Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Nicoli7153]

I would argue that the actions of the 4 hunters (hunting across corners) did none of this. The landowner taking the hunters to court and pushing it so hard has forced the issue and the results.
It's not a question of was the land devalued its who caused it to go to judgment and be devalued? Who caused the publicity? Who forced the issue? The hunters would have likely been happy to keep killing elk and being alone back there.

I meant that the landowner created it, not the hunters

 

[Elkmagnet]

Leguly I believe it was elk mountain ranches responsibility to ensure such a valuable thing is shown on title at purchase. If it is showing on title then he can take it up with whoever insured the title policy. Any title offers on the forum?

What is Title Insurance? | Old Republic Title

What is title insurance? Get your questions answered here from Old Republic Title.

www.oldrepublictitle.com

 

[Elkmagnet]

I meant that the landowner created it, not the hunters

My apologies then I was just supporting your thoughts

 

[rogerthat]

This is turning into another "Montana mule deer management" debate.

Making lots of great points about a very important issue to public land sportsman?…yup. Can’t agree more

 

[Sytes]

Wyoming law, specifically Title 10, has no criminal penalty for air space violation.

I came across this. Is this outdated?

10-6-104. Penalty for violation of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303.

A person who violates any provision of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303 is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both.

2022 Wyoming Statutes :: Title 10 - Aeronautics :: Chapter 6 - Penalties :: Section 10-6-104 - Penalty for Violation of w.s. 10-4-101 Through 10-4-303.

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

 

[JM77]

I came across this. Is this outdated?

10-6-104. Penalty for violation of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303.

A person who violates any provision of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303 is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both.

2022 Wyoming Statutes :: Title 10 - Aeronautics :: Chapter 6 - Penalties :: Section 10-6-104 - Penalty for Violation of w.s. 10-4-101 Through 10-4-303.

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

I stand corrected. Apparently, the deputy advised me wrong and I failed to read far enough. Original post edited with credit.

 

[BuzzH]

I came across this. Is this outdated?

10-6-104. Penalty for violation of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303.

A person who violates any provision of W.S. 10-4-101 through 10-4-303 is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both.

2022 Wyoming Statutes :: Title 10 - Aeronautics :: Chapter 6 - Penalties :: Section 10-6-104 - Penalty for Violation of w.s. 10-4-101 Through 10-4-303.

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Good catch...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Feeble from one side of the figurative fence.
I was curious why a federal Judge would refuse to dismiss the suit against the four hunters.

"A Federal judge refused last week to dismiss a civil suit against four corner-crossing hunters, ruling that Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman has a “plausible claim” to bring in his allegations of trespass and damage."

"U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl’s July 20 order advanced the court action on Eshelman’s claim that he has a right to exclude others from the airspace above his property."

MSN

2021 Wyoming Statutes​

Title 10 - Aeronautics​

Chapter 4 - Uniform State Law for Aeronautics​

Article 3 - Miscellaneous​

Section 10-4-302 - Ownership of Space.​

The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath subject to the right of flight described in W.S. 10-4-303.

2021 Wyoming Statutes :: Title 10 - Aeronautics :: Chapter 4 - Uniform State Law for Aeronautics :: Article 3 - Miscellaneous :: Section 10-4-302 - Ownership of Space.

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

2021 Wyoming Statutes​

Title 10 - Aeronautics​

Chapter 4 - Uniform State Law for Aeronautics​

Article 3 - Miscellaneous​

Section 10-4-303 - Low or Dangerous Flight; Landing on Land or Water of Another.​

(a) Flight of aircraft, including unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, over the lands and waters of this state is lawful unless it is:

(i) At such a low altitude as to interfere with the existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land or water, is put by the owner;

(ii) Conducted as to be imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or water; or

(iii) In violation of the air commerce regulations promulgated by the department of transportation of the United States.

(b) The landing of an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, on the lands or waters of another, without his consent, is unlawful, except in the case of a forced landing. For damages caused by a forced landing, however, the owner, operator or lessee of the aircraft or the airman shall be liable for actual damage caused by the forced landing.

(c) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent an operator or pilot from operating an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, over his own property.

2021 Wyoming Statutes :: Title 10 - Aeronautics :: Chapter 4 - Uniform State Law for Aeronautics :: Article 3 - Miscellaneous :: Section 10-4-303 - Low or Dangerous Flight; Landing on Land or Water of Another.

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

"Further, Skavdahl refused the hunters’ request to dismiss the civil suit based on the federal Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885. That law states in part that “all inclosures of any public lands … are declared to be unlawful.”

However, he continues, permitting the use of the UIA for the hunters defense

"The hunters may use that federal law as a defense, Skavdahl wrote. But there’s not enough information on the record — particularly regarding the fencing in the area — to allow him to dismiss Eshelman’s suit based on the 1885 statute, the judge wrote.

“The Court cannot determine at this time whether the UlA precludes Plaintiffs [Eshelman’s] claims … because several pertinent questions of fact … remain outside the record,” Skavdahl wrote.

Those questions include “the physical placement, purpose, and extent of [Eshelman’s] fencing, “no trespassing” postings, and any associated warnings,” the order reads."

side note: I've donated a couple hundred to the first round and will continue to donate, upon another request as I'm of the belief corner crossing should be lawful. I'm also one who likes to learn and while learning from here is constant, it's one sided.

Anyone brighter than me able to help interpret what the italics portion above is inferring? My first thought was that Skavdahl might be suggesting that posts/fences at the corners could be a violation of the UIA but if the hunters went over the top of posts at some corners and simply stepped over corner monuments where there weren't posts at others, how would presence of posts make any difference in the civil claim of trespassing in airspace?

 

[Addicting]

Just listened to the most recent podcast on this. @Big Fin thanks for doing it. It led me to a question on the Stock & Wool Growers amicus briefs. I have not read them but I am confused on how their stock or wranglers don’t commit a trespass using the same air space that that the 4 accused did. Would seem that loose stock and retrieval would cause more infractions of trespassing than what stepping over the corners airspace would.

Is there specific laws that allow them freedom of movement that isn’t contradictory to their stand on breaking air space being trespassing?

 

[elkduds]

MSN

 

[Big Fin]

MSN

Good to hear. Fully expected. If you listened to Podcast #3, you will hear us go into the rationale of how that "permanent asset impairment" methodology of damages was completely inapplicable where the damages resulted from a temporary activity, such as an asserted trespass. The judge obviously knows about methodologies; the plaintiff attorney and the realtor, not so much.

That has to be embarrassing for the realtor, the plaintiff, and especially the legal counsel who allowed a claim based on such a inappropriate methodology. That makes me laugh out loud.

 

[BuzzH]

Good to hear. Fully expected. If you listened to Podcast #3, you will hear us go into the rationale of how that "permanent asset impairment" methodology of damages was completely inapplicable where the damages resulted from a temporary activity, such as an asserted trespass. The judge obviously knows about methodologies; the plaintiff attorney and the realtor, not so much.

That has to be embarrassing for the realtor, the plaintiff, and especially the legal counsel who allowed a claim based on such a inappropriate methodology. That makes me laugh out loud.

That was the news I was going to tell you about last week...was tied up down in Tucson or I would have called.

 

[Nicoli7153]

Good to hear. Fully expected. If you listened to Podcast #3, you will hear us go into the rationale of how that "permanent asset impairment" methodology of damages was completely inapplicable where the damages resulted from a temporary activity, such as an asserted trespass. The judge obviously knows about methodologies; the plaintiff attorney and the realtor, not so much.

That has to be embarrassing for the realtor, the plaintiff, and especially the legal counsel who allowed a claim based on such a inappropriate methodology. That makes me laugh out loud.

As I commented before, if that's the best they got we should be happy!

 

[Elkmagnet]

I doubt they ever thought that they'd win this. Could they really be confident. Honestly no matter what Mr big shot is going to feel its a win. This is all shock and aw to make people not corner cross.
What the 4 hunters are being put through dosent sound fun I am glad to offer support so these guys don't get railroaded by Mr big shot using the legal process as a weapon. IMO this is the stuff counter suits are intended to correct.
These guys deserve a judgement for being put through this process.

 

[WyoDoug]

I doubt they ever thought that they'd win this. Could they really be confident. Honestly no matter what Mr big shot is going to feel its a win. This is all shock and aw to make people not corner cross.
What the 4 hunters are being put through dosent sound fun I am glad to offer support so these guys don't get railroaded by Mr big shot using the legal process as a weapon. IMO this is the stuff counter suits are intended to correct.
These guys deserve a judgement for being put through this process.

I agree. I would so for legal costs and lost time from work and whatever I could get after a case like this along with malicious lawsuit damages.

 

[Nicoli7153]

I doubt they ever thought that they'd win this. Could they really be confident. Honestly no matter what Mr big shot is going to feel its a win. This is all shock and aw to make people not corner cross.
What the 4 hunters are being put through dosent sound fun I am glad to offer support so these guys don't get railroaded by Mr big shot using the legal process as a weapon. IMO this is the stuff counter suits are intended to correct.
These guys deserve a judgement for being put through this process.

Agree! Hope they filed a countersuit, think they did.

 

[BuzzH]

I doubt they ever thought that they'd win this. Could they really be confident. Honestly no matter what Mr big shot is going to feel its a win. This is all shock and aw to make people not corner cross.
What the 4 hunters are being put through dosent sound fun I am glad to offer support so these guys don't get railroaded by Mr big shot using the legal process as a weapon. IMO this is the stuff counter suits are intended to correct.
These guys deserve a judgement for being put through this process.

Mr. Big shot thought he was going to win the lawsuit against the stop the steal campaign he funded that ripped him out of a couple million...so no reason to believe he wasn't sure he was going to win this one too. Rich dudes don't like to be told no, why they have a stable full of attorneys.

As far as I know, no counter suit has been filed.

 

[BuzzH]

Good to hear. Fully expected. If you listened to Podcast #3, you will hear us go into the rationale of how that "permanent asset impairment" methodology of damages was completely inapplicable where the damages resulted from a temporary activity, such as an asserted trespass. The judge obviously knows about methodologies; the plaintiff attorney and the realtor, not so much.

That has to be embarrassing for the realtor, the plaintiff, and especially the legal counsel who allowed a claim based on such a inappropriate methodology. That makes me laugh out loud.

I can tell you Rinehart has taking an absolute beating on this, he's lost respect in the community, across the state, and with many of his (former) friends.

Being a hunter himself, he should have known better than to sell out hunters in Wyoming for a check from Fred.

Its always amazing to me what some people will do for money...

 

[Elkmagnet]

Mr. Big shot thought he was going to win the lawsuit against the stop the steal campaign he funded that ripped him out of a couple million...so no reason to believe he wasn't sure he was going to win this one too. Rich dudes don't like to be told no, why they have a stable full of attorneys.

As far as I know, no counter suit has been filed.

I always made one prayer to God: “O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous! ”God granted it.

 

[PrairieHunter]

I can tell you Rinehart has taking an absolute beating on this, he's lost respect in the community, across the state, and with many of his (former) friends.

Being a hunter himself, he should have known better than to sell out hunters in Wyoming for a check from Fred.

Its always amazing to me what some people will do for money...

I bought my house from James, he is quite the character. I have also run across the the taxidermist who confronted the 4 originally. Kinda fun knowing who these people are. But as you mentioned I suspect many of the people they know do not support what they have done in this situation.