Corner Crossing latest

[WyoDoug]

Can we just agree that anyone in political, corporate, or any position of power regardless of their location on the spectrum is getting favorable attention from some group somewhere and quit pretending it's only the other guys? Corner crossing topic is way more interesting and important than some asshat in DC getting a free dinner at Ruth's Chris

Yeah let's not derail the topic and get back to the topic.

 

[YellowCreek]

I had a tag in the area and had my spouse drop me where the public paved road passed through a public square of land. Was before OnX so not always obvious to hunters what fences were okay to climb. You had to read maps. Decipher roads, railroad tracks, etc. then read the odometer as drove from that landmark towards a square you thought was good to hunt. Yes, I am ancient. And, you are not getting your baseball back.

Simpler times!!!

 

[JAG]

Anyone know what Fred's plans are for this fall for hunters attempting to cross his corners?

 

[338win]

Anyone know what Fred's plans are for this fall for hunters attempting to cross his corners?

Have his cronies drive elk from public parcels then ride wheelers off path near camps and claim they are “looking” for stock.

 

[Elky Welky]

Can we just agree that anyone in political, corporate, or any position of power regardless of their location on the spectrum is getting favorable attention from some group somewhere and quit pretending it's only the other guys? Corner crossing topic is way more interesting and important than some asshat in DC getting a free dinner at Ruth's Chris

I can agree to get back on topic, but I'm not going to falsely equivocate and offhandedly dismiss the issue of judicial bias/ethics either. It's intellectually lazy and inaccurate. The difference being there are those with integrity in our courts that understand that they should recuse themselves, and those without integrity that should not be making decisions. Its become glaringly obvious over the last year that our supreme court, and a few other courts, have a few very bad apples that aren't going to recuse themselves. A good judge should recuse themselves if there is even a whiff of impropriety.

Fortunately, to @BuzzH attorney's observation, should the 10th Circuit Rule in favor of Americans in this corner crossing matter, the likelihood of this going all the way to SCOTUS is very low. If, for some reason, it does get to SCOTUS, there probably wouldn't be any solid grounds for recusal from any of the judges. Corner Crossing isn't really a partisan issue. It's more of a rich and entitled vs. everyone else issue. And although SCOTUS is pretty much entirely upper class, ivy-league educated people with little in common with everyday Americans, I doubt any of them would have much of a dog in this fight. A ruling from them would be pretty fair.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I can agree to get back on topic, but I'm not going to falsely equivocate and offhandedly dismiss the issue of judicial bias/ethics either. It's intellectually lazy and inaccurate. The difference being there are those with integrity in our courts that understand that they should recuse themselves, and those without integrity that should not be making decisions. Its become glaringly obvious over the last year that our supreme court, and a few other courts, have a few very bad apples that aren't going to recuse themselves. A good judge should recuse themselves if there is even a whiff of impropriety.

Fortunately, to @BuzzH attorney's observation, should the 10th Circuit Rule in favor of Americans in this corner crossing matter, the likelihood of this going all the way to SCOTUS is very low. If, for some reason, it does get to SCOTUS, there probably wouldn't be any solid grounds for recusal from any of the judges. Corner Crossing isn't really a partisan issue. It's more of a rich and entitled vs. everyone else issue. And although SCOTUS is pretty much entirely upper class, ivy-league educated people with little in common with everyday Americans, I doubt any of them would have much of a dog in this fight. A ruling from them would be pretty fair.

Ultimately - what frustrates me is that this will forever apparently remain a legal gray area outside of the 10th circuit forever.

 

[Elky Welky]

Ultimately - what frustrates me is that this will forever apparently remain a legal gray area outside of the 10th circuit forever.

It won't. The 10th circuit ruling will be highly persuasive in other jurisdictions (like Montana), and I predict we'll see legislation in MT's upcoming legislative session that is anti-corner crossing. If such legislation passes and is signed into law, then that would create grounds for a lawsuit against the state. Montana's judiciary is also under attack from our legislature, but for now I predict MT's supreme court would overturn any anti-corner crossing legislation.

The 10th circuit ruling will provide ample fodder for other jurisdictions to rely upon.

Let's not forget that there are people already crossing corners and baiting local law enforcement to try and press charges. All it takes is one elected prosecutor in a small county to pursue charges, and potentially set up a case that would establish precedent. I predict this is why the MT AG's refused to press further charges against the Townsend corner crosser last fall: they would rather rely upon the director of FWP's misrepresentation of the law than actually have to face the fact that they are probably wrong.

 

[Dave N]

It's news in Alaska.

For a millionaire and four hunters, a wild Western lawsuit over public land

The ruling on an invisible corner in Elk Mountain, Wyo., could help determine how much private property rights thwart the public’s ability to access its land.

www.adn.com

 

[Deleted member 56631]

It won't. The 10th circuit ruling will be highly persuasive in other jurisdictions (like Montana), and I predict we'll see legislation in MT's upcoming legislative session that is anti-corner crossing. If such legislation passes and is signed into law, then that would create grounds for a lawsuit against the state. Montana's judiciary is also under attack from our legislature, but for now I predict MT's supreme court would overturn any anti-corner crossing legislation.

The 10th circuit ruling will provide ample fodder for other jurisdictions to rely upon.

Let's not forget that there are people already crossing corners and baiting local law enforcement to try and press charges. All it takes is one elected prosecutor in a small county to pursue charges, and potentially set up a case that would establish precedent. I predict this is why the MT AG's refused to press further charges against the Townsend corner crosser last fall: they would rather rely upon the director of FWP's misrepresentation of the law than actually have to face the fact that they are probably wrong.

Any link to the Townsend crossing?
I noticed a few years back the wording in the MT refs was ambiguous but in more recent refs it’s says very clearly illegal.

 

[Elky Welky]

but in more recent refs it’s says very clearly illegal.

Which is patently false, see here: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/thinking_about_corner_crossing_in_montana_read_this_first

And this MFP series does a good job discussing the Townsend case: https://montanafreepress.org/2024/03/11/nearly-900000-acres-of-montana-in-access-limbo/

 

[Deleted member 56631]

Which is patently false, see here: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/thinking_about_corner_crossing_in_montana_read_this_first

And this MFP series does a good job discussing the Townsend case: https://montanafreepress.org/2024/03/11/nearly-900000-acres-of-montana-in-access-limbo/

Yeah I remember reading the wording the article is using one year 2021 and then the next 2022 being different wording

 

[Bigjay73]

I can agree to get back on topic, but I'm not going to falsely equivocate and offhandedly dismiss the issue of judicial bias/ethics either. It's intellectually lazy and inaccurate. The difference being there are those with integrity in our courts that understand that they should recuse themselves, and those without integrity that should not be making decisions. Its become glaringly obvious over the last year that our supreme court, and a few other courts, have a few very bad apples that aren't going to recuse themselves. A good judge should recuse themselves if there is even a whiff of impropriety.

Fortunately, to @BuzzH attorney's observation, should the 10th Circuit Rule in favor of Americans in this corner crossing matter, the likelihood of this going all the way to SCOTUS is very low. If, for some reason, it does get to SCOTUS, there probably wouldn't be any solid grounds for recusal from any of the judges. Corner Crossing isn't really a partisan issue. It's more of a rich and entitled vs. everyone else issue. And although SCOTUS is pretty much entirely upper class, ivy-league educated people with little in common with everyday Americans, I doubt any of them would have much of a dog in this fight. A ruling from them would be pretty fair.

Do you post before or after smelling your own farts?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Do you post before or after smelling your own farts?

is that his secret to writing thoughtful responses on topics he's well informed on? More people should try that out.

 

[seeth07]

Question about what happens when a decision is made. If it is overruled and Fred wins the case, does this court then also issue the damages amount as part of the ruling or would that have to go back down to the lower court to decide?

 

[Elky Welky]

Question about what happens when a decision is made. If it is overruled and Fred wins the case, does this court then also issue the damages amount as part of the ruling or would that have to go back down to the lower court to decide?

Great question. It would go back down for the district court to hold a restitution hearing.

 

[seeth07]

Follow up question: Would the damages determination have any impact good or bad for the future of corner crossing?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Follow up question: Would the damages determination have any impact good or bad for the future of corner crossing?

Any major damages are awful for it, unless im missing something?

 

[Elky Welky]

Follow up question: Would the damages determination have any impact good or bad for the future of corner crossing?

Indirectly, I think it could.

For example, after a restitution hearing, the court could decide that Fred’s property was in fact devalued by 7 million dollars based on them crossing there, and even impose court costs, which would be quite the deterrent to future corner crossers.

On the other hand, the judge could say: sure, they civilly trespassed, but they only caused $1 in nominal damages. Basically “Good for you, Fred. You win on principle, but you have suffered no damages.” In that scenario, corner crossers would probably take the risk.

As far as precedent goes, however, a district court restitution award would not be precedent-setting.

 

[SAJ-99]

Indirectly, I think it could.

For example, after a restitution hearing, the court could decide that Fred’s property was in fact devalued by 7 million dollars based on them crossing there, and even impose court costs, which would be quite the deterrent to future corner crossers.

On the other hand, the judge could say: sure, they civilly trespassed, but they only caused $1 in nominal damages. Basically “Good for you, Fred. You win on principle, but you have suffered no damages.” In that scenario, corner crossers would probably take the risk.

As far as precedent goes, however, a district court restitution award would not be precedent-setting.

Do you worry this, like most legal issues, just gets into a cycle of endless delays. Time is money and rich people have more of the latter.
I don’t mean to be cynical but it’s in my nature. Rarely is there an actual resolution to things like this. Hell, even the decision in favor of CC isn’t absolute. That judge walked a fine line in the decision and was pretty specific.

 

[Elky Welky]

Do you worry this, like most legal issues, just gets into a cycle of endless delays. Time is money and rich people have more of the latter.
I don’t mean to be cynical but it’s in my nature. Rarely is there an actual resolution to things like this. Hell, even the decision in favor of CC isn’t absolute. That judge walked a fine line in the decision and was pretty specific.

I absolutely agree. It’s why, even though I studied environmental law in school, I ultimately decided it wasn’t the area I wanted to practice. You spend 10 years arguing about whether or not the science was done correctly, and in the meantime the thing you’re fighting for changes completely and it all becomes moot.

Litigation should always be the last resort. When it comes to results, the front end is where you get them: the ballot box, commission meetings, legislatures, etc.