FWP lies about Corner Crossing

Which they can't. There is neither code nor case law that makes corner crossing in Montana illegal or legal. The legislature writes the laws, the judiciary interprets them, but the executive branch, in my view, has no authority to declare the law as they see fit.
Montana FWP unveils its newly designed official vehicle.

MT FWP clown car.jpg
 
Old Fred E. probably doesn’t have a friend left in the world at this point. Joe Public Land clearly thinks he’s a jerk, and now old Joe Corner Landowner is going to blame him for ruining their good thing by pressing the issue.
Fred E. probably doesn't have many friends, but he still has money, and is shelling out for an appeal. Fingers crossed he gets slapped down by the 10th Circuit.
 
This is incredible: the BLM is stepping up and directing State agencies to implement corner crossing. This will put pressure on FWP.

https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...3a03f14b5.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Kind of cool to see the feds in favor, but the BLM really has no say in MT State Law - both criminal and civil - right? Like what does it mean for a federal land agency to "implement" CC? Or is it just good because it's bringing the issue closer to a head?

Just as an aside, Sonya Germann, the new BLM State Director in Billings, is as top notch as they come.
 
Kind of cool to see the feds in favor, but the BLM really has no say in MT State Law - both criminal and civil - right? Like what does it mean for a federal land agency to "implement" CC? Or is it just good because it's bringing the issue closer to a head?

Just as an aside, Sonya Germann, the new BLM State Director in Billings, is as top notch as they come.
Spot on @Nameless Range. There's a very interesting legal question at the heart of this. Which takes priority? The State interest and jurisdiction over private land civil and trespass laws, or the Federal interest and jurisdiction over public lands?

I would not be surprised in the least if a lawsuit comes out of the AGs office against the BLM, and we get a court ruling that answers that question.
 
Nameless Range posted a link to a similar article. It seems that case, as presented in the other article, is more trespass than corner cross and will likely only hurt the issue as presented.
It's the same article. @Nameless Range and I like to race each other to posting these things. I was in court when the article dropped so I couldn't get it posted. I did respond on that thread. Would love to see your thoughts on my response there too. Thanks @Mthuntr
 
If that’s true, yes. Must be proven in court first.

Time will tell.
Exactly. As I mentioned elsewhere, of course the landowner will claim they have evidence he trespassed whether he did or not. Regardless, he’s entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence. He’s not guilty of having done anything until a jury of his peers says so.
 
Knowing that specific corner on G/T and Sangray, hopefully no one tries to use this case as the MT litmus test for corner crossing. This is not the one to do it on. No GoFundMe or anything. If Sangray is found guilty, the AG’s will crow about how this is proof that corner crossing is an illegal taking and trespass of private property rights. BHA and others need to actually read the article and realize there’s likely proof Sangray actually trespassed, not corner crossed. This is not the Elk Mountain case.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,145
Messages
1,948,688
Members
35,050
Latest member
tzog
Back
Top