Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Attorney Collins responded to questions from the Board of whether the Sheriff's <br />attorney has different views (from the County Attorney) on this matter. <br />James Harpring, General Counsel, IRC Sheriff's Office, reported that the Sheriff <br />has had to litigate a couple of issues in regard to this matter: First, dealing with whether or not <br />they should be required to enforce public access rights on whether or not it is a public road, and <br />in the alternative, defending a Writ of Mandamus, (filed by Mr. Mensing) requesting the Circuit <br />Court to require the Sheriff's Office to issue a trespass warning against Mr. Kirrie in regards to <br />the property. He said the Sheriff's interest is only in resolving the issue as to who actually has a <br />proprietary interest in this, because they are obligated at some level to enforce the laws, <br />especially since the history of this is not particularly clear as to possessory ownership. He said <br />the Sheriff's Office would follow the lead of what the Board accepts, and would enforce the law <br />accordingly. <br />Vice Chairman Davis asked if the Sheriff was agreeable to the Board passing the <br />resolution, and Attorney Harpring reiterated that the Sheriff did not have an interest in it, and <br />would proceed in accordance with the Board's decision. <br />Mr. C.N. Kirrie addressed several points: He talked about ownership of certain <br />lots and strips of land in the subject area, sale of land to the Kirchoffs, and access to properties. <br />He gave a history of ownership including purchase and sale of the subject property, and stated <br />that this is an issue that would resolve a lot of problems at one time. A couple years ago, he <br />recognized that his request for abandonment was out -of -place, because that roadway should be a <br />public roadway (providing emergency access and access to the internal lots), and he did not <br />continue with the request. He argued that it is simply an issue of clearing the matter and what he <br />felt was a necessary second access to a large parcel. He thereafter invited questions from the <br />Board. <br />15 <br />April 22, 2008 <br />