Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

He’s not merely an “out of state Law Professor,” he was a former University of Wyoming Law Professor and long term Wyoming resident. I think he knows a thing or two about Wyoming law. “Mark Squillace is the Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law at the University of Colorado Law School. Professor Squillace joined the Colorado Law faculty in 2005. He served as the Director of Colorado Law’s Natural Resources Law Center from 2005-2013. Before joining the Colorado law faculty, Professor Squillace taught at the University of Toledo College of Law, where he was named the Charles Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, and at the University of Wyoming College of Law, where he served a three-year term as the Winston S. Howard Professor of Law. He is a former Fulbright scholar and the author or co-author of numerous articles and books on water resources law, public lands, natural resources, and environmental law and policy. In 2000, Professor Squillace took a leave from law teaching to serve as Special Assistant to the Solicitor at the U.S. Department of the Interior. In that capacity he worked directly with the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, on variety of legal and policy issues.” https://www.colorado.edu/menv/people/mark-squillace

Yet he never managed to solve this issue while in state or at Interior - go figure.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Isn't that what you are? "Out of state"

Yup - but not suggesting my thoughts somehow settle the question. But at least when I choose to cite federal laws they are actually relevant to the issue at hand

 

[VikingsGuy]

One cannot just remove a state criminal case to federal court, that is not even a basic understanding of criminal jurisprudence. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that a conviction in Federal court does not preclude a conviction in State Court for the same crime under double jeapardy.
I sure hope the defendants have better attorneys than that.

Be careful, JM77 doesn’t like hearing legal reality if it doesn’t meet his preconceived notions.

 

[JM77]

Yup - but not suggesting my thoughts somehow settle the question. But at least when I choose to cite federal laws they are actually relevant to the issue at hand

I think the Professor is arguing the federal case pertains to the obstruction of public lands. But it's a news article, lest we forget.

 

[JM77]

Be careful, JM77 doesn’t like hearing legal reality if it doesn’t meet his preconceived notions.

Ok, name me one "legal reality" that doesn't meet with my preconceived notions.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I do believe the Professor is arguing that the obstruction of public lands is the federal case.

I didn’t bother reading it, because I’m not part of a stable of high powered attorneys, but I’m assuming there is no assertion the private lands trespass charges should be moved to federal court? The obstruction absolutely should be, but that’s an entirely separate issue.

 

[Pestcontrol]

I didn’t bother reading it, because I’m not part of a stable of high powered attorneys, but I’m assuming there is no assertion the private lands trespass charges should be moved to federal court? The obstruction absolutely should be, but that’s an entirely separate issue.

Perhaps you should, it’s not legalize reading, it’s Angus Thuermer, one of Wyoming’s best reporters writing it. He might enlighten you, worth a few minute read.
”
“I would argue this is really a federal question.” Squillace said. ”A federal court has jurisdiction.”
If Squillace were representing the men, he said, he would move the case to federal court. “I wouldn’t allow the state to rule.”

Squillace dismissed the concept of an inviolate, invisible vertical plane above a property line through which one cannot intrude. That so-called ad coelum doctrine holds that when you own property you own down to the depths and up to the sky.

“There are limits to that doctrine,” he said. Corner crossing “is such a minor kind of intrusion [and] it’s necessary to access public land — I can’t imagine a court would use that doctrine.” https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-hunters-challenge-public-land-access-issue-in-court/

 

[Dakotakid]

I didn’t bother reading it, because I’m not part of a stable of high powered attorneys, but I’m assuming there is no assertion the private lands trespass charges should be moved to federal court? The obstruction absolutely should be, but that’s an entirely separate issue.

Ok, time out. You admit that you didn’t read the article- the very article that explicitly states-
“If Squillace were representing the men, he said, he would move the case to federal court. “I wouldn’t allow the state to rule.”

 

[Pestcontrol]

Yet he never managed to solve this issue while in state or at Interior - go figure.

Perhaps he’s trying to rectify that, looks like he has Solid legal arguments and great credentials to argue such a case.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Perhaps he’s trying to rectify that, looks like he has Solid legal arguments and great credentials to argue such a case.

See, Dakotaskid’s post - the professor’s “arguments” are embarrassing.

 

[Pestcontrol]

See, Dakotaskid’s post - the professor’s “arguments” are embarrassing.

Time will tell, for now I’d take the word of a former University of Wyoming Law Professor any day over a Hunttalk wannabe lawyer.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Ok, time out. You admit that you didn’t read the article- the very article that explicitly states-
“If Squillace were representing the men, he said, he would move the case to federal court. “I wouldn’t allow the state to rule.”

Ok. Just read it. I still fail to see how the alleged UIA violation would provide cause for the trespass barges to be moved to federal court. The trespassing is not a federal violation, and the fencing is irrelevant to the defense of such.

 

[JM77]

Be careful, JM77 doesn’t like hearing legal reality if it doesn’t meet his preconceived notions.

Ok, name me one "legal reality" that doesn't meet with my preconceived notions.

Still waiting.

 

[Dakotakid]

Ok. Just read it. I still fail to see how the alleged UIA violation would provide cause for the trespass barges to be moved to federal court. The trespassing is not a federal violation, and the fencing is irrelevant to the defense of such.

You are correct.
A reporter quoting a natural resources law professor about criminal law is like a reporter interviewing a basketball coach for how the Super Bowl is going to play out. Yes they both involve a ball, but the rules are quite a bit different.

 

[JM77]

You are correct.
A reporter quoting a natural resources law professor about criminal law is like a reporter interviewing a basketball coach for how the Super Bowl is going to play out. Yes they both involve a ball, but the rules are quite a bit different.

Would a natural resource attorney know about laws pertaining to land?

 

[Dakotakid]

I can not vouch for his knowledge given his utter misunderstanding of basic federalism and criminal procedure.

 

[Pestcontrol]

Ok. Just read it. I still fail to see how the alleged UIA violation would provide cause for the trespass barges to be moved to federal court. The trespassing is not a federal violation, and the fencing is irrelevant to the defense of such.

Hypothetical: If you are just out hiking, not hunting and you cross from one section of BLM land into another section and you are following along on OnX maps, not at the corners, right in the middle and all of a sudden ten ranch hands carrying guns on horses ride up like RIP from Yellowstone and say you just trespassed and harass you. They call the sheriff and he writes you a ticket for trespassing. He doesn’t know the boundary lines but takes RIPs word you trespassed. Who has jurisdiction in this case, BLM or the county? The Professor is arguing it’s BLM who has jurisdiction. Now relate this example to a corner, if you cross from one BLM corner into another BLM corner then no trespassing occurred, using the Colorado Law Professors argument as all you did was access one piece of BLM lands and step onto another piece of BLM land. Just as in the case of crossing whether in the middle or in the corner you are merely stepping from BLM to BLM and no trespassing has occurred in his opinion, which seems highly credible reading his BIO.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The alleged UIA violation is 100% federal court. However, there is no federal crime with respect to the alleged state trespass violations. BLM doesn’t have jurisdiction here, and I can’t see how anyone could argue they do.

The only federal avenue I could even possibly see he is arguing or posing is the UIA interfering with the hunters to the degree it forces them to trespass, but man that seems like a weak sauce argument relative to the corner/airspace issue.

 

[Pestcontrol]

The alleged UIA violation is 100% federal court. However, there is no federal crime with respect to the alleged state trespass violations.

“However, there is no federal crime with respect to the alleged state trespass violations.“. I think you just answered your own question, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL CRIME NOR A STATE CRIME. Walking from BLM to BLM is not a crime according to the Professors viewpoint.

 

[Dakotakid]