nerve damage to his limbs so it may indeed take him a while to clear a line that gets caught. However at some point, you're told to leave, just friggin' leave.
I can see the Judge going either way on this one.
Which side of the No Trespassing sign do you think the judge will come down on. I dont see where the dispute is.
He could put up signs that say "Burwell's a friggin' genius" but that don't make it so. I wonder about his authority to post or enforce those "no trespassing" signs considering his obligations under the lease to keep the area open to the public. God, I hate a bully.
What some of you seem to be overlooking is the fact that this is not a 'trespass case'. It's an assault case. The trespass signs in this case are largely irrelevant. Even assuming their relevance, for a moment, posting them does not allow one to assault others.
Confrontational intimidation along with calling one an asshole and restricting their movement equals assault and kidnapping, according to some statutes.
Kingfish is no final authority, although his opinion is appreciated. What we have here is a failure to communicate, along with an intoxicated bully and a witness who is obviously in the bully's pocket.
By the way, Fish, the homeless witness did not testify that Burwell 'never touched' the complainant. He testified that he did not see him do so. That would be my testimony too if I were allowed to bunk there, rent free, in my back seat and pee off the rocks for a daily toilet. Maybe he's Burwell's construction superintendent.
I conducted some business with Mr. Burwell in the past and I can tell you that he came across to me as a Shyster... Obviously, I am not the only one that thought that, by evidence of a serious lack of investors. He needs to turn the lease over to someone that will actually do something constructive with it. Or turn it back over to the public.
Like I said, at a recent PERS Investment Committee meeting I attended, they were all laughing when someone mentioned Harborwalk as a investment for the real estate portfolio. And yes, the person making the remark was joking too.
speaking of real estate, where are all my waterfront property owners? When you own a lot that is on the water (having a 99 year lease is just as much ownership as a warranty deed or even 16th section land) that lot does go into the water. or even if you own riverfront property you own the land under the water not the water. These are just old common law practices that have not been changed.
Shadowfax is correct: Nothing in the world prevented Mr. Burwell's swearing out a trespassing affidavit against Mr. Clerk.
Caveat: I have no idea whether he did or not. But if so, I would think the two cases would have been consolidated.
I'm cool with him paying rent and nothing getting done. That area needs to be undeveloped. Traffic there is already insane. He'll never build anything there unless PRV lets him build cheap apartments for the Jacksonians to turn into slums. Let him keep paying the rent for a few more years and then try to escape going to prison for fraud.
Anon 10:42. Can you provide any legal backup for your (incorrect) assumption that property rights extend into a body of water?
Anon 4:25 - who exactly has been defrauded ? Its people like you who don't know the facts that confuses people.
I talked to the Game and Fish and they assured me the public can fish any body of water in Mississippi if they access it from a public ramp, private-pay ramp or other public access. How can he say you can't fish there. There is no sign posted by the rez people stating this if it's a rule.
I fish up in that area all the time but not from the land side. I come in by the condos and fish around the piers and slips. I don't think he owns that too. Or does he?
The road to hell and the new road to the reservoir development were paved with good intentions. I don't think either equates to fraud.
hey shadowfax do you have any proof that property rights do not extend into a body of water. i have several surveys from lakefront property and riverfront property that i own that would enlighten my incorrect facts. FYI: you are a turd.
Will someone please give Burwell a large dose of STFU, pref his attorney?
Anonymous July 28 @12:45. The only proof I have is a written confirmation notice dated last week from the State Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. Who provided information for you that contradicts that authority? I'm left wondering if maybe Tim Johnson's personal engineer did your survey? I will see if I can find the memo referenced in this post and add it below. Hold on, Genius.
Here Tiz. Good luck with your hollow claim that you own the water beyond your land.
In a message dated 7/28/2011 8:40:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, dennisr@mdwfp.state.ms.us writes:
Thank you for your comment. This situation is increasing in the Delta oxbows and other lakes in the state where the land surrounding the lake is entirely in private ownership.The landowners are not giving permission for the public to cross their land and access the lake for fishing, boating and hunting. Hunting leases have become more common on these waters.
If the lake is a natural water body or one that was once connnected to a river or stream (an oxbow lake)we --- the MDWFP--- consider it public water. If you can legally gain access to it through a public ramp, fee ramp or road right of way, no one can claim that they own the water. The state owns the water for use by all citizens.
Dennis Riecke
Fisheries
Post a Comment