Enlighten me on corner hopping

i would argue the word, knowingly, would be very hard to prove, i believe you could poll a thousand people today about trespass, a finite point in space, the air over a persons property,

there are many many people that would have no idea that stepping from one square to another, as in the 1 foot squares on your kitchen floor, is trespassing on the adjoining land,

remember not everyone lives on hunttalk where we can discuss these things,

300stw said:

i would argue the word, knowingly, would be very hard to prove, i believe you could poll a thousand people today about trespass, a finite point in space, the air over a persons property,

there are many many people that would have no idea that stepping from one square to another, as in the 1 foot squares on your kitchen floor, is trespassing on the adjoining land,

remember not everyone lives on hunttalk where we can discuss these things,

Click to expand...

Interesting. However, I think as I said before, the very act of searching for a corner is an acknowledgement that a corner exists. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; meaning that one not knowingly commit the crime but, rather, knowingly commit the act. You may not know it's a crime, but you know you are crossing a corner. Claiming that you didn't know you couldn't cross a corner without going through adjacent premises would probably not fly.

I used to get discouraged because the application of laws never made any sense to me. Then an attorney explained to me how he bombed his first test because he asserted there was a right answer to a particular question. He then told me something about how the two attorneys will present their interpretations on how the law would apply to the particular case. It still doesn't make sense, but I care less about it now since clearly the lawyers are making it all up as they go along.

RobG said:

I used to get discouraged because the application of laws never made any sense to me. Then an attorney explained to me how he bombed his first test because he asserted there was a right answer to a particular question. He then told me something about how the two attorneys will present their interpretations on how the law would apply to the particular case. It still doesn't make sense, but I care less about it now since clearly the lawyers are making it all up as they go along.

Click to expand...

And remember, "There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court." Clarence Darrow.

I hated the practice of law, mainly because the idealism and philosophical, theoretical stuff we discussed in law school, which I loved, had nothing to do with the real world. When I started practicing and wore a white hat, riding for the environment, I was poor and had a very difficult time with courts. However, when I put on the black hat, working against the environment, I started to make a lot of money and the courts for some reason gave me greater attention while giving a difficult time to opposing counsel. I couldn't sleep at night fkg the environment and decided to try something else. Much better men and women stuck with it. More power to them.

Outside a courtroom one day before a jury trial, opposing counsel, a friend, said I shouldn't let it bug me and that the business of law is business. I thought about that and replied "No, the business of law is minding other people's business." Shortly after that I pulled the plug. Good riddance, I say.

This is an interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Buzz's view on this, but I also understand how muddled laws can be.

I just put in a call to a friend out west, to see how the officials in the area I am going to be hunting view this terrible corner-crossing discretion!

Somewhere up above folks were asking about private condemnation, need to pay, etc. I asked someone who knows:

“Was your right to force access provided by common law, Statute, or Constitution?

Also, did you have to pay the land owner for the part you got and if
so, how was value determined?”

The answer, as I had guessed in the argument above is this: Statute, not common law; yes you have to pay.

Long answer:

“It was a Statute that did it, [...] WS 24-9-101 which has been substantially revised [...] (all changes working against the landlocked petitioner, of course. The case is now done in district court rather than in front of [. . . ] the county commissioners. This means you’ll get screwed more efficiently at least) The value of the ‘taken’ property is calculated same as eminent domain, value before, subtract value after = payout. [. . .] (case law up the wazoo on value arguments of course). For an existing road, there really is no change in value so you end up with an appraiser fudging using acreage values on similar ag land. Basically, there were no damages at all, but you have to come up with something. For form’s sake.

Oddly, in the 1980s there were two road cases in front of the wyo supremes where a dissent said the statute had been abrogated by the state eminent domain act. The other judges didn't agree and the statute continued on down the road providing a separate remedy for private, landlocked property. (In my favorite line from all of the cases on this statute: "it provides an inexpensive and time efficient method to obtain access to landlocked property.") Interestingly, the State eminent domain act does provide authority to bring an action for eminent domain for access ways for, among other things, agricultural property. No one’s ever done it, or at least taken it all the way to the reporters. Looking back, I sometimes think it might have been better to bring the action under that act. It would've all been in District Court and might have been quicker. On the other hand, since the eminent domain act was created solely for the benefit of large corporations, even though it includes agricultural land, an individual landowner having the temerity to make use of it would probably be slapped down pretty hard by both the district and Supreme Court. It's amazing how right-wingers only give a shit about the property rights of large wealthy institutions and organizations. Some little guy, their alleged constituency, trying to get a road to his house? #*^@#* him, he’s taking someone else’s property. Put a pipeline up Farmer Brown’s ass and cook the planet a little more? Sure, its jobs! Theoretically, we were using the right law, per history, but the reality is loaded with all the claymores the old-boy network can provide.”