Jackson Jambalaya

pushing someone isn't likely to cause serious bodily harm. (c) doesn't apply to pushing someone. there is case law that says pain or some articulable bodily injury is necessary to establish simple assault. (c) applies to, for example, threatening someone with a deadly weapon, but not actually using same.

I know. Was being sarcastic. Probably wasn't clear.

Can't say I'm surprised, even though I personally think Burwell did it. The earlier report indicated that this wasn't a slam dunk. Clerk's story appeared to be shaky, and I think there needs to be solid proof before a conviction.

That having been said, where there's smoke, there's fire. Burwell's comments about "owning the water" reveal him to be an arrogant jerk who does not deserve the privilege afforded him by the PRVWSD, even if he is meeting his payments.

One thing is absolutely iron clad. We will NEVER see Hotel Valencia built, let alone get a chance to ride water taxis across the RBR to it. If Mr. Burwell cares to counter that assertion, maybe he can update us on the progress of a project a decade in the planning that hasn't seen the first brick laid.

Burwell?? Don't be shy to comment on this subject.

I'm not Burwell, but this is what he and his dipshit attorney/office mate would tell you concerning the development of Harborwalk..."Have you ever tried to obtain $25 mil in development funding? It ain't the easiest thing to do in the world." Duh...

And then they mix another drink...

The ruling is bullshit and so is the first comment above. Pushing someone who is infirm while he's standing on a rockbank, putting him in iminent danger of falling down the rip rap rock bank and into the water is damned sure about to cause 'articulable bodily injury'. Detaining someone against his will and threatening to whip his ass is also.

Of course the ruling doesn't address whether the bully owns the water, and I don't know of anybody who thought it would, other than the manager of the reservoir who told me 'our attorney advises the lease holder does own the water in and around the boat slips but the judge will address that'.

There is much bullshit surrounding this whole story on several levels. Burwell. The attorney. The judge. The reservoir authority.

I suggest that the next JJ reaader who meets the good judge out & about in public should give him a medium-sized shove in the chest -- not enough to knock him over, just back a step or two -- and then grin and say "no harm, no foul, eh, Your Honor?"

Then let us know how that turns out, once you're out on bail.

What's that judge's name again?

There was also a poster on this site a few days ago (over on the older Burwell thread), who, posting of course as 'anonymous' who claimed to have seen and read a number of leases or deeds that give the lessor or deed holder ownership and exclusive right to the water adjoining his leased or deeded property. That's total bullshit. I posted the ruling of the MDWFP (who to a great degree controls and polices non private waters in this state) which was that such waters are public and no claim can be laid to ownership.

I'm sure there are hundreds of fisherpersons out there who are anxious to challenge the bully Burwell. I suggest Mr. B. stick to imagining high rises that will never become a reality.

Shadowfax, I've asked you before and I'll ask you again, is Shadowfax an old family name or is it just another way of saying "anonymous"? If, in fact, it is your given name, my apologies. If not, why not drop the snide implication that someone else using "anonymous" is somehow less courageous than you.

Shadowfax was Gandalf's horse in The Lord of the Rings. Just a friendly, geeky FYI.

I don't recall seeing that question axed before, nor would it matter if I did. I use it largely so someone can, if they choose to, track my posts and at least tie one to the other for consistency or inconsistency, as it were. When a hundred people post as 'anon', there's no way to do that. At least by using a monicker, one serves the purpose just suggested. JJ also posts as anon when he choses to do that. Or has no one else noticed?

Here, by the way, is the comment provided by the state Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks regarding water within the state that is not priately held.

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

Thanks, Reed. That at least clears up where the moniker came from. Of course, I'm not really sure that I would name myself after a beast that gets ridden by others.
Shadow. I can understand that you would want people to know that whoever is posting, it's the one that posted earlier under that nom de plume. But, please, don't dog someone else for posting as "anonymous" until you reveal who it is that you are. I do find your posting entertaining, and sometimes, educational. Perhaps someday we can get together and pop a cork, or have a draught.

" Shadowfax was Gandalf's horse in The Lord of the Rings. "

Hey , thanks 5: 17 PM . I was thinking that "Shadowfax " was the name of one Doctor Doolittle's
talking animals that couldn't even say good morning without including at least two or three "Bullshits" in their greetings.

Let's discuss the facts of this case, shall we? Or is there no continuing interest in the fact that:

1) Burwell is an out of control bully.

2) The reservoir authority does not know what it's own rules are. Nor do they understand the law. nor do they, according to their own staatements, intend to post signs restricting fishing in those waters.

3) The judge in this case totally misapplied an inaccurate definition of assault.

I'm always open to the prospect of a draught. Perhaps we can meet at Burwell's trailer for refreshments.

BTW; when perusing the list of available screen names (provided by the moderator for a price), I chose Shadowfax over Dirty Rotten Bastard because the former seemed a bit more gentle and a bit less condemning. Additionally, Shadowfax has a long standing special meaning to me, while totally unrelated to farm animals or imaginary beasts. Sounds as if the Harry Potter crowd has found this site.

You earned an extra bag of oats, Shadowfax.

The first post is spot on. Merely pushing someone, so long as it doesn't cause bodily injury or pain, will not qualify as assault. All the victim has to do is testify that he suffered pain and the "bodily injury" part will be met.

As for subsection (c), first the affidavit has to allege this. It appears from the Court's ruling that it was not alleged. An affidavit, like an indictment, has to advise the defendant of the exact statute (and subsection) under which he is charged. If it was charged, the Court would have to hear testimony from the victim that he was in fear of serious bodily injury. Note, it's not just "bodily injury". This is usually accomplished by showing the defendant had a weapon of some sorts OR if the defendant is a larger individual (think big man v. little woman).

I can't say whether Judge McCarley got it right or not but if the defendant was charged under subsection (a) and there was no "bodily injury" then there was no criminal assault. Now, let's talk CIVIL assault...

Shadow,
Concur with points 1, 2, and 3. Don't want to have to deal with a manic Burwell, since he must own the asphalt around the trailer and the air that surrounds it, so I guess the trailer is out.
As for the name, condemning of whom? Seems more self-effacing to me, and maybe my grandchildren are into Harry Potter, but it sounds more like you are of the Frodo crowd.

Dirty-Rotten; I'm of no crowd, preferring typically the journey of solitude on the roads less traveled ~ bejeweled, gnarled walking stick in hand, crushing the skulls of usurpers and ne'er-do-wells. You might know, however, Shadowfax, as created in 'The Rings', could not be ridden by anyone (save one person he allowed), was the fastest horse on the planet, could understand what humans were saying (except on this site) and had a gleaming set of balls, coveted by many yet accessible to none.

I suggested that to call oneself a bastard is, at the very least, self-condemning. Self effacing, on the other hand, is modest. retiring behavior, which, if in your bag of tricks, eludes me. Peace Brother and .... pop a top.

hahahahahahahaha

Whoever said 'the first post is spot on' is not only wearing out a tired phrase, he's totally ignorant of the law.

I know I'm the only one on here who is NOT a lawyer, although some shingles appear to be imaginary; but.....

"At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

The essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm."