Legos dont lie!Its all nonsense.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Legos dont lie!Its all nonsense.
Lots of political capital to burn to fight a battle you won't win...that's all I'm saying.I agree but it doesnt mean they wont try
Montana's amnended ours a few times so it is possible to do thats all im saying
FIFY - unless you have evidence of a felony you would like to offer.sounds to me like the ranch owner knows he's going to lose in federal court so he is trying to get it back to state level wherehe stands a better chance of influencing/paying for a favorable ruling in his favorlandowners have historically a lot of political cloat.
I have represented billionaires and paupers - most clients have a hard time hearing no - it is a human affliction.Rich people have a hard time being told no...in my experience.
Are you denying that those with money aren't more inclined to use their influence and power so they aren't told no?I have represented billionaires and paupers - most clients have a hard time hearing no - it is a human affliction.
Thanks Buzz. I really feel like even if the civil case is dismissed or equivalent, the template has been laid out. Corner crossing issue has been a taking of property rights…just not how it’s always been traditionally portrayed. It’s been a taking of the publics right to access their public lands. It would be sweet justice if this case set precedentLots of political capital to burn to fight a battle you won't win...that's all I'm saying.
The landowner can drop his claims fairly deep into the process and we clearly aren't there yet.So are we talking about a countersuit as a separate suit or does that countersuit keep the trespassing suit in motion?
Seems like if only the countersuit is being reviewed it may not fully address the corner crossing legality issue?
I doubt that will be found controlling on the simple trespass question of corner crossing in its historical usage.Sec. 26. Ownership of certain lands disclaimed; restriction on taxation of nonresidents. The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States and that said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States residing without this state shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents of this state; that no taxes shall be imposed by this state on lands or property therein, belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States, or reserved for its use. But nothing in this article shall preclude this state from taxing as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person, a title thereto, by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any acts of congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such an extent, as is, or may be provided in the act of congress granting the same.
Access too land is not a right of that land.Right, and if they were to pass a law saying corner crossing is trespass, how do you enforce trespass when the State has "forever disclaimed all right and title to the unappropriated lands"?
Those lands are owned by all of us and via corner crossing you never set foot on land other than those that you've already disclaimed right and title to forever.
In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.
Do want to argue with Ryan? I have his number.I doubt that will be found controlling on the simple trespass question of corner crossing in its historical usage.
I agree but it doesnt mean they wont try that's all im sayingLots of political capital to burn to fight a battle you won't win...that's all I'm saying.
I was responding to "not taking no for an answer". Which is about character/demeanor more than resources.Are you denying that those with money aren't more inclined to use their influence and power so they aren't told no?
Funny.
Oh, and don't forget Grende's statement "Do you realize how much money my boss has"?
Resolving long-felt issues is often about willingness to pursue and political/judicial willingness to hear. Getting those two aligned can take a long time. see, Brown vs Board of Education - the answer was there from day one - we just lacked the willingness to fix it.I 100% hope that this is a successful step towards resolving corner crossing permanently but I've also got to say that my first inclination whenever I hear a "slam dunk" resolution to an old problem is "why didn't anybody come up with that sooner then?"
In other words, why has this been a question for so long if the answer was so cut and dry in the law.
You aren't by chance a billionaire, are you?Do want to argue with Ryan? I have his number.
Or Roe v Wade…Resolving long-felt issues is often about willingness to pursue and political/judicial willingness to hear. Getting those two aligned can take a long time. see, Brown vs Board of Education - the answer was there from day one - we just lacked the willingness to fix it.
I was thinking about the ad coelum just now; to your point about it being nonsense, in OG law in many (most?) states there is the idea that one mineral owner can't keep an adjacent owner from extracting/ benefiting from their minerals.In other words, a corner crossing law is meaningless and would be in conflict with the State Constitution. Before somebody chimes in with "what about the airspace"...that's all nonsense and everyone knows it.
You want Ryan's number as well?You aren't by chance a billionaire, are you?
I heard the same about the criminal case, and I also thought it could go the other way.I 100% hope that this is a successful step towards resolving corner crossing permanently but I've also got to say that my first inclination whenever I hear a "slam dunk" resolution to an old problem is "why didn't anybody come up with that sooner then?"
In other words, why has this been a question for so long if the answer was so cut and dry in the law.
I get putting a good face on and believing in the merits of your arguments, but there's also got to be a little reality check that this could still go the other way.