Enlighten me on corner hopping

[James Riley]

Interesting discussion of almost no practical use, so count me in. Suppose there is a corner crossing where landowner "L" owns the property on the left, and landowner "R" owns the property on the right. If I'm found on the other side it is clear I had to trespass on at least one of the properties. However, you can easily cross in a way that you only infringe on one of them. Now if both landowners are willing to bring it to trial, but I choose not to disclose which side I chose, can a judgement ($0 or otherwise) be brought against me?

First, talk about a sig line quote: "Interesting discussion of almost no practical use, so count me in." I love it. Might have to steal it.

Regarding the merits of your question, burdens are more easily shifted in civil litigation than they are in criminal trials. The Prosecutor always has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, you can be deposed, under oath, burdens can shift to you, and you don't get to claim the 5th. When put on a witness stand and grilled by a skilled attorney, you can lie or tell the truth and the finder of fact is left to decide your veracity. Once those two clowns show you trespassed, the burden shifts to you to show you did not. If you can't do that, then the finder of fact can proceed from there. In civil litigation two or more plaintiff can receive favorable judgement and then proceed against each other if they don't like the division. In the case of $0.00, the defendant has still been left to question whether it was all worth it.

 

[schmalts]

Keep in mind that the lines on your handheld GPS are GIS grade linework derived from the GCDB. They may be correct within the tolerances of your device but they may be off by hundreds and hundreds of feet.

The GCDB is basically a least-squares adjustment of a township projected and adjusted from a handful of found monuments.

Understood, but still the point is that if you and a landowner go to court, the one prosecuting has to prove he is right and you are wrong. A lot of cases get tossed because of lack of survey data. Someone still has to prove you were wrong and he was right.

 

[MTGomer]

Understood, but still the point is that if you and a landowner go to court, the one prosecuting has to prove he is right and you are wrong. A lot of cases get tossed because of lack of survey data. Someone still has to prove you were wrong and he was right.

You're absolutely right.
In fact, you might be better of crossing at a 'lost' corner.
If you cross at a monument, it can be proven where you crossed in relation to the corner.

Here's one I found, that I don't believe has been found since it was set in 1886.
The fence and GCDB was missing it by hundreds of feet.
This is tribal on all sides so the fence is just for grazing leasing but very interesting find.
See the '1/4' for quarter section corner scribed into it.

 

[MTGomer]

 

[grizzly_]

Regarding the merits of your question, burdens are more easily shifted in civil litigation than they are in criminal trials. The Prosecutor always has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, you can be deposed, under oath, burdens can shift to you, and you don't get to claim the 5th.

Not true: Butterfield v. State found privilege against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings."

Some of your other opinions are much more opinion than fact or "proof". But so are mine so we'll just have to agree to disagree that a conviction/judgement for corner crossing is as easy to win either criminally or civilly as your posts indicate. If it were that easy, it would have long ago been adjudicated and precedent would be clear.

Its been good bantering with you though. I always appreciate a respectful disagreement. Have a good one.

 

[schmalts]

View attachment 62146

What am I looking at there??

 

[MTGomer]

What am I looking at there??

A corner stone.
Many have since been replaced with the 3 inch brass caps by the BLM you've probably seen. Many very rural places have never been resurveyed though and this is What's still out there.

 

[James Riley]

Not true: Butterfield v. State found privilege against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings."

Some of your other opinions are much more opinion than fact or "proof". But so are mine so we'll just have to agree to disagree that a conviction/judgement for corner crossing is as easy to win either criminally or civilly as your posts indicate. If it were that easy, it would have long ago been adjudicated and precedent would be clear.

Its been good bantering with you though. I always appreciate a respectful disagreement. Have a good one.

Butterfield is a Texas case distinguishable on the underlying criminal case for rape. Charged with perjury, "the privilege against self-incrimination ceases [ . . .] when liability to punishment no longer exists." Thus, if a defendant in a civil case refuses to answer a question for fear of criminal prosecution, the court can protect him, with or without the aid of the DA (sealed testimony, etc.). Otherwise you would see defendants in virtually every civil action refusing to testify claiming some ephemeral fear of prosecution that has not been brought, even when there is no possibility of such a charge.

As to my arguments being opinion or fact, I can't really discern without examples. I'd say many of them are law, and unrebutted; but whatever. I can sense you tire of this. Suffice it to say, I never once argued the case would be easy. Rather, I repeatedly argued the remedy is found in the nuisance. If landowners or prosecutors wanted to pursue a case they could make your life miserable. Even if they lose, there is no precedent set saying that corner hopping is henceforth legal. They can continue to bring cases until dummies realize it's not worth it to lose your elk and time and money defending. There would have to be a case made on the law, not the facts. And that's a loser because corner hopping is not legal and can't be without condemnation and just compensation.

 

[300stw]

James you appear to have a handle on this situation and know quite a bit about property rights ect,,

how about explaining north dakota laws about accessing public property on section lines, how did it come about, how were landowners made "whole" that had property taken from them,,,

 

[James Riley]

James you appear to have a handle on this situation and know quite a bit about property rights ect,,

how about explaining north dakota laws about accessing public property on section lines, how did it come about, how were landowners made "whole" that had property taken from them,,,

I'm sorry but I honestly don't have a clue. Almost everything I've been rattling off is just hornbook law, devil's advocacy and based upon stipulated hypotheticals. I'd have to do a lot of research to give you a proper answer to your specific questions about North Dakota. Hell, I've already had two sangrias and I've been called away for a movie with the wife. I slipped up once on that grizzly point about the 5th and civil litigation. I should have addressed the judicial and/or state immunity issues in context with it. Sorry, grizzly, good point. But, as most folks have argued, the state is not gung ho on these things and I'm sure they'd stip to immunity where the parties were in civil litigation. If not, the court could protect the testimony.

Adios.

 

[BuzzH]

I would like to know why your elk would be lost. If you shoot an elk on public land, legally tag it, no law was broken in regard to the elk. Do you lose your hiking boots, backpack, or rifle for civil trespassing? I don't think so. Also judge Robert castor found in favor of a hunter who corner crossed in Albany county. This decision resulted in wyoming wardens being advised by director cleveland to not issue tickets for corner crossing (statewide).

 

[fowladdict]

What am I looking at there??

Can you see the 4 scribed to the rock?

Cool find Gomer. Being a PLS, I always enjoy coming across those.

 

[James Riley]

I would like to know why your elk would be lost. If you shoot an elk on public land, legally tag it, no law was broken in regard to the elk. Do you lose your hiking boots, backpack, or rifle for civil trespassing? I don't think so. Also judge Robert castor found in favor of a hunter who corner crossed in Albany county. This decision resulted in wyoming wardens being advised by director cleveland to not issue tickets for corner crossing (statewide).

Commercial break. First you trespass to get in. If you are caught then, you can't get the elk out. If you are not caught, then you trespass multiple times to get the elk out. Either way, the elk is evidence. You can be enjoined from eating it, lest you stip to where and when you got it.

So judge Robert Castor shit on the Constitution and Director Cleveland won't enforce the law. That is not precedent. That's a lack of integrity. I can see some Wyoming ranchers engaged in "self help." Maybe some flat tires or worse. That happens on the Comanche NG. Hey, if one asshole can get away with breaking the law, I reckon another might too. It's all in how good a criminal you are (avoid getting caught) and who you have on your side. We bitch about that all the time with respect to the powerful landowners, eh?

 

[Sytes]

Can you see the 4 scribed to the rock?

Cool find Gomer. Being a PLS, I always enjoy coming across those.

Ha! I had to look at it again and presto! The 4 stood out. That is pretty cool. Looks like a dead drop location with the Russian scribble on the picture info... Spies, I tell ya!

 

[grizzly_]

So judge Robert Castor shit on the Constitution and Director Cleveland won't enforce the law. That is not precedent. That's a lack of integrity.

That comment sounds a little Bundy-esque to me.

An alternative perception would be that a sitting Circuit Court Judge had a different interpretation of the law (or lack thereof) from your interpretation and Director Cleveland did his job by enforcing the law of the land as ruled by the Judicial Branch.

You may feel like Wyoming Legislators should explicitly make corner jumping illegal to protect the private property rights of the corner landowners, and that would be a defensible position, but that takes us back to the moral integrity argument that I made earlier.

We now have an actual example of corner jumping resulting in a finding of not-guilty. Does anybody know of an actual conviction (not a plea agreement) where corner jumping was actually adjudicated and found to be illegal? It would be interesting to compare two conflicting rulings.

 

[bishoppa]

Any body up for a game of checkers?

 

[grizzly_]

As to the question of losing your elk if you corner jump...

The Castor case mentioned above "prompted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to seek a State Attorney General opinion reviewing the agency's long-standing assumption that corner jumping is illegal.

The AG opinion released by the department said corner jumping from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt on the other public parcel does not violate Game and Fish regulations.

The opinion said corner jumping does not violate agency rules because, to be convicted, the rules require a person must hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission. Corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said."

That appears to be why Director Cleveland would not enforce game laws regarding corner jumping. Because one did not hunt, or intend to hunt, on private property... no game laws were violated. They certainly didn't issue an opinion on the legality of corner jumping, but it clarifies the question about game violations while corner jumping.

 

[James Riley]

That comment sounds a little Bundy-esque to me.

An alternative perception would be that a sitting Circuit Court Judge had a different interpretation of the law (or lack thereof) from your interpretation and Director Cleveland did his job by enforcing the law of the land as ruled by the Judicial Branch.

You may feel like Wyoming Legislators should explicitly make corner jumping illegal to protect the private property rights of the corner landowners, and that would be a defensible position, but that takes us back to the moral integrity argument that I made earlier.

We now have an actual example of corner jumping resulting in a finding of not-guilty. Does anybody know of an actual conviction (not a plea agreement) where corner jumping was actually adjudicated and found to be illegal? It would be interesting to compare two conflicting rulings.

Commercial break. We don't have the Circuit Court Judge case before us so we don't even know what the basis of his decision was. Five will get you ten he did not rule on the merits so no, you are wrong, we don't have a different interpretation of the law from mine. As to the Director, again, no; without a ruling on the merits he could not be enforcing the law of the land as ruled by the Judicial Branch. *Even if* it was not a crime, there is still the civil issue. Without private land owners present to argue that case, the Circuit Court Judge's opinion means squat in the civil arena.

And no, I don't feel like Wyoming Legislators should explicitly make it illegal. It is already explicitly illegal. Moral integrity comes in not trying to shoe-horn and exception in to the law. Rather, I feel like Wyoming Legislators should explicitly make it legal through condemnation and payment.

Finally, Does anybody know of an actual finding of not guilty where corner jumping was actually adjudicated and found to be legal? It would be interesting to read that case. Buzz?

If that is what the judge said, that corner jumping is legal, then I stand corrected as to the limited jurisdiction of that court. The failure of the prosecutor to take it up is what makes me question a ruling on the merits of our argument.

 

[James Riley]

As to the question of losing your elk if you corner jump...

The Castor case mentioned above "prompted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to seek a State Attorney General opinion reviewing the agency's long-standing assumption that corner jumping is illegal.

The AG opinion released by the department said corner jumping from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt on the other public parcel does not violate Game and Fish regulations.

The opinion said corner jumping does not violate agency rules because, to be convicted, the rules require a person must hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission. Corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said."

That appears to be why Director Cleveland would not enforce game laws regarding corner jumping. Because one did not hunt, or intend to hunt, on private property... no game laws were violated. They certainly didn't issue an opinion on the legality of corner jumping, but it clarifies the question about game violations while corner jumping.

Thank you. It makes my case. As to the elk, I addressed that above, regarding evidence/injunction.

P.S. In Colorado the P&W have general criminal enforcement authority also. Maybe they don't in Wyoming. Maybe in Wyoming they are limited to F&G laws. But if they are actual cops like they are in Colorado, and they don't enforce the criminal trespass laws, then they are as I opined above, re integrity.

 

[BuzzH]

Grizzly, that is exactly correct. Pat crank was the AG that determined there was no intent to hunt on private land in a corner crossing situation, therefore no game violation. No intent to break a game law, then there is no legal right to confiscate of otherwise impede a legal hunt on public lands accessed via corner crossing. Also, pat is currently a game and fish commissioner.