BuzzH
Well-known member
Cross that bridge when/if it happens.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If the hunters (residents of another state) have a claim against the ranch owner or employees in an amount greater than $75,000 they can make a counterclaim that in its own right would survive in fed court even with the owner dropping his claim. Of course depending on the specifics of the counter claim - all the issues we wish to be settled may not be on the table at that point.
RobG
Well-known member
For @wllm1313 and others...
FAR 91.119
Note part (c), "... over open water or sparsely populated areas" the "aircraft may not be operated closer to 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." There is no mention of private property so you could interpret that as being able to use the airspace regardless of ownership as long as you aren't endangering life or property. However, lawyers make their living interpreting things in novel ways.
FAR 91.119
Note part (c), "... over open water or sparsely populated areas" the "aircraft may not be operated closer to 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." There is no mention of private property so you could interpret that as being able to use the airspace regardless of ownership as long as you aren't endangering life or property. However, lawyers make their living interpreting things in novel ways.
RobG
Well-known member
The FAA guide to low flying aircraft indicates helicopters have more flexibility. (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...re/media/FAA_Guide_to_Low-Flying_Aircraft.pdf)
I post this, but in my opinion it is tangential and somewhat irrelevant because I think the real question that needs to be answered is whether or not a landowner can erect a barrier to block access.
I post this, but in my opinion it is tangential and somewhat irrelevant because I think the real question that needs to be answered is whether or not a landowner can erect a barrier to block access.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
It's nice to see this kicked up to the federal level. I am assuming that is a good thing. We can always get one of these new tethered products to assist in our corner crossings.
The emotional distress, mental duress, trauma and anxiety, （wink…..wink)
caused by the ordeal and the physical injury of that barricade at the corner causing hip, back, nerve and lasting pain and suffering alone would be millions. Hell, those hunters will likely own that entire ranch and then some after this ordeal is all said and done. Maybe then they can open it all up to the Access Yes program.
BAKPAKR
Well-known member
I was looking at OnX today and realized that my birthing parent owns some property (A) that corners with national forest (B). If I ever decide to hunt there, I had better research corner crossing in Idaho.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Civil assault for the harassment. Would be an easy claim to add if WY tort law includes that claim.The emotional distress, mental duress, trauma and anxiety, （wink…..wink)
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,038
Did I miss the article about the past lawsuits?
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 816
The State Court hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for April 8.
Would be interesting to know how that played out?
Would be interesting to know how that played out?
It starts April 14th as I understand it, likely a 2 day bench trial
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 486
I’ve never understood this; It’s 100% lawful to fly a powered parachute with no minimum altitude restrictions - as long as you aren’t flying over large groups of people. But without that device on your back you can’t penetrate the airspace of private property with a part of your body in the minds of some individuals.
Addicting
Well-known member
Any update?
Prosecuting attorney already whining about the video of the rich land baron which was obtained through his own Court admin. In trial today, likely take 2 days at least, if not more as now he’s whining about a tainted jury pool………https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-prosecutor-stop-sharing-public-documents/
Last edited:
grizzly_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
Anybody else think it's interesting the prosecution is filing motions saying the release of evidence is prejudicial?
Normally it's the defense making those arguments saying their client won't get a fair trial.
Normally it's the defense making those arguments saying their client won't get a fair trial.
He‘s lost his marbles as he didn’t even know how Angus got that video. He just asked the secretary for a copy and paid her $5 for the disc copy. Hilarious. Sounds like he’s more mad at his own chit in his own bed, maybe he should look in the mirror first before pointing fingers. A very good thing Angus is well organized to stuff it down his throat.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The carbon county attorney's office is a joke.
Sounds like they don't have much of a case, imagine that.
Kangaroo court.
Sounds like they don't have much of a case, imagine that.
Kangaroo court.
What a mess. Isn’t carbon county basically the only county in WY that has publicly come out and said they would write citations for criminal trespass? Now the state game wardens and the state itself has said it will not write tickets for trespassing/poaching correct? Why is carbon county so admit on this issue?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Succumbed to pressure from a rich dude that doesn't understand the word no.
I bet the county attorney wishes she never took this issue on.
mountainlaurel3
Well-known member
Can't say I know Angus, but man, that article makes me want to buy him a beer.
