|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981 |
If your donating to the corner crossing go fund me that BHA has set up all im asking people to do is realize your getting into bed with a liberal, pro- wolf, anti- trapping group no matter how you slice and dice it.
Do your own research to who donates big money and who they support and what they support dont just let this corner crossing thing sway you. Peel a few layers back and really take a look.
Footloose is at it again in Montana im seeing there commercials on T.V
Member Dave Skinner wrote a very good article in the Flathead Beacon on who they get money from its a very interesting read, Google it will probably open your eyes to who BHA really is.
Last edited by sherm_61; 12/03/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,027
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,027 |
I bet it's hard to pole vault with a hunting pack on?
Last edited by las; 12/03/21.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275 |
So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over? Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to. www.historicshooting.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274 |
So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over? Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing. I don't know the Carbon County folks, but I do a lot of work with state Attorneys General as well as local prosecutors and you'd be surprised at how good they can be. A few months back I was prepping the Arkansas AG for a big case at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and we had two former US solicitor generals (the guys who argue cases on behalf of the US before the Supreme Court) to rattle the AG in a moot court type of exercise. This one AG took on the barrage from some really experienced government attorneys and prevailed, and then went on to demolish the other side at the hearing. I have no idea who the four WY attorneys the BHA shill referred to, but I'd not underestimate what the Carbon County DA can do. As an example of how wrong the BHA idiot is, consider this. Here's what the BHA mouthpiece claimed: "Civil trespass is not going to be written as the landowner has to prove "damages" to his property via the trespass. Since stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, in NO WAY damages the adjoining landowner the result of a court case would be a claim of ZERO in punitive damage. " The fact is that courts allow punitive damages in cases like this even if the only other damages that can be shown are nominal damages. For example, this excerpt from a case that discusses both the caselaw and the Restatement of Torts (the guiding principles for cases like this):
Second, a number of courts in states that follow the District's rule on the availability of punitive damages make an exception to this rule in cases of intentional trespass. These courts have ruled that "proof of the trespass creates a presumption that some minimal damage was sustained and that such a presumption will satisfy the rule requiring a showing of actual damages as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages." 2 Modern [*78] Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 21:49 (2d ed.). For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff does not need to show actual damages to support an award of punitive damages in a case of intentional trespass to land because "the law presumes that a plaintiff has been damaged [**5] without the necessity of proof of actual damage." Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Ore. 903, 544 P.2d 147, 158 (Or. 1975) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts 66, § 13 (4th ed. 1971)).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the general rule precluding punitive damages without compensatory damages does not apply to cases of intentional trespass to land, which "causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars." Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605, 622, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997). The "actual harm" in an intentional trespass is "not in the damage done to the land, which may be minimal, but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property and . . . this right may be punished by a large damage award despite the lack of measurable harm." Id. at 617. The court therefore upheld an award of $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Although this is a question of first impression in the District of Columbia, the Court finds this rationale persuasive. The proposition that an award of nominal damages will support an award of punitive damages in a "harmless intentional trespass" action is also supported by the Restatement:
The [**6] fact that the actor knows that his entry is without the consent of the possessor and without any other privilege to do so, while not necessary to make him liable, may affect the amount of damages recoverable against him, by showing such a complete disregard of the possessor's legally protected interest in the exclusive possession of his land as to justify the imposition of punitive in addition to nominal damages for even a harmless trespass, or in addition to compensatory damages for one which is harmful.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 cmt. e. The Restatement reiterates this position under the punitive damages section: "[A]n award of nominal damages . . . is enough to support a further award of punitive damages, when a tort, such as trespass to land, is committed for an outrageous purpose, but no significant harm has resulted." Id. § 908 cmt. c.
A Wyoming court is going to follow the same rationale. I generally focus my fights against another scumbag organization that lies about what they are really up to (the ACLU), but I may have to drop a note to the Carbon County DA to see if they'd like any help fighting the ugly and stupid sister of the ACLU, BHA.
Last edited by Remsen; 12/03/21.
Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075 |
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.
If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.
God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,133
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,133 |
So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over? Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing. I don't know the Carbon County folks, but I do a lot of work with state Attorneys General as well as local prosecutors and you'd be surprised at how good they can be. A few months back I was prepping the Arkansas AG for a big case at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and we had two former US solicitor generals (the guys who argue cases on behalf of the US before the Supreme Court) to rattle the AG in a moot court type of exercise. This one AG took on the barrage from some really experienced government attorneys and prevailed, and then went on to demolish the other side at the hearing. I have no idea who the four WY attorneys the BHA shill referred to, but I'd not underestimate what the Carbon County DA can do. As an example of how wrong the BHA idiot is, consider this. Here's what the BHA mouthpiece claimed: "Civil trespass is not going to be written as the landowner has to prove "damages" to his property via the trespass. Since stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, in NO WAY damages the adjoining landowner the result of a court case would be a claim of ZERO in punitive damage. " The fact is that courts allow punitive damages in cases like this even if the only other damages that can be shown are nominal damages. For example, this excerpt from a case that discusses both the caselaw and the Restatement of Torts (the guiding principles for cases like this):
Second, a number of courts in states that follow the District's rule on the availability of punitive damages make an exception to this rule in cases of intentional trespass. These courts have ruled that "proof of the trespass creates a presumption that some minimal damage was sustained and that such a presumption will satisfy the rule requiring a showing of actual damages as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages." 2 Modern [*78] Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 21:49 (2d ed.). For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff does not need to show actual damages to support an award of punitive damages in a case of intentional trespass to land because "the law presumes that a plaintiff has been damaged [**5] without the necessity of proof of actual damage." Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Ore. 903, 544 P.2d 147, 158 (Or. 1975) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts 66, § 13 (4th ed. 1971)).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the general rule precluding punitive damages without compensatory damages does not apply to cases of intentional trespass to land, which "causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars." Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605, 622, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997). The "actual harm" in an intentional trespass is "not in the damage done to the land, which may be minimal, but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property and . . . this right may be punished by a large damage award despite the lack of measurable harm." Id. at 617. The court therefore upheld an award of $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Although this is a question of first impression in the District of Columbia, the Court finds this rationale persuasive. The proposition that an award of nominal damages will support an award of punitive damages in a "harmless intentional trespass" action is also supported by the Restatement:
The [**6] fact that the actor knows that his entry is without the consent of the possessor and without any other privilege to do so, while not necessary to make him liable, may affect the amount of damages recoverable against him, by showing such a complete disregard of the possessor's legally protected interest in the exclusive possession of his land as to justify the imposition of punitive in addition to nominal damages for even a harmless trespass, or in addition to compensatory damages for one which is harmful.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 cmt. e. The Restatement reiterates this position under the punitive damages section: "[A]n award of nominal damages . . . is enough to support a further award of punitive damages, when a tort, such as trespass to land, is committed for an outrageous purpose, but no significant harm has resulted." Id. § 908 cmt. c.
A Wyoming court is going to follow the same rationale. I generally focus my fights against another scumbag organization that lies about what they are really up to (the ACLU), but I may have to drop a note to the Carbon County DA to see if they'd like any help fighting the ugly and stupid sister of the ACLU, BHA. Wow, you'll be fighting sportsmen and women in Wyoming, not the BHA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275 |
Remsen you have my blessings.
I had to chuckle at the comment about the EM ranch not providing lawyers... BHA best be careful what they wish for because there is nothing that prohibits them from lawsuits of various sorts, win loose or draw on this trespass thing.
This could get to be very interesting because there are a slew of very good attorneys from Wyoming that are pretty damn sharp on private property rights, and other civil matters..
the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to. www.historicshooting.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275 |
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.
If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.
Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees? interesting..
the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to. www.historicshooting.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274 |
So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over? Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing. I don't know the Carbon County folks, but I do a lot of work with state Attorneys General as well as local prosecutors and you'd be surprised at how good they can be. A few months back I was prepping the Arkansas AG for a big case at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and we had two former US solicitor generals (the guys who argue cases on behalf of the US before the Supreme Court) to rattle the AG in a moot court type of exercise. This one AG took on the barrage from some really experienced government attorneys and prevailed, and then went on to demolish the other side at the hearing. I have no idea who the four WY attorneys the BHA shill referred to, but I'd not underestimate what the Carbon County DA can do. As an example of how wrong the BHA idiot is, consider this. Here's what the BHA mouthpiece claimed: "Civil trespass is not going to be written as the landowner has to prove "damages" to his property via the trespass. Since stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, in NO WAY damages the adjoining landowner the result of a court case would be a claim of ZERO in punitive damage. " The fact is that courts allow punitive damages in cases like this even if the only other damages that can be shown are nominal damages. For example, this excerpt from a case that discusses both the caselaw and the Restatement of Torts (the guiding principles for cases like this):
Second, a number of courts in states that follow the District's rule on the availability of punitive damages make an exception to this rule in cases of intentional trespass. These courts have ruled that "proof of the trespass creates a presumption that some minimal damage was sustained and that such a presumption will satisfy the rule requiring a showing of actual damages as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages." 2 Modern [*78] Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 21:49 (2d ed.). For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff does not need to show actual damages to support an award of punitive damages in a case of intentional trespass to land because "the law presumes that a plaintiff has been damaged [**5] without the necessity of proof of actual damage." Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Ore. 903, 544 P.2d 147, 158 (Or. 1975) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts 66, § 13 (4th ed. 1971)).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the general rule precluding punitive damages without compensatory damages does not apply to cases of intentional trespass to land, which "causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars." Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605, 622, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997). The "actual harm" in an intentional trespass is "not in the damage done to the land, which may be minimal, but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property and . . . this right may be punished by a large damage award despite the lack of measurable harm." Id. at 617. The court therefore upheld an award of $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Although this is a question of first impression in the District of Columbia, the Court finds this rationale persuasive. The proposition that an award of nominal damages will support an award of punitive damages in a "harmless intentional trespass" action is also supported by the Restatement:
The [**6] fact that the actor knows that his entry is without the consent of the possessor and without any other privilege to do so, while not necessary to make him liable, may affect the amount of damages recoverable against him, by showing such a complete disregard of the possessor's legally protected interest in the exclusive possession of his land as to justify the imposition of punitive in addition to nominal damages for even a harmless trespass, or in addition to compensatory damages for one which is harmful.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 cmt. e. The Restatement reiterates this position under the punitive damages section: "[A]n award of nominal damages . . . is enough to support a further award of punitive damages, when a tort, such as trespass to land, is committed for an outrageous purpose, but no significant harm has resulted." Id. § 908 cmt. c.
A Wyoming court is going to follow the same rationale. I generally focus my fights against another scumbag organization that lies about what they are really up to (the ACLU), but I may have to drop a note to the Carbon County DA to see if they'd like any help fighting the ugly and stupid sister of the ACLU, BHA. Wow, you'll be fighting sportsmen and women in Wyoming, not the BHA. Nope, it's BHA doing this. The sportsmen and women of Wyoming probably have the same opinion of BHA starting sh*t as I do. You know that line about drawing first blood....it applies to law as well. BHA doesn't respect or even support private property rights. Like many have said, there are a number of very legitimate ways to deal with this problem, and the WY legislature is the right place to go. Shakedown groups like BHA want to eliminate private property rights and have a demonstrated history of fighting against the interests of actual sportspeople.
Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409 |
At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing.
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075 |
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.
If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.
Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees? interesting.. Let me guess you have some of that prime land blocked up?
God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409 |
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.
If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.
Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees? interesting.. That is a welfare entitlement position.
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981 |
At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing. So are you willing to get into bed with BHA over it?
Last edited by sherm_61; 12/03/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,808
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,808 |
So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over? Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing. I don't know the Carbon County folks, but I do a lot of work with state Attorneys General as well as local prosecutors and you'd be surprised at how good they can be. A few months back I was prepping the Arkansas AG for a big case at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and we had two former US solicitor generals (the guys who argue cases on behalf of the US before the Supreme Court) to rattle the AG in a moot court type of exercise. This one AG took on the barrage from some really experienced government attorneys and prevailed, and then went on to demolish the other side at the hearing. I have no idea who the four WY attorneys the BHA shill referred to, but I'd not underestimate what the Carbon County DA can do. As an example of how wrong the BHA idiot is, consider this. Here's what the BHA mouthpiece claimed: "Civil trespass is not going to be written as the landowner has to prove "damages" to his property via the trespass. Since stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, in NO WAY damages the adjoining landowner the result of a court case would be a claim of ZERO in punitive damage. " The fact is that courts allow punitive damages in cases like this even if the only other damages that can be shown are nominal damages. For example, this excerpt from a case that discusses both the caselaw and the Restatement of Torts (the guiding principles for cases like this):
Second, a number of courts in states that follow the District's rule on the availability of punitive damages make an exception to this rule in cases of intentional trespass. These courts have ruled that "proof of the trespass creates a presumption that some minimal damage was sustained and that such a presumption will satisfy the rule requiring a showing of actual damages as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages." 2 Modern [*78] Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 21:49 (2d ed.). For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff does not need to show actual damages to support an award of punitive damages in a case of intentional trespass to land because "the law presumes that a plaintiff has been damaged [**5] without the necessity of proof of actual damage." Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Ore. 903, 544 P.2d 147, 158 (Or. 1975) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts 66, § 13 (4th ed. 1971)).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the general rule precluding punitive damages without compensatory damages does not apply to cases of intentional trespass to land, which "causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars." Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605, 622, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997). The "actual harm" in an intentional trespass is "not in the damage done to the land, which may be minimal, but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property and . . . this right may be punished by a large damage award despite the lack of measurable harm." Id. at 617. The court therefore upheld an award of $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Although this is a question of first impression in the District of Columbia, the Court finds this rationale persuasive. The proposition that an award of nominal damages will support an award of punitive damages in a "harmless intentional trespass" action is also supported by the Restatement:
The [**6] fact that the actor knows that his entry is without the consent of the possessor and without any other privilege to do so, while not necessary to make him liable, may affect the amount of damages recoverable against him, by showing such a complete disregard of the possessor's legally protected interest in the exclusive possession of his land as to justify the imposition of punitive in addition to nominal damages for even a harmless trespass, or in addition to compensatory damages for one which is harmful.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 cmt. e. The Restatement reiterates this position under the punitive damages section: "[A]n award of nominal damages . . . is enough to support a further award of punitive damages, when a tort, such as trespass to land, is committed for an outrageous purpose, but no significant harm has resulted." Id. § 908 cmt. c.
A Wyoming court is going to follow the same rationale. I generally focus my fights against another scumbag organization that lies about what they are really up to (the ACLU), but I may have to drop a note to the Carbon County DA to see if they'd like any help fighting the ugly and stupid sister of the ACLU, BHA. Wow, you'll be fighting sportsmen and women in Wyoming, not the BHA. Nope, it's BHA doing this. The sportsmen and women of Wyoming probably have the same opinion of BHA starting sh*t as I do. You know that line about drawing first blood....it applies to law as well. BHA doesn't respect or even support private property rights. Like many have said, there are a number of very legitimate ways to deal with this problem, and the WY legislature is the right place to go. Shakedown groups like BHA want to eliminate private property rights and have a demonstrated history of fighting against the interests of actual sportspeople. Nope, the EM folk called the county attorney 15 times in a day to whine about 4 hunters crossing from one piece of public to another piece of public after they illegally posted public land and harassed the 4 hunters. It won't be you deciding who's right and who's wrong...if, and that's a big if, it goes to court we'll find out. Nothing for sportsmen to lose...plenty for that particular landowner to lose. Risk vs. reward....some savvy it, some don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,409 |
At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing. So are you willing to get into bed with BHA over it? Nope
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275 |
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.
If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.
Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees? interesting.. Let me guess you have some of that prime land blocked up? I do have a small piece of blm that is way up in the corner of a 700 acre parcel, that is surrounded by other deeded lands. The BlM for all practical purposes really isn't accessible from any direction, but to even get to it would take an easement across over a mile of private land. To follow the section lines to get to it from any direction would take a gawd awful lot of road building. That would require an EIS study, then there's the takings of private property that would need to be dealt with. Not to mention all the archeological study that would need be done and disturbed.. The fence to seperate the easement... And you think all that would be worth it just so you might see a deer or elk on it, that if one happened to be bedded on it would be long gone before you could even get with shooting distance of it? Yeh best to think some of these things thru first...
the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to. www.historicshooting.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075 |
The west is bi-polar, half the argument is over fences and access and half the arguments are over free range grazing.
God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,981 |
At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing. So are you willing to get into bed with BHA over it? Nope My stance exactly, you gotta pick between the lesser of 2 evils and in my opinion BHA is the Devil in sheep's clothing.Lands nice cushy 135,000- 145,000 salary and # 2 guys 100,000 + salary should tell people something. Even Lands parent were heavily involved in " non- profit ' big money liberal organizations. Ed Bangs who was instrumental in the wolf reintroduction donated 20,000 to BHA it goes on and on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,275 |
At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing. I believe firmly the corner crossing issue can be resolved, but it's not going to be easy.
the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to. www.historicshooting.com
|
|
|
|
|
595 members (10gaugeman, 007FJ, 160user, 2500HD, 1beaver_shooter, 240NMC, 64 invisible),
2,340
guests, and
1,238
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,652
Posts18,455,518
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
