Muley Freak in trouble?

[JLS]

Or maybe “something is afoot in the wind” to influence potential jury members. During jury selection if people admit to having read a bunch of stuff online about this, and have to disclose what they read and whether it has given them an opinion on the issue one way or another, then I think that coukd DQ them from being on jury.

Hence the motion for gag order. Time to STFU and let things go through the legal process.

 

[JLS]

All the claims of evidence the fish cop saw that would prove he was innocent, is a bunch of bullshit. They would have to be produced during discovery, if the state didn’t produce them, they would lose the case because of exculpatory evidence.

 

[BackofBeyond]

Hence the motion for gag order. Time to STFU and let things go through the legal process.

I honestly think it works against the defendant. The judge has already denied the change of venue before all this social media #BS started. It’s going to be hard to convince a judge that the jury pool is now no longer big enough because of crap the defendant did after that original motion.

 

[JLS]

I honestly think it works against the defendant. The judge has already denied the change of venue before all this social media #BS started. It’s going to be hard to convince a judge that the jury pool is now no longer big enough because of crap the defendant did after that original motion.

You’re probably right, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try and stall the process with all of the theatrics. If nothing else it lays the grounds for an appeal attempt.

 

[Whiskey Freak]

Gag order denied. He can continue to tell his side of the story aka the facts. As he says!!

 

[rogerthat]

I think many are overestimating the views ol Erik freak gets on social media or hunttalk threads get for that matter. The majority of the world don’t give a chit

 

[huntid73]

Might not want to say that….as mentioned before even if he’s a sh***y dude, the landowner can revoke permission at ANY time in Idaho.

 

[DouglasR]

so this is an ongoing investigation and he's on the Internet referring to the police as "fish cops"?
Bold strategy, Cotton.

 

[rogerthat]

View attachment 269328 Might not want to say that….as mentioned before even if he’s a sh***y dude, the landowner can revoke permission at ANY time in Idaho.

Wow…the jock strap rider comments are something

 

[lastlight]

Wow…the jock strap rider comments are something

They are getting support from other flat brim “influencers” and/or the LDS crew. Big surprise lol

 

[BackofBeyond]

Wow…the jock strap rider comments are something

There is an element of *glug glug* to it.

 

[OntarioHunter]

View attachment 269328 Might not want to say that….as mentioned before even if he’s a sh***y dude, the landowner can revoke permission at ANY time in Idaho.

One of of the oldest principles of common law is sanctity of contracts. A landowner who grants permission to trespass, especially if it's in writing, cannot simply revoke it out of hand ... not without cause. If I sign in at a BMA box, I am guaranteed the right to hunt the property during the date I'm signed in. BUT I must comply with the landowner's rules for accessing the property printed on the back of each BMA map, copies of which should be available when signing in. A few years back I walked up on a couple of guys stuck in the mud and tearing up a BMA field. I chewed their ass. The map rules clearly specify no driving on the property access roads when conditions are muddy AND the landowner even put a sign above the box stating the same thing! Their position was they signed in and landowner was getting their license fee money so they had paid for the right of access when and how THEY wanted. I photographed them and hotfooted it back to the ranch house. Before I could get there, they left. Not sure what Fred did about it. He does have the right to refuse them access permanently but I suspect that takes some action from FWP. Similarly, on another property I confronted a hunter who was smoking. Did he check the map rules to see if it's allowed? Yes, some landowners do not allow smoking. Better check the rules on the map. It's a fire hazard and wildfires in that country can be disastrous (like thousands of miles of fencing gone in a flash).

So a deal is a deal. I do not believe a landowner who gives permission to hunt can simply revoke it out of hand at any time. Not without cause. Like a landlord can't simply evict tenants at any time. It's his property but they have rights too. Breech of contract won't hold up in court ... not in Idaho or anywhere else.

 

[156256Wenaha]

So a deal is a deal. I do not believe a landowner who gives permission to hunt can simply revoke it out of hand at any time. Not without cause. Like a landlord can't simply evict tenants at any time. It's his property but they have rights too. Breech of contract won't hold up in court ... not in Idaho or anywhere else.

I certainly agree with you that a contract is a contract and should be enforceable, where there's a mutuality of rights/obligations by both parties.

I think where this situation may deviate from that (whatever the facts are), is that Idaho state law (36-1603) has a provision regarding criminal trespassing and permission forms:

"Permission forms. (1) The department shall produce permission forms for a landowner to indicate that a land user has express written permission to use private land. The permission forms produced must contain spaces for all of the information required by section 18-7008(1)(f), Idaho Code. The permission forms must state clearly that the permission may be revoked at any time by the landowner or his agent."

And looks like the IF&G permission form on their website, has that phrase at the bottom: "A property owner may revoke permission at any time."

All of this is hypothetical and not legal advice (nor did I stay at a holiday inn), but:

One scenario could be there was written permission, but the parties did not use the form with the mandatory language about revocation. And, a google search turns up an IF&G "Courtesy Card" that does not have that language. That Card could pre-date any changes to Idaho law cited above, and therefore the new permission form. But it's still out there in Google land for people to find and download.

 

[Dakotakid]

A license is not the same as a contract.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I certainly agree with you that a contract is a contract and should be enforceable, where there's a mutuality of rights/obligations by both parties.

I think where this situation may deviate from that (whatever the facts are), is that Idaho state law (36-1603) has a provision regarding criminal trespassing and permission forms:

"Permission forms. (1) The department shall produce permission forms for a landowner to indicate that a land user has express written permission to use private land. The permission forms produced must contain spaces for all of the information required by section 18-7008(1)(f), Idaho Code. The permission forms must state clearly that the permission may be revoked at any time by the landowner or his agent."

And looks like the IF&G permission form on their website, has that phrase at the bottom: "A property owner may revoke permission at any time."

All of this is hypothetical and not legal advice (nor did I stay at a holiday inn), but:

One scenario could be there was written permission, but the parties did not use the form with the mandatory language about revocation. And, a google search turns up an IF&G "Courtesy Card" that does not have that language. That Card could pre-date any changes to Idaho law cited above, and also pre-date the new permission form. But it's still out there in Google land for people to find and download.

Idaho legislature makes dam sure every law is tilted towards landowners.

 

[JLS]

A landowner who grants permission to trespass, especially if it's in writing, cannot simply revoke it out of hand ... not without cause.

incorrect. Absent an easement contract it is entirely revocable at any time, and for any whim.

 

[156256Wenaha]

Idaho legislature makes dam sure every law is tilted towards landowners.

There needs to be a balance. Maybe that Idaho statute or the permission form got amended after issues arose involving some bad apple hunters who overreached while hunting, or refused to leave after doing something stupid (like blasting at a herd of elk and when the smoke cleared, there were 4 or 5 extra dead cow elk no body had a tag for).

On the other hand, the statute as written now seems pretty broad -- "at any time". Does that mean the landowner can revoke even after the hunter downs something? If so, I don't think any hunter with a valid permission form would want that to happen. What's to stop a landowner who also has the same tag, let someone hunt, watch them down a big one, then revoke the permission and kick the hunter off the property so the landowner can tag it? It's an absurd result, which Idaho probably didn't intend.

Maybe the statute should say, "may be revoked at any time by the landowner or his agent: before the hunter legally harvests an animal for which the hunter has permission to hunt." Still has some holes, but could clear up some confusion or vagueness in the statute.

 

[MTLabrador]

One of of the oldest principles of common law is sanctity of contracts. A landowner who grants permission to trespass, especially if it's in writing, cannot simply revoke it out of hand ... not without cause. If I sign in at a BMA box, I am guaranteed the right to hunt the property during the date I'm signed in. BUT I must comply with the landowner's rules for accessing the property printed on the back of each BMA map, copies of which should be available when signing in. A few years back I walked up on a couple of guys stuck in the mud and tearing up a BMA field. I chewed their ass. The map rules clearly specify no driving on the property access roads when conditions are muddy AND the landowner even put a sign above the box stating the same thing! Their position was they signed in and landowner was getting their license fee money so they had paid for the right of access when and how THEY wanted. I photographed them and hotfooted it back to the ranch house. Before I could get there, they left. Not sure what Fred did about it. He does have the right to refuse them access permanently but I suspect that takes some action from FWP. Similarly, on another property I confronted a hunter who was smoking. Did he check the map rules to see if it's allowed? Yes, some landowners do not allow smoking. Better check the rules on the map. It's a fire hazard and wildfires in that country can be disastrous (like thousands of miles of fencing gone in a flash).

So a deal is a deal. I do not believe a landowner who gives permission to hunt can simply revoke it out of hand at any time. Not without cause. Like a landlord can't simply evict tenants at any time. It's his property but they have rights too. Breech of contract won't hold up in court ... not in Idaho or anywhere else.

Not true. If I’m a landowner who gives someone permission to hunt my place and then decide I want them to stop hunting there that’s not a breach of contract. The hunter isn’t a tenant and has no rights to my property other than what I give him.

 

[cgasner1]

I could see if it had been a lease that it couldn’t be revoked but just permission I feel like is at the owners discretion

 

[156256Wenaha]

incorrect.

I appreciate where people are coming from. Generally, in a contract (which as someone else noted is or could be different from a permission slip required or governed by a state statute), if a party can terminate it only for cause, the contract should say that. If such a provision is not in there and they think the other side terminated unfairly, perhaps a party can raise an argument there's been a breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (if Idaho has that sort of thing which I assume so but none of this is legal advice because I have no idea).

But a contract can also say that one party may, in its sole discretion, terminate the contract at any time for any reason or no reason (with or without cause). That obviously makes things tougher for the other party to argue there was improper termination.

Back to the Idaho statute, I think it could have been a lot clearer about how, when and why a landowner can revoke permission. Of course then if they go too far the other way, the permission slip would have to be 12 pages long, notarized and in triplicate...