Corner crossing tampering

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,274
Location
Laramie, WY
I was reading the 32 page summary judgement and couldn't help notice Judge Skavdahl made mention of inappropriate behavior trying to sway his ruling. It would be quite interesting if they had actually named names, but I have a pretty good idea which side of the case did it.

“The founders of the United States sought to insulate the Judicial branch of government from public opinion so judges could apply and be influenced only by the law.”
JUDGE SCOTT SKAVDAHL
Interested parties have an avenue to participate in such legal skirmishes and several took advantage of that in the civil suit brought by Eshelman. Skavdahl’s court granted Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and Wyoming Wool Growers Association “amicus” status, for example, allowing them to file briefs supporting their interpretations of trespass laws.

 
While on the subject, another key finding in the case is another mention of a State Statute that WYBHA made certain did not include corner crossing. What I didn't expect, was for the Federal Court to make mention of it in this case. We had the amendment at the end added to make very certain that just crossing airspace did not constitute trespass to hunt. Was a very nice surprise seeing that language in the judgement.







1685547362963.png
1685547499040.png
 
If I were a WY resident, I might contact some of my elected officials and get their denial on record, so when the names do come out (and they will eventually come out) one could put the official's shenanigans on public display.
 
Even better from the ruling, the Judge is explaining the intent of SF56. I wish I could claim to be just that smart, that the amendments we made through the work of our awesome Lobbyist, would result in something like this. Call it fortuitous, luck, timing, I don't care...but I like it.

1685547691157.png
 
Sounds like the judge was the right judge for this case.
I agree. I am also interested to know who was intervening beyond the scope of judicial channels. Like Buzz, I have my ideas, given some groups who called me following the podcasts we did. Suffice to say, those groups aren't normally big fans of the public land hunter.

This is judicial meddling and non-compliant intervention is something I will be covering with the attorneys in our podcast next week. Does this happen often, is there recourse or accountability, what's to prevent it from happening, etc.?
 
Sadly, while the judicial branch is supposed to be insulated from the force of "popular opinion", I'd imagine people communicating or otherwise making their opinions known to judges by going outside the required channels (such as protesting outside judges' homes) will only continue to increase over time
 
Sadly, while the judicial branch is supposed to be insulated from the force of "popular opinion", I'd imagine people communicating or otherwise making their opinions known to judges by going outside the required channels (such as protesting outside judges' homes) will only continue to increase over time
I think there are judges that encourage it, even supreme court justices as it seems, named, oh I don't know, Clarence.

I'm just glad we got an honest judge in this case, also glad he called out the fact tampering was taking place. Hopefully it sends a message and puts the offenders in their place and on notice.
 
Not sure I agree with your reference to CT, but regardless, it may also be people now expect they can speak out about anything to anyone -- so they ignore (or are ignorant of) the established procedure for things like communicating to a judge. Maybe they found his court email address (or his clerk's) and send an email. Will be interesting if or when that info is aired publicly
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,143
Messages
1,948,652
Members
35,047
Latest member
sscrano
Back
Top