RobG
Well-known member
Thanks. Juras scored quite a bit more votes than Sandifer. This election will take some work to educate everyone about the stream access issue.
MT Supreme Court Election
- Thread starter SixPoint
- Start date
I have met Juras's husband through work a few times and he seems like a good guy. Their kid is a great guy. If it wasn't for you folks I just would have done the friendly small town thing and voted for the familiar face. (You should never do that)
Thanks for this.
Thanks for this.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Juras talks about stream access...
http://northernag.net/AGNews/Opinio...ess-Law-Is-Settled.aspx#.V4pyo6o659A.facebook
If it is settled then it sure seems funny that PLWA and others are continually fighting to defend it in MT's highest court.
http://northernag.net/AGNews/Opinio...ess-Law-Is-Settled.aspx#.V4pyo6o659A.facebook
If it is settled then it sure seems funny that PLWA and others are continually fighting to defend it in MT's highest court.
katqanna
Well-known member
"The courts do not have the authority to make any significant changes to existing law – that authority is reserved to the legislature under the Montana constitution. So don’t be fooled by those who are yelling wolf that the public’s right to use waterways for recreation is somehow in jeopardy -- that’s a distraction from the real issues surrounding the upcoming elections for the Montana Supreme Court."
Yes, don't be fooled. Juras states, "Current law in Montana safeguards the public’s right to use surface waters for recreational purposes while protecting the rights of riparian landowners. And only the legislature (not the courts) can change the current laws. "
Juras wrote on page 58, "Although the early Montana courts and legislature strongly protected riparian rights (1) by extending riparian ownership to the low-water mark of navigable waters and to the middle of non-navigable waters, and (2) by affirming the riparian owner's right to exclude the public's use of privately-owned stream beds, these rights have progressively eroded. The first erosion was slight (and, in view of Montana's affinity for fishing, caused little controversy) -the adoption in 1933 of the "angler's statute" allowing fishermen to enter onto the banks of navigable rivers between the low- and high-water marks for purposes of fishing. The second erosion was monumental-the expansion of the public trust doctrine to allow public use of both navigable and non-navigable stream beds for recreational use."
"Current law" is key here, you can change "current law" through the legislature. In 1985, HB 265 was introduced to codify the Curren and Hildreth decisions. This was the "monumental erosion" Juras referenced. It passed. Immediately afterward in June, Kristin Juras uncle, Jack Galt, one of our Montana senators that vehemently opposed the bill, along with his wife and 8 other landowners, petitioned the Montana First Judicial District Court to declare the new stream access statutes unconstitutional. The Court upheld the bulk of the law, but granted the petitioners that situations like temporary duck blinds or big game hunting or camping were a taking and thus restricted.
Laws can and do change, depending on those voted into the legislature and their agendas. And the make up of the courts that interpret law is equally just as important.
I looked into the genealogy Kristen Gustafson Juras, after reading an article she wrote concerning the Galts. She is the daughter of Patricia Galt, sister to William Wylie and Jack Galt. The Galts are huge campaign donors to her run for our Montana Supreme Court. On pages 50, 51 of the law review linked above, Stop the Beach Renourishment Stops Private Beach Owners' Right To Exclude the Public, she addresses her uncle's lawsuit, Galt vs State, as challenging the constitutionality of the Montana Recreational Use of Streams Act.
Interestingly, when you listen to the MT Supreme Court hearing that was held here in Bozeman, which involved James Cox Kennedy's attorney arguing against PLWA in the Seyler Lane/Bridge case, which was just recently won, you hear Judge Laurie McKinnon (her dark money investigation controversy) ask Kennedy's attorney a question, like opening a door for the takings discussion. He thanks her, then proceeds to bring up the "Stop the Beach Renourishment Stops Private Beach Owners' Right To Exclude the Public" case to defend theirs. I don't feel that was a coincidence, I feel it was orchestrated.
So while Juras may state the law is settled, I feel she is tipping her hand to an agenda when she points out "current law."
Yes, don't be fooled. Juras states, "Current law in Montana safeguards the public’s right to use surface waters for recreational purposes while protecting the rights of riparian landowners. And only the legislature (not the courts) can change the current laws. "
Juras wrote on page 58, "Although the early Montana courts and legislature strongly protected riparian rights (1) by extending riparian ownership to the low-water mark of navigable waters and to the middle of non-navigable waters, and (2) by affirming the riparian owner's right to exclude the public's use of privately-owned stream beds, these rights have progressively eroded. The first erosion was slight (and, in view of Montana's affinity for fishing, caused little controversy) -the adoption in 1933 of the "angler's statute" allowing fishermen to enter onto the banks of navigable rivers between the low- and high-water marks for purposes of fishing. The second erosion was monumental-the expansion of the public trust doctrine to allow public use of both navigable and non-navigable stream beds for recreational use."
"Current law" is key here, you can change "current law" through the legislature. In 1985, HB 265 was introduced to codify the Curren and Hildreth decisions. This was the "monumental erosion" Juras referenced. It passed. Immediately afterward in June, Kristin Juras uncle, Jack Galt, one of our Montana senators that vehemently opposed the bill, along with his wife and 8 other landowners, petitioned the Montana First Judicial District Court to declare the new stream access statutes unconstitutional. The Court upheld the bulk of the law, but granted the petitioners that situations like temporary duck blinds or big game hunting or camping were a taking and thus restricted.
Laws can and do change, depending on those voted into the legislature and their agendas. And the make up of the courts that interpret law is equally just as important.
I looked into the genealogy Kristen Gustafson Juras, after reading an article she wrote concerning the Galts. She is the daughter of Patricia Galt, sister to William Wylie and Jack Galt. The Galts are huge campaign donors to her run for our Montana Supreme Court. On pages 50, 51 of the law review linked above, Stop the Beach Renourishment Stops Private Beach Owners' Right To Exclude the Public, she addresses her uncle's lawsuit, Galt vs State, as challenging the constitutionality of the Montana Recreational Use of Streams Act.
Interestingly, when you listen to the MT Supreme Court hearing that was held here in Bozeman, which involved James Cox Kennedy's attorney arguing against PLWA in the Seyler Lane/Bridge case, which was just recently won, you hear Judge Laurie McKinnon (her dark money investigation controversy) ask Kennedy's attorney a question, like opening a door for the takings discussion. He thanks her, then proceeds to bring up the "Stop the Beach Renourishment Stops Private Beach Owners' Right To Exclude the Public" case to defend theirs. I don't feel that was a coincidence, I feel it was orchestrated.
So while Juras may state the law is settled, I feel she is tipping her hand to an agenda when she points out "current law."
Kat is correct. If the Legislature passes, and a governor signs, an anti-access bill, it would go to the Supreme Court when litigation gets filed. Having more seats on the court who would side against our Constitution and against access is what they are after.
Courts can also reverse decisions, while rare. Enough seats, and enough lawsuits, could get us to where other states are, like New Mexico or Utah, where we lose our access.
Throw in long-standing decisions like Sackman and Rathbone which hold our wildlife as a public resource, managed by the public trust, and you have a recipe for turning Montana in to Texas as it relates to access, wildlife and our ability to hunt & fish.
Remember always that the same people supporting Juras are the ones working dilligently to kill programs like Habitat Montana, steal Governor's tag money, end the future fisheries, etc. They don't want to share.
Courts can also reverse decisions, while rare. Enough seats, and enough lawsuits, could get us to where other states are, like New Mexico or Utah, where we lose our access.
Throw in long-standing decisions like Sackman and Rathbone which hold our wildlife as a public resource, managed by the public trust, and you have a recipe for turning Montana in to Texas as it relates to access, wildlife and our ability to hunt & fish.
Remember always that the same people supporting Juras are the ones working dilligently to kill programs like Habitat Montana, steal Governor's tag money, end the future fisheries, etc. They don't want to share.
2ski
Well-known member
Well, since I believe Jack Galt has passed away in '07,(http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_bca7bdab-48c4-553d-83ed-e1626e2baa74.html) which is prior to Bullock coming into office, and as far as I know, it is his son Errol that runs the ranch, I'm going with "No". It was not Jack Galt that flew him over.
I got to meet Jack Galt when I was a little kid and on a tour of the Capital with my family. The Galt ranch was the place I shot my second antelope when I was a kid. When I was in college, I talked to Jack on the phone once looking for permission to hunt antelope on his ranch. He was very pleasant and friendly. He told me that I needed to contact Errol for permission as he was running the ranch. Calls to Errol were unsuccessful as everytime I called I got a signal that they were on the internet(these were days when we all had dial-up). A few years ago I went to go hunt antelope in the area and stopped by the shack where they have someone living to help with the outfitting of their land. He was so very nice, it totally disarmed me. I was invited in to share his dinner, which I declined, but we talked for at least an hour. I wasn't able to hunt their place because they outfitted it, but I walked away not caring because I was treated so kindly. It's my understanding that last year they were in Block Management. They were a ranch you could hunt the shoulder season.
I recently watched a tv show with two good friends fishing together. I think it was that Anthony Bordain show. They were on opposite sides of the stream access law. One was a Galt.
So my point in all of this is to remind everyone that the Galts aren't evil people. My interactions with the Galts or people that worked for the Galts have been very nice. Sometimes its too easy to vilify people that don't agree with us. Its really one of the major things wrong in American politics these days. Jack Galt came from a time when you didn't hate the people across the isle from you. My grandfather was in government at the same time. He was a republican. He socialized with democrats. He and my grandmother actually went to dinner with someone that he was running against. Who does that now. I usually wouldn't say anything, but it seemed like some of the comments were almost ready to start vilifying the Galts. Vilify the Koch brothers all you want. They do some shady stuff with their dark money.
If she is a Galt, then I have no doubt that she's a good person, but not on the side of this law of someone I want to vote for. I voted for Dirk.
katqanna
Well-known member
2ski, Errol Galt is Jack Galt's son, sorry if I wasn't clear on referencing the same ranch, same family. As to the personal character of the Galt's, I don't even know them and have not addressed their personal character.
I am addressing their political actions and ideologies, especially in relation to public trust matters. Read the Stop the Beach paper and tell me if the Juras apple fell far from the Galt tree concerning their views of landowner rights vs the public trust doctrine? I ordered a copy of Jack Galt's lawsuit against the State/FWP where he challenged the constitutionality of Stream Access, as well as the full history for HB 265 codifying Curren & Hildreth, and Galt's SB 435, which thankfully died. I am into documents and details, follow my nose (intuition).
This is the thing, when you look at bills, public statements on bills made, and Galt was very vocal against Stream Access, as well as voting records; when you read Juras' review of MT's stream access and that lawsuit, paying close attention to vocabulary chosen; when you see the Mountain States Legal Foundation director Pat Davison, also against the public trust, make a run for MT governor in 2003; when you see the dark money behind another MT supreme court judge and her voting record on public trust issues; these and many other pieces involved in the political game, I personally, see a threat that could become manifest if the anti public trust GOP stars were to align, so to speak (not saying all GOP are anti public trust, I know some who do support the public trust). And the MT Supreme Court is a crucial piece in this scenario.
This has nothing to do with whether a person is nice or not. It does have everything to do with the future security of the public trust doctrine in Montana.
I am addressing their political actions and ideologies, especially in relation to public trust matters. Read the Stop the Beach paper and tell me if the Juras apple fell far from the Galt tree concerning their views of landowner rights vs the public trust doctrine? I ordered a copy of Jack Galt's lawsuit against the State/FWP where he challenged the constitutionality of Stream Access, as well as the full history for HB 265 codifying Curren & Hildreth, and Galt's SB 435, which thankfully died. I am into documents and details, follow my nose (intuition).
This is the thing, when you look at bills, public statements on bills made, and Galt was very vocal against Stream Access, as well as voting records; when you read Juras' review of MT's stream access and that lawsuit, paying close attention to vocabulary chosen; when you see the Mountain States Legal Foundation director Pat Davison, also against the public trust, make a run for MT governor in 2003; when you see the dark money behind another MT supreme court judge and her voting record on public trust issues; these and many other pieces involved in the political game, I personally, see a threat that could become manifest if the anti public trust GOP stars were to align, so to speak (not saying all GOP are anti public trust, I know some who do support the public trust). And the MT Supreme Court is a crucial piece in this scenario.
This has nothing to do with whether a person is nice or not. It does have everything to do with the future security of the public trust doctrine in Montana.
2ski
Well-known member
I re-read the thread. Somewhere in reading it yesterday, I had the impression that a few posters were borderline calling out the Galts. I don't know where I got that as I don't get that now. Sometimes the mood you are in from reading something else leads your interpretation of something else you read. My apologies. I totally get that the supporters she has are shady, the dark money ect. I guess I need to not read college football fan forums before I read hunting forums. It puts my defenses up and gets me started in an argumentative mood.
.280 Remington
New member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 285
There's an awful lot of chicken little in this thread.
I interpret Juras's statements re: "the law is settled" to mean that she will follow stare decisis and uphold the legislature's current law allowing stream access.
As far as the article katquanna keeps throwing up, use of the term "erosion" is consistent with the analysis of the article. The article was written looking at property rights, not public access. I don't think you can assume her position based on that wording.
I interpret Juras's statements re: "the law is settled" to mean that she will follow stare decisis and uphold the legislature's current law allowing stream access.
As far as the article katquanna keeps throwing up, use of the term "erosion" is consistent with the analysis of the article. The article was written looking at property rights, not public access. I don't think you can assume her position based on that wording.
Rob Allen
Member
We need to keep the court constitutionally friendly and law and order friendly. Montana's is the only state I am aware of that comes close to following federal law. Throughout the US the law should be simply this.
if the river can be floated in a boat it is legally navigable for title purpose and if it is Navigable for title purpose then it and the land under it up to the normal high water mark is held in trust by the state for public use.
what we need is to reign in the other 49 rogue states who have taken pubic property and given it to private individuals. Following federal law is stream access friendly.
katqanna
Well-known member
Interview with Kristen Juras
Montana Supreme Court candidate profile: Kristen Juras
Again, when Juras states, "Current law in Montana safeguards the public’s right to use surface waters for recreational purposes while protecting the rights of riparian landowners. And only the legislature (not the courts) can change the current laws," she is not advocating for public access, just stating the fact of what current law is, but she has also stated that can change and lays out the process, which we constantly see during our legislative sessions, the attempt towards more privatization. This is why I pissed off Sen. John Brendan, so much that he had a wee fit during last Septembers EQC meeting, when I pointed out that special interest politics was dominating the legislature to the point the public need to fight back with ballot initiatives to bypass that road block, bringing up corner crossing and fines against private landowners that illegally block public access, something the majority of the public could get behind and would pass, becoming law.
I just got my Sen. Galt's lawsuit and the documents from the law library (over 1000 pages) on HB 265 and SB 435, involving stream access and Galt's bill of prior landowner permission. So my next week will be weeding through all this to see the positions and comments submitted, especially any by the Galts, Gustafsons or Juras as ranch/landowners.
Montana Supreme Court candidate profile: Kristen Juras
Again, when Juras states, "Current law in Montana safeguards the public’s right to use surface waters for recreational purposes while protecting the rights of riparian landowners. And only the legislature (not the courts) can change the current laws," she is not advocating for public access, just stating the fact of what current law is, but she has also stated that can change and lays out the process, which we constantly see during our legislative sessions, the attempt towards more privatization. This is why I pissed off Sen. John Brendan, so much that he had a wee fit during last Septembers EQC meeting, when I pointed out that special interest politics was dominating the legislature to the point the public need to fight back with ballot initiatives to bypass that road block, bringing up corner crossing and fines against private landowners that illegally block public access, something the majority of the public could get behind and would pass, becoming law.
I just got my Sen. Galt's lawsuit and the documents from the law library (over 1000 pages) on HB 265 and SB 435, involving stream access and Galt's bill of prior landowner permission. So my next week will be weeding through all this to see the positions and comments submitted, especially any by the Galts, Gustafsons or Juras as ranch/landowners.
katqanna
Well-known member
Juras, Sandefur trade jabs on same-sex marriage, stream access
I stumbled across a Youtube video the other day on Juras and her stream access quotes and the Galts statements. It has been removed. It looked like it was an ad that ran. I may be able to track it down. They were filmed making the statements, looked like out at the ranch, it wasn't something with just a written quote on stream access.
I stumbled across a Youtube video the other day on Juras and her stream access quotes and the Galts statements. It has been removed. It looked like it was an ad that ran. I may be able to track it down. They were filmed making the statements, looked like out at the ranch, it wasn't something with just a written quote on stream access.
If it's settled, why are the anti-stream access people trying to buy the seat?
katqanna
Well-known member
I was just talking to the Sanderfur campaign and Dirk Sanderfur will be here in Bozeman for a televised debate Oct. 13th, later that evening he is going to holding a meet and greet at the Nova Cafe from 5-7 PM, if anyone from this area is interested in meeting him.
312 E Main St, Bozeman
312 E Main St, Bozeman
