Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[BuzzH]

I won't be surprised if he drops the suit, having failed to get it back in Wyoming. Hopefully his ego and sense of entitlement are big enough to keep him going despite the risk of a catastrophic (for him and his ilk) ruling.

Rich people have a hard time being told no...in my experience.

 

[drifter52]

Rich people have a hard time being told no...in my experience.

yup our former whitehouse occupant and our montana govoner are proof of that

 

[seeth07]

I won't be surprised if he drops the suit, having failed to get it back in Wyoming. Hopefully his ego and sense of entitlement are big enough to keep him going despite the risk of a catastrophic (for him and his ilk) ruling.

He can't drop the suit. This has been covered already.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

If Buzz and Jeff et al. pull this off, no one is allowed to whine about anything ever again.

 

[JLS]

He can't drop the suit. This has been covered already.

Not true. A plaintiff can request dismissal of the civil suit.

 

[rogerthat]

And they will be in violation of the State Constitution...as the attorney that tried the criminal case and also the upcoming civil case explained to us on a zoom call yesterday.

Anything they pass will be meaningless...and we're looking to control the narrative on what may come from the legislature.

I have learned more about corner crossing and the laws around it than I would have ever thought was pertinent to the case. Its been a steep learning curve, but I think all of us that have been closest to this thing are learning a lot.

Man I want this one bad...

Buzz, what is specifically in the Wyoming state constitution that makes this so? Any chance it is in other states constitutions?

 

[Thx1138]

Vikings guy answered that one way back in post 1024 about the landowner trying to drop the Civil suit.

”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”

The loss of pay, mental anguish, duress, stress and anxiety alone should far supersede the $75,000 threshold.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Vikings guy answered that one way back in post 1024 about the landowner trying to drop the Civil suit.

”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”

The loss of pay, mental anguish, duress, stress and anxiety alone should far supersede the $75,000 threshold.

So are we talking about a countersuit as a separate suit or does that countersuit keep the trespassing suit in motion?

Seems like if only the countersuit is being reviewed it may not fully address the corner crossing legality issue?

 

[seeth07]

So are we talking about a countersuit as a separate suit or does that countersuit keep the trespassing suit in motion?

It would keep it in motion because the basis of whether or not damages exist depend on the legality of the action (i.e. whether or not they could cross that corner).

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, what is specifically in the Wyoming state constitution that makes this so? Any chance it is in other states constitutions?

Sec. 26. Ownership of certain lands disclaimed; restriction on taxation of nonresidents. The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States and that said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States residing without this state shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents of this state; that no taxes shall be imposed by this state on lands or property therein, belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States, or reserved for its use. But nothing in this article shall preclude this state from taxing as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person, a title thereto, by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any acts of congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such an extent, as is, or may be provided in the act of congress granting the same.

 

[rogerthat]

Sec. 26. Ownership of certain lands disclaimed; restriction on taxation of nonresidents. The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States and that said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States residing without this state shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents of this state; that no taxes shall be imposed by this state on lands or property therein, belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States, or reserved for its use. But nothing in this article shall preclude this state from taxing as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person, a title thereto, by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any acts of congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such an extent, as is, or may be provided in the act of congress granting the same.

The 1889 enabling act contains almost this exact language for montana Washington and the dakotas statehood

 

[BuzzH]

The 1889 enabling act contains almost this exact language for montana Washington and the dakotas statehood

Right, and if they were to pass a law saying corner crossing is trespass, how do you enforce trespass when the State has "forever disclaimed all right and title to the unappropriated lands"?

Those lands are owned by all of us and via corner crossing you never set foot on land other than those that you've already disclaimed right and title to forever.

In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.

 

[RobG]

Right, and if they were to pass a law saying corner crossing is trespass, how do you enforce trespass when the State has "forever disclaimed all right and title to the unappropriated lands"?

Those lands are owned by all of us and via corner crossing you never set foot on land other than those that you've already disclaimed right and title to forever.

In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.

Take over the MT Supreme court with far right activist judges. Make sure you don't make the mistake of voting for James Brown.

 

[drifter52]

Right, and if they were to pass a law saying corner crossing is trespass, how do you enforce trespass when the State has "forever disclaimed all right and title to the unappropriated lands"?

Those lands are owned by all of us and via corner crossing you never set foot on land other than those that you've already disclaimed right and title to forever.

In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.

Wouodnt be the first time laws were made that are in conflict with the state constitution
And they can vote to ammend it ,

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Right, and if they were to pass a law saying corner crossing is trespass, how do you enforce trespass when the State has "forever disclaimed all right and title to the unappropriated lands"?

Those lands are owned by all of us and via corner crossing you never set foot on land other than those that you've already disclaimed right and title to forever.

In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.

But what about the airspace?

 

[BuzzH]

Wouodnt be the first time laws were made that are in conflict with the state constitution
And they can vote to ammend it ,

Yeah, I asked Ryan, the attorney trying the civil case that...his response "good luck amending that".

 

[BuzzH]

But what about the airspace?

Its all nonsense.

 

[drifter52]

Yeah, I asked Ryan, the attorney trying the civil case that...his response "good luck amending that".

I agree but it doesnt mean they wont try
Montana's amnended ours a few times so it is possible to do thats all im saying

 

[ccc23454]

Its all nonsense.

Legos dont lie!

 

[BuzzH]

I agree but it doesnt mean they wont try
Montana's amnended ours a few times so it is possible to do thats all im saying

Lots of political capital to burn to fight a battle you won't win...that's all I'm saying.