Subject: Re: Timber theft
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:52:52 EDT
From: PYESON@aol.com
To: sanborns-trees@wi.rr.com

Our case was heard over eight days & over two months -- the judge let the
jury go home for a month and then resumed the trial. Of course, the jury
forgot the previous month's testimony. Even the judge could not recall his
own rulings.

Our certified arborists testified as to the replacement costs ($25,000) --
not timber market value since we were not willing sellers and the trees were
not grown for market. The trees lined a historic wagon trail, part of an old
plantation's transportation system and held more historic/aesthetic value
than monetary.

Additionally, the judge refused to allow the jury to hear the instructions
regarding the treble damage statute. Therefore, the jury believed we wanted
a recovery of half the monies received for the sale of the trees, which the
defendant's claim was $2,600. (No one understood that amount was only
allegeded/never proven and even if true, would have been representative only
of their portion of the sale. The rest of the money went to the consultant,
the logger and the mill.)

We were awarded $1,300 for damages that should have been $75,000 under the
treble damage statute.

Believing the jury to be completely confused as to the purpose of the
litigation (which was to recover actual and punitive damages as well as have
a declaratory judgment with respect to our private property rights) our
attorney immediately moved for a new trial. The judge has yet to sign the
paperwork -- now almost a year passed -- so we can appeal the judgment. The
judge has since been rated by our state legislature as 'deficient' and forced
to retire the bench June 30, 2001. We don't know what judge, if any, will
ever sign the motion so we can move for an appeal.

Oh, by the way, when the clerk read the award decision, the defendant's stood
up, clapping and cheering. They didn't seem to understand they were found
guilty of timber theft; their open response was that they had confused the
judge and the jury such that it didn't cost them nearly what the law allowed.
Who says crime doesn't pay?

I'm curious.
Are you sorry you asked?
Or simply looking for a way to beat a rap?

J.

Reply to post by John Paul Sanborn, on April 23, 2001 at 18:20:42:

Subject:Re: Timber theft
Date:Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:42:45 EDT
From:PYESON@aol.com
To:sanborns-trees@wi.rr.com

sanborns-trees@wi.rr.com writes:

I am a concerned proffessional who was hoping that it would ahve turned
out at least partialy in yuor favor.

Have you tried to contact any legislartors? Media?

Would a letter campaigne from my industry help?

Actually, when and if we ever get the opportunity to consider the appeal,
several groups have inquired about joining the appeal by filing a friend of
the court (amicus) brief. They see this case as one of self preservation, as
they should. So, yes! Your industry's involvement would be most helpful in
creating public awareness of the significant losses sustained by timber
theft.

Additionally, any media awareness that can be made in these issues also helps
to heighten the public awareness. Certainly this case, while unfortunately
not unique, is somewhat unusual under the circumstances I've described. Any
media contacts you may have -- either within your industry or outside the
industry, can't hurt and may help.

Legislation is slow in such cases, I have found. But, as the case unfolds
and additional media attention is given to it, that will help to build an
even bigger soapbox on which to stand for reforming existing timber laws.
Then, and only then, will legislators likely be interested in considering it.
After everyone else is on a bandwagon.

All a matter of timing...

Thanks for your inquiry.
Any further comments are encouraged and welcome.
J.

Reply to post by John Paul Sanborn, on April 23, 2001 at 18:21:16:

Timber Trespass on recreational site.

Loggers came through customer's property, removed 5 large pines and damaged the hardwoods left standing. skidded logs taken from next lot through area, disturbing soil thoroughly, and across stream, reulting in heavy siltation. Previous use as a shaded woodland hiking\exploring area for family now unusable.
Trying to apply COC to restore area to former use. Costs far exceed real estate value so "reasonableness' issue looms large here.
How vital a consideration is reasonableness in this kind of case?
Also owners are deprived of use/enjoyment for a long time. How to appraise that loss, or is that outside the scope of COC?
this case is in NC not SC. how to avoid results of SC case?