MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

Buzz do you have your crayons out your yet? State, County and local officials are always going to support the land-owner. Taxes paid speaks volumes along with side payments. This case is going down that road. I maybe wrong, however allot is on the line and you seem to me that you are the one in charge? Good luck, glad I'm not in your position. I still firmly believe this case is at the wrong level.
9e07de09445ec1fe93940b7ff341ff3b.jpg
 
I was going to explain...but I'm fresh out of crayons.
You know, its quite interesting that you make this comment. Literally over the weekend, I was talking with some family and I brought this case up as a discussion point with them and there was a 11 year old girl listening in. As a result, I felt I had to try and break this down so simple for a little girl to understand and in doing so, it really made me realize actually how simple this can and should be solved. Here is how I did it:

I think just about everyone in this nation can agree that if I own a piece of land, you cannot physically walk on my land unless I give you permission. In other words, by owning a piece of land, I, in general as a principle, own that piece of dirt and can pick and choose who can enter upon it directly.

I think it also is pretty much agreed on that with this piece of property, I, in general, as the owner of that property cannot tell or dictate what happens on my neighbors property. The simple reason being that the owner of that property has his rights to it just like I do mine.

These two statements are pretty black and white and while sure there can be some things that cloud it a little bit, it in general is pretty well accepted and defines what it means to own property and establish what is trespassing.

So I then asked the little girl this question:
Do you think it would be acceptable for me to take my hand and reach over the visible line between your pretend piece of property and my pretend piece of property?

Her answer was "no, because that's my property and what if I don't like you?"

A lot of talk and debate then ensued and I think its a perfect example of why this issue isn't so clear. However, I think it could be very easy to settle by just having the US federal government, via legislation or the SCOTUS simply answer the question "Is it considered a trespass and violation of property rights if a person passes any part of their body through the vertical space above the physical dirt surface of a property owner?"
 
all hat and no cattle (not comparable)

  1. (US, idiomatic) Full of big talk but lacking action, power, or substance; pretentious.
The implication is that "cattle" is equivalent to action, power, or substance. A hat and cattle rancher get's things done.

In Wyoming, you currently aren't a real rancher unless you 'sue the chit outta those a-holes'.

Expression stands, motion denied.

Objection!

I thought being a real rancher was owning 6 acres and sharing pictures of Rip from Yellowstone with shitty quotes about loyalty and shyt, on Facebook!
 
My apologies, I thought you were trying to describe this:
Corner crossing
Hunting/tags/permits
Sage grouse
Sheep
Water
...

Seems like the stables have been cleared out of horse is all I'm trying to say
 
For the sake of contextualization, please recall that this is a dispute between two NON-Residents of Wyoming. The nonresident-landowner, Fred Eshelman, is a resident of North Carolina. Wyoming residents might not appreciate some of the negative mischaracterizations on this page, however harmless the intent.

Again, if you haven't already, I strongly suggest listening to the podcast by R. Newberg as it drips with nuance and generous amounts of wisdom given through self-awareness and empathy to all involved.
 
I believe there has now been a motion to have all future land disputes settled by 11 year old girls…can we get a second?

Hear hear!

Here are possible outcomes when 11yo girls settle their disputes:

1. They end up forming an alliance and gang up on a random third party, most likely a teenage boy so we're all safe;
2. Stop talking to eachother for ever; and/or
3. Girl fight, lots of hair pulling, never makes it to court.
 
Who's the bigger turd in this case? The landowner, or the Carbon County DA?
Is Her decision to have these guys charged based on the belief she is doing what's best for the residents of Carbon County?
I don't know much about the case, but I'll wager it has a lot to do with the landowner's money and political influence.
 
Back
Top