Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[BuzzH]

I wonder if part of the reason land owners are against corner crossing (generalized statement) is because they are concerned about people "cutting corners" or accessing the public land in ways other than stepping exactly over the corner marker. I mean realistically, if a law was made right now saying corner crossing was legal only if you step over at the exact corner, there will be a lot of people who are too lazy to find the corner. Much easier to be "close enough." Just a thought I had. I would be concerned about this if I was a land owner.

Then ticket those that short cut the corners. Punish the offenders

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Then ticket those that short cut the corners. Punish the offenders

Agree 100%. That isn't going to stop people from doing it though.

 

[BuzzH]

Agree 100%. That isn't going to stop people from doing it though.

$750 a pop will.

 

[JM77]

I wonder if part of the reason land owners are against corner crossing (generalized statement) is because they are concerned about people "cutting corners" or accessing the public land in ways other than stepping exactly over the corner marker. I mean realistically, if a law was made right now saying corner crossing was legal only if you step over at the exact corner, there will be a lot of people who are too lazy to find the corner. Much easier to be "close enough." Just a thought I had. I would be concerned about this if I was a land owner.

All due respect, do you really think that's part of the reason landowners don't want corner crossing?

There's only one reason: they don't want anyone on the public without their permission.

 

[VikingsGuy]

We'll see what arguments are made in court...if it gets there.

Now that this much attention has been brought you gotta think the county will drop, rather than risk a bad decision. The FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) of the current state serves land owners well.

 

[BuzzH]

Now that this much attention has been brought you gotta think the county will drop, rather than risk a bad decision. The FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) of the current state serves land owners well.

I hope so, would really like to see a large donation to access rather than a court battle.

 

[ccc23454]

I hope so, would really like to see a large donation to access rather than a court battle.

But what happens when next year same corner same issue happens? Then perhaps it doesnt have gofundme backing and makes its case easier for landowner and county. Without a court finding or the Attorney General statement saying corner crossing is legal nothing gets accomplished other than a access yes donation. If charges are dismissed can the 4 guys sue the county?

 

[Bigjay73]

If they do drop it, at what point do they either take a corner crossing case to court, or stop issuing tickets?

 

[BuzzH]

But what happens when next year same corner same issue happens? Then perhaps it doesnt have gofundme backing and makes its case easier for landowner and county. Without a court finding or the Attorney General statement saying corner crossing is legal nothing gets accomplished other than a access yes donation. If charges are dismissed can the 4 guys sue the county?

I don't know.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't know.

I can’t speak to WY in specific, but most jurisdictions have procedures to allow challenging a law without having to face “on again off again prosecution” that serves to avoid judicial review, but courts are fairly reluctant to allow as “advisory rulings” are frowned upon.

 

[idahohuntr]

Now that this much attention has been brought you gotta think the county will drop, rather than risk a bad decision. The FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) of the current state serves land owners well.

I agree, and I think if this case had not received much attention it may have been dropped. I feel like at this point they have to know they have painted themselves into a corner and dropping the case is almost not an option unless they decide they will no longer ticket corner crossing.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree, and I think if this case had not received much attention it may have been dropped. I feel like at this point they have to know they have painted themselves into a corner and dropping the case is almost not an option unless they decide they will no longer ticket corner crossing.

I don't know that I agree with that. The landowner as well as the county attorney and sheriff have the most to lose.

I think politically the sheriff and county attorney may have just shot themselves in the foot. Certainly has made their reelection questionable.

 

[brownbear932008]

Now that this much attention has been brought you gotta think the county will drop, rather than risk a bad decision. The FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) of the current state serves land owners well.

That's my guess as to how this ends honestly.

 

[Pestcontrol]

In what way does the momentary passing through the air space "invalidate the Private Landowners rightful use and full enjoyment of his lands." Wait ,I'll answer that: it doesn't. The deed that landowner has gives him no exclusive use of the public lands adjacent to his property. But rather than take my word, show me the case law that says it does. Or show me statute, that will work too.

Also, rather than mention Randy's misuse of the 5th Amendment, maybe read it yourself. That's a novel thought...

You can take up Randy’s misuse of the 5th Amendment with him. Perhaps he can refer you to the attorney who briefed him that. For now, I’ll side with the clear wording of the Constitution.

Regarding case law, the Grand Daddy case is Leo Sheep Company vs. U.S. and I quote from Justice Rehnquist, “The Government does not claim that there is any express reservation of an easement in the Union Pacific Act”

Also, :”
Given the existence of such explicit exceptions, such as mineral rights and already homesteader claims, this Court has, in the past, refused to add to this list by divining some "implicit" congressional intent. In Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 97 U. S. 491, 97 U. S. 497 (1878), for example, this Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Field, noted that the intent of Congress in making the Union Pacific grants was clear:

"It was to aid in the construction of the road by a gift of lands along its route, without reservation of rights, except such as were specifically mentioned. . . ."

If an implied Easement exists to trespass and infringe upon the Private landowners rights existed then it would have been expressly reserved in the Railroad grants. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/668/

 

[BuzzH]

The Leo case is irrelevant to corner crossing.

 

[Pestcontrol]

The Leo case is irrelevant to corner crossing.

Even Rinella and his staff understands the relevance of Leo Sheep and other cases and their effect upon Corner Crossing. His most recent article talks about the complicated Case Law and uphill battle.

”Private property advocates say that the act of corner crossing intrudes on the adjacent landowner’s private airspace.
“Because of the airspace, whether your foot touches the ground or doesn't touch the ground, just the act of your body passing through that space would, under that theory that we've always maintained in Wyoming, constitute a trespass,” Magagna said. “It may not have a physical impact on the land or anything. It may not have in this case, but in the sense of fundamental property rights, a violation of my fundamental rights is a violation, whether it occurs through the middle of my property or across the corner of my property. The legal principle is not any different.”
In support of this theory, proponents also look to U.S. vs. Causby, a 1946 Supreme Court case of a chicken farmer who had to abandon his business because of the constant plane traffic at the military airport next door during World War II. Causby claimed the government had illegally “taken” his property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. While the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a person’s property rights extended infinitely upward, the justices did hold that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." They didn’t specify an exact altitude, rather condemning air travel that has “a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.” https://www.themeateater.com/conser...ing-corner-crossing-case-everyone-is-watching

 

[BuzzH]

Well shit, if Jim magagna's opinion, an irrelevant case, and a chicken farmer is what we're up against...I best tell the 4 defense attorneys it's all over.

Pestcontrol, can you shoot me your phone number via pm? I'll forward it to the attorneys so they can consult with you since you're an expert in corner crossing cases.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

All due respect, do you really think that's part of the reason landowners don't want corner crossing?

There's only one reason: they don't want anyone on the public without their permission.

I can imagine it is for a few. Certainly not the main reason though. Hard to believe that every landowner against corner crossing is a greedy bastard not wanting people to access public land. But I may be naive.

 

[JM77]

You can take up Randy’s misuse of the 5th Amendment with him. Perhaps he can refer you to the attorney who briefed him that. For now, I’ll side with the clear wording of the Constitution.

I already took it up with Randy. Ask him. The 5th amendment deals with eminent domain, if you would have bothered to read it.

As far as Leo goes, the four hunters weren't attempting to drive their truck over the corner.

 

[JM77]

But I may be naive.

Akin to Wild Bill sitting in the bar with his back to the front door.