Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

sounds to me like the ranch owner knows he's going to lose in federal court so he is trying to get it back to state level where he stands a better chance of influencing/paying for a favorable ruling in his favor landowners have historically a lot of political cloat.

FIFY - unless you have evidence of a felony you would like to offer.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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

I have represented billionaires and paupers - most clients have a hard time hearing no - it is a human affliction.

 

[BuzzH]

I have represented billionaires and paupers - most clients have a hard time hearing no - it is a human affliction.

Are you denying that those with money aren't more inclined to use their influence and power so they aren't told no?

Funny.

Oh, and don't forget Grende's statement "Do you realize how much money my boss has"?

 

[rogerthat]

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

Thanks Buzz. I really feel like even if the civil case is dismissed or equivalent, the template has been laid out. Corner crossing issue has been a taking of property rights…just not how it’s always been traditionally portrayed. It’s been a taking of the publics right to access their public lands. It would be sweet justice if this case set precedent

 

[Addicting]

Airspace solved. Lol

 

[VikingsGuy]

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?

The landowner can drop his claims fairly deep into the process and we clearly aren't there yet.

Hunters can have their own tort claims independent of the landowner's suit and would typically do this as part of a "counter-claim". If the landowner's claim is dropped while a counterclaim is standing the case can go forward whether the landowner likes it or not. The counterclaim must then meet the standard for federal court jurisdiction on its own merits (sometimes state-only claims are bundled in federal claims and when the federal claims are dismissed the case is moved to state court). In this case, the basis for federal jurisdiction of a harassment counterclaim (state tort) would be "diversity jurisdiction" - plaintiffs/defendants from different states + $75k at issue.

The challenge for public land hunters with this path is whether arguments regarding federal land access rights and Wyoming trespass law would even be heard, as they may not be legally germane to the "assault tort". So we are helped by the landowner sticking to his guns and not pulling civil trespass claim.

I also suppose the hunters could, in a different case, bring a section 1983 claim against the county sheriff and the district/county attorney alleging that these state actors denied them a constitutional right. In this case, a federal right to access the land in question. I am no expert in 1883 claims so I don't know how viable this is, but the bar can be quite high when challenging LEOs and DAs. But if it was viable, winning it would be the most powerful judicial answer public land hunters could get, as all western states could be controlled by a final resolution (post appeal) in our favor and there would be few viable options for state legs to reverse.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

I doubt that will be found controlling on the simple trespass question of corner crossing in its historical usage.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

Access too land is not a right of that land.

Other than that we are back to whether the courts will stick with traditional silly technical definition or if they will modernize it and get rid of the concept of non-destructive corner crossing as trespass. Sec 26 does not compell one answer over the other.

 

[BuzzH]

I doubt that will be found controlling on the simple trespass question of corner crossing in its historical usage.

Do want to argue with Ryan? I have his number.

 

[drifter52]

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

I agree but it doesnt mean they wont try that's all im saying

 

[np307]

I 100% hope that this is a successful step towards resolving corner crossing permanently but I've also got to say that my first inclination whenever I hear a "slam dunk" resolution to an old problem is "why didn't anybody come up with that sooner then?"

In other words, why has this been a question for so long if the answer was so cut and dry in the law.

I get putting a good face on and believing in the merits of your arguments, but there's also got to be a little reality check that this could still go the other way.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Are you denying that those with money aren't more inclined to use their influence and power so they aren't told no?

Funny.

Oh, and don't forget Grende's statement "Do you realize how much money my boss has"?

I was responding to "not taking no for an answer". Which is about character/demeanor more than resources.

I didn't intend to reflect on resources available to push their displeasure - as that feels a little self-evident. On that point, I would agree - if a person doesn't like an answer they are inclined to spend their resources for a better answer and the rich have more of that to spend. Not a character flaw if done lawfully.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I 100% hope that this is a successful step towards resolving corner crossing permanently but I've also got to say that my first inclination whenever I hear a "slam dunk" resolution to an old problem is "why didn't anybody come up with that sooner then?"

In other words, why has this been a question for so long if the answer was so cut and dry in the law.

Resolving long-felt issues is often about willingness to pursue and political/judicial willingness to hear. Getting those two aligned can take a long time. see, Brown vs Board of Education - the answer was there from day one - we just lacked the willingness to fix it.

 

[Bigjay73]

Do want to argue with Ryan? I have his number.

You aren't by chance a billionaire, are you?

 

[Dakotakid]

Resolving long-felt issues is often about willingness to pursue and political/judicial willingness to hear. Getting those two aligned can take a long time. see, Brown vs Board of Education - the answer was there from day one - we just lacked the willingness to fix it.

Or Roe v Wade…
This battle might be a very long one. There is a concerted attack on the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the North American model of hunting. Unfortunately, the forces are from many sides.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

I was thinking about the ad coelum just now; to your point about it being nonsense, in OG law in many (most?) states there is the idea that one mineral owner can't keep an adjacent owner from extracting/ benefiting from their minerals.

With the advent of horizontal drilling it means that if an operator can prove that their pad site and or well configuration doesn't have other technically or financially viable alterative paths, that the operator can trespass (subsurface) but not frack and therefore drain someone's land.

So ad coelum with regard to minerals; you own down to all depths, but if I need to cross your land to get to my land trespassing is totally fine.

The more I think about it I'm a bit surprised this fact hasn't come up in corner crossing arguments, the practice is pretty widespread.

 

[BuzzH]

You aren't by chance a billionaire, are you?

You want Ryan's number as well?

 

[BuzzH]

I 100% hope that this is a successful step towards resolving corner crossing permanently but I've also got to say that my first inclination whenever I hear a "slam dunk" resolution to an old problem is "why didn't anybody come up with that sooner then?"

In other words, why has this been a question for so long if the answer was so cut and dry in the law.

I get putting a good face on and believing in the merits of your arguments, but there's also got to be a little reality check that this could still go the other way.

I heard the same about the criminal case, and I also thought it could go the other way.

Still could be the same in the civil case, but the research that I've done on the judge/case, and after having talked to Ryan for an hour where he explained the argument, well,...

I'm liking the odds.

Its about time for the naysayers to put a sock in it, IMO.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I was thinking about the ad coelum just now; to your point about it being nonsense, in OG law in many (most?) states there is the idea that one mineral owner can't keep an adjacent owner from extracting/ benefiting from their minerals.

With the advent of horizontal drilling it means that if an operator can prove that their pad site and or well configuration doesn't have other technically or financially viable alterative paths, that the operator can trespass (subsurface) but not frack and therefore drain someone's land.

So ad coelum with regard to minerals; you own down to all depths, but if I need to cross your land to get to my land trespassing is totally fine.

The more I think about it I'm a bit surprised this fact hasn't come up in corner crossing arguments, the practice is pretty widespread.

Parallels are good points to raise, some are followed, some are not.

As for other states, some provide an implied access easement, some refuse to allow subdivisioning or sales that result in zero access property so an easement is always there, and some just let the buyer beware. Laboratories of democracy as they say.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Its about time for the naysayers to put a sock in it, IMO.

I’ve called bs on western states property laws from day one, but group think does not help the cause.