Lloyd Hettick of BHA your bigotry and racism is all documented on here . And you always project your racism and ignorance by labeling those who question or lies and racism as nazis
You're a sad clown Lloyd Hettick of BHA
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by ribka
Lloyd Hettick what law school did you attend, what year did you graduate, when did you pass the Wyoming bar and how many years have you been practicing in property rights ? How many briefs have you personally filed in court?
Thanks
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by Remsen
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Wow, leave for a few days and all my secret admirers can't stop posting...so, weird.
As to Remsen, he did a nice overview of what Eshelman's attorneys also thought, they didn't have it right either.
They figured they could bully A.M. Davis into taking the criminal trial to court, where she was promptly pounded into oblivion and where the Missouri4 in about a 30 minute jury deliberation were found not guilty of criminal trespass violation. That was the case Remsen was going to make a run at intervening in, to limit public land hunters from accessing public land. How noble.
Strike one for Fred and Remsen.
In a stroke of genius, Eshelman then filed a civil suit, that everyone knew was a joke, claiming 7.5 million in damage because some hunters stepped from piece of public land to another. Remsen makes the claim that judge Skavdahl got it wrong, well, of the dozens of attorneys and law professors I've personally talked with, they disagree. Remsen claims that Leo Sheep should apply, those I've talked with say no, because it was case involving the Government wanting to punch a road across private property. The court, in that case, got it right in its denial, because the Government has the right to gain access via eminent domain. That's not the case with a private party in this case, because, number 1 a private party has no access to eminent domain, and more importantly they were not looking to gain access via punching a road across private property. They stepped from one piece of public land to another piece of public land. So, Judge Skavdahl, correctly referenced Mackay, which is absolutely relevant to this case, no matter how long ago it may have been determined by a court.
Strike 2 for Remsen.
Finally the state law Remsen is referring to, was a surprise to me as well. But what WAS NOT a surprise is that WYBHA via our lobbyist and the efforts of our membership, stopped a similar bill brought by Barry Crago (R) Sheridan in 2021/22 because we felt the language of "traveling through" was in reference to air space and corner crossing. We went full court press and Crago withdrew the bill. We worked with him in the interim and had the language added to specifically say that for there to be trespass the offender must touch the surface of the property. I'm not going to claim to know, at the time, that this would be the outcome in a Federal court ruling, but I was smart enough to know that we needed to make damn sure that State law did not impede any nonsense airspace claim. To see Skavdahl, not only reference the law, but also tell them what the intent was, what a thing of beauty. Make no mistake, WYBHA was THE reason this bill passed in 22/23, if it would have been any thing less than the specific language, we would have killed it again.
Strike 3 for Remsen.
Another bill we pushed and got through the legislature was in reference to the UIA, illegally posting and trying to keep the public off public land. That law allows the WYGF to cite anyone that illegally posts public lands with hunter harassment.
Strike 4 for Remsen.
Another thing Remsen mentions is Skavdahl raking those that tried to intervene in the case without growing through the proper channels. That he has right, but there is little doubt that those trying to wrongfully intervene were from the property rights camp, someone (and perhaps) along the lines of UPOM. I would like to think it wasn't Remsen, as even though he claims to have looked into doing so for the criminal trial, I would like to think as an attorney he would know better. I have full faith he didn't and does know better, he's not a dumb guy. Of note is that BHA was granted their amicus, which is the proper way to do things.
Finally, Remsen, since you didn't know, the waypoint 6 issue never held water from day 1. I can mark a waypoint on your property from a gps or computer. That was a lame attempt to smear the Missouri4, but they found a clue and withdrew that part of their claim. Also, in his ruling Skavdahl said the max penalty would be $100 fine, or less. I knew it was going to be dropped a couple days before it hit the press.
What Remsen does have right, is that people do see things differently, he doesn't agree with Skavdahls decision, others do. He's also right that the 10th could see things differently, but again, many that are closely involved in this case seem to think that Skavdahl spent considerable time with this case, and has it right. We'll see, as I'm pretty confident it will be appealed. Remsen will argue the other way, but that's no surprise, that's what lawyers are paid to do. Every case has a winning attorney and a losing attorney.
However, win or lose, it was the right time to take a shot at corner crossing and the naysayers have claimed all along we would lose every case, so far that's not been the outcome. Recreationists and public land users had absolutely nothing to lose by trying to get clarity on corner crossing. You can't lose what you never had.
That said, I like our chances, the 10th seems to have reasonable and solid judges.
Buzz, as much as I don't like BHA, my issue with the corner crossing matter has always been that it is a matter to be resolved by each state's legislature, not the courts. The Wyoming state law that will go into effect in July is the right way to handle the question. That law is quite clear and, as the judge in the case noted, it had strong support from the legislature. That I personally agree with the law is not relevant; that it's the law is relevant and it moots the entire state law issues. If this case is appealed, the court should focus on the fact that the state law is what governs the question and whatever relevance Mackay and Leo Sheep have should be set aside for a case where a state legislature hasn't already conclusively dealt with the legality of corner crossing.
Agree and thank you for posting that.
I'm smart enough to listen to people that are attorneys, rather than look like an idiot like you.
Why do you think 2100 actual hunters and public land advocates financially supported this case.
How much do you think Fred Eshelman knows about property rights? Zero, and apparently his attorneys aren't much better.
