Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Deleted member 28227]

That’s the whole issue. It’s not THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS. There is no way you can physically not ENETER through the private lands geometric plane without trespassing upon that infinite point. Your trying to invalidate the Private Landowners rightful use and full enjoyment of his lands. This is the crux of the case the Prosecuting attorney will make if it goes to trial. I hope it doesn’t but it’s like Randy Newberg has stated numerous times it’s negating private property rights at their expense. Check it out here at the 14:00 mark.

Can I fly a plane over a private property?
Can I float a river when the stream bed is privately owned?

Why can't I navigate on land to a publicly owned asset?1

We go round and round on case law, private property, etc etc... but here is the deal it's all made up. The FAA minimum altitude, someone just made it up. Definition of navigable waterway, someone made it up.
In the course of human history people flip the table and change the rules all the time.
Rules are completely arbitrary. This specific view on access and trespass isn't even ubiquitous in the US, a country who's entire legal framework was designed so that we could make changes when necessary.

Point being, we could all just decide that you can cross at your best guess at the corner within a reasonable buffer of 50ft on either side, as part of a right to use a public resource.

1. https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-303-all-up-in-your-airspace

 

[Irrelevant]

So many legal scholars... I'm shocked- shocked I tell you!

 

[Schaaf]

The last house I owned had a sidewalk that circumvented the corner of my property for people to access the park. I would regularly stand on the corner and body check any children that let their bicycle handle bars hang over my property and kick the neighbor in the shins for even looking at my grass that had a little bit of clover mixed in. That was my property and in effect my park.


**I didn’t do any of that because I didn’t fetishize property rights and I don’t have a mental illness besides constantly swapping high end optics.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The last house I owned had a sidewalk that circumvented the corner of my property for people to access the park. I would regularly stand on the corner and body check any children that let their bicycle handle bars hang over my property and kick the neighbor in the shins for even looking at my grass that had a little bit of clover mixed in. That was my property and in effect my park.


**I didn’t do any of that because I didn’t fetishize property rights and I don’t have a mental illness besides constantly swapping high end optics.

Neighbor kid missed a shot and sent his ball over my fence last week.

He let himself in my yard to get it.

So naturally I pulled a gun on him.

 

[Schaaf]

Neighbor kid missed a shot and sent his ball over my fence last week.

He let himself in my yard to get it.

So naturally I pulled a gun on him.

I hope you pistol whipped the little bastard for good measure.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I hope you pistol whipped the little bastard for good measure.

His arm broke the plane of my open bathroom window, while he was waving his hands in the air wildly...

obviously constituting entering my domicile therefore making him subject to the castle doctrine.

 

[BrentD]

Neighbor kid missed a shot and sent his ball over my fence last week.

He let himself in my yard to get it.

So naturally I pulled a gun on him.

You moved to Texas,eh.

 

[BrentD]

There is only one right that the private landowner is at risk of losing. That is the right to the exclusive use of property that you and I have paid for and and pay to maintain. Nothing else is in play, Including all other rights to exclude trespassers.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don’t have a mental illness besides constantly swapping high end optics.

Admission is step one. Congratulations

 

[Addicting]

His arm broke the plane of my open bathroom window, while he was waving his hands in the air wildly...

obviously constituting entering my domicile therefore making him subject to the castle doctrine.

If this case goes in elk Mountain‘s favor I’m pretty sure you just secured yourself a job harassing hunters.

 

[utah400elk]

I think it would be funny for the Gov or state to sell those land locked sections for $1 to a state conservation group. Then the land owners would be kept from corner crossing/jumping onto their own land. If they were found on their own land locked sections they could be cited for trespassing and subject to civil trespassing. Nobody gets to use it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think it would be funny for the Gov or state to sell those land locked sections for $1 to a state conservation group. Then the land owners would be kept rom corner crossing/jumping onto their own land. If they were found on their own land locked sections they could be cited for trespassing and subject to civil trespassing. Nobody gets to use it.

In CO State Lands are not considered public lands, and there is a public process to lease state lands for exclusive use. Theoretically, I could lease the rights to these 4 sections of state land and then bar Wells Ranch from accessing their center piece of property.




I'm not sure if State lands in WY are public via statute or land board policy... but it seems like if the state wanted to get in a pissing match with land owners they could do the same thing.

 

[BuzzH]

That’s the whole issue. It’s not THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS. There is no way you can physically not ENETER through the private lands geometric plane without trespassing upon that infinite point. Your trying to invalidate the Private Landowners rightful use and full enjoyment of his lands. This is the crux of the case the Prosecuting attorney will make if it goes to trial. I hope it doesn’t but it’s like Randy Newberg has stated numerous times it’s negating private property rights at their expense. Check it out here at the 14:00 mark BTW, he quotes the 5th amendment.

You're going to have to prove to a court how crossing his "geometric plane" at a corner, stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, is causing any harm to the landowner or limiting his rightful enjoyment of his private lands. Just the same way he'd have to prove that his rightful enjoyment of his land is being violated if an airplane flies 3 feet over his land.

That's going to be a hard case to make, as it flat makes no sense. The court would/will likely determine its an absurd argument and toss it out.

The same can't be said about the publics right to enjoy their lands when elk mountain ranch pounded 2 T posts with a chain between them.

 

[4ohSick]

Theoretically, I could lease the rights to these 4 sections of state land and then bar Wells Ranch from accessing their center piece of property.

Do it! You've got momentum on your side, I'll start the GoFundMe. YOLO

 

[VikingsGuy]

You're going to have to prove to a court how crossing his "geometric plane" at a corner, stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, is causing any harm to the landowner or limiting his rightful enjoyment of his private lands. Just the same way he'd have to prove that his rightful enjoyment of his land is being violated if an airplane flies 3 feet over his land.

That's going to be a hard case to make, as it flat makes no sense. The court would/will likely determine its an absurd argument and toss it out.

The same can't be said about the publics right to enjoy their lands when elk mountain ranch pounded 2 T posts with a chain between them.

Illogical or not, the “geometry thing” has been longstanding common law. Different jurisdictions have addressed this different ways. The courts of WY (or the legislature) could (and should) absolutely reverse this overly restrictive view of property boundaries - but it is the legal starting point in many jurisdictions. Hence, I presume, the legal opinions @Big Fin references when this topic comes up.

That being said, there are a dozen different lawful and constitutional ways to fix this mess without making large payments to stubborn land owners. As I have said before on this topic, we have all the legal tools we need, but we lack a sufficient public commitment to push our legislators to fix.

 

[BuzzH]

Illogical or not, the “geometry thing” has been longstanding common law. Different jurisdictions have addressed this different ways. The courts of WY (or the legislature) could (and should) absolutely reverse this overly restrictive view of property boundaries - but it is the legal starting point in many jurisdictions. Hence, I presume, the legal opinions @Big Fin references when this topic comes up.

That being said, there are a dozen different lawful and constitutional ways to fix this mess without making large payments to stubborn land owners. As I have said before on this topic, we have all the legal tools we need, but we lack a sufficient public commitment to push our legislators to fix.

We'll see what arguments are made in court...if it gets there.

 

[JM77]

That’s the whole issue. It’s not THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS. There is no way you can physically not ENETER through the private lands geometric plane without trespassing upon that infinite point. Your trying to invalidate the Private Landowners rightful use and full enjoyment of his lands. This is the crux of the case the Prosecuting attorney will make if it goes to trial. I hope it doesn’t but it’s like Randy Newberg has stated numerous times it’s negating private property rights at their expense. Check it out here at the 14:00 mark BTW, he quotes the 5th amendment.

In what way does the momentary passing through the air space "invalidate the Private Landowners rightful use and full enjoyment of his lands." Wait ,I'll answer that: it doesn't. The deed that landowner has gives him no exclusive use of the public lands adjacent to his property. But rather than take my word, show me the case law that says it does. Or show me statute, that will work too.

Also, rather than mention Randy's misuse of the 5th Amendment, maybe read it yourself. That's a novel thought...

 

[seeth07]

In CO State Lands are not considered public lands, and there is a public process to lease state lands for exclusive use. Theoretically, I could lease the rights to these 4 sections of state land and then bar Wells Ranch from accessing their center piece of property.

View attachment 206134


I'm not sure if State lands in WY are public via statute or land board policy... but it seems like if the state wanted to get in a pissing match with land owners they could do the same thing.

View attachment 206135

As fun as your idea sounds here, I'm pretty sure it can't be done. Here is my thought without any lawyer digging or research, just a simple example of my neighbors property.

My now neighbor bought a portion of my other neighbors property. Since the property didn't have a legal road access point, there was a need during the sale to draft an easement for this new parcel from a road to the property across my other neighbors property that he didn't sell.

I'm guessing any parcel that would be landlocked such as your examples listed above have an easement across the public land from a main road or adjacent private parcel to ensure all future access to the private land.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I wonder if part of the reason land owners are against corner crossing (generalized statement) is because they are concerned about people "cutting corners" or accessing the public land in ways other than stepping exactly over the corner marker. I mean realistically, if a law was made right now saying corner crossing was legal only if you step over at the exact corner, there will be a lot of people who are too lazy to find the corner. Much easier to be "close enough." Just a thought I had. I would be concerned about this if I was a land owner.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As fun as your idea sounds here, I'm pretty sure it can't be done. Here is my thought without any lawyer digging or research, just a simple example of my neighbors property.

My now neighbor bought a portion of my other neighbors property. Since the property didn't have a legal road access point, there was a need during the sale to draft an easement for this new parcel from a road to the property across my other neighbors property that he didn't sell.

I'm guessing any parcel that would be landlocked such as your examples listed above have an easement across the public land from a main road or adjacent private parcel to ensure all future access to the private land.

I'm not aware of a sale requirement to have an access easement across public land?

Honestly I highly doubt there is, these landowners always the lesses, and in fact these properties are marketed as 10,400 acre ranches, 4000 acres "deeded", the remained is leased public. It's so engrained that it's 'their' land they market 6400 acres of public land as their own.

Now I realize grazing rights, etc etc but this language is used even when properties aren't marketed for ag use.

Even with 10MM I doubt I could get the state to lease me over the current lessee I'm sure there are provisions about adjacent land owners getting preference, etc... but point still stands. Land boards could definitely shut off access to private land using no-corner crossing rules.