katqanna
Well-known member
Well, hail, had a reply typed, got a phone call and lost it all.
Ben, I think the public needs to see the documents for what they are, versus what the papers are promoting. Immediately after reading that Cowgirl article, I needed to see what the lawsuit actually said. Was it much ado about nothing or was it worse for the public? I did not want someone else's Cliff Notes version, especially when the two appeared quite diverse. But once I did get the lawsuit, from my perspective, it was the "much Worse" scenario.
I had a man call this morning that mentioned that sometimes you have to sue FWP to get them to do something. That may be. He also said that you have to go to the negotiation table asking for more so that you have some room to negotiate. I understand that as well. But, I dont think this was either of those cases and here's why.
If FWP was viewed as a bad neighbor, who was causing damage to the Gianforte's property, why does the filed Complaint not list all that? Where are all the statements about repeated attempts to work with FWP as a boundary neighbor to resolve weed, garbage, property damage, fencing issues, boundary disputes or encroachments?
Instead, the Gianfortes attack the easement with words like "Claims", "Not lawfully granted", and "alleged easement", casting dispersion on the existence of the easement itself. They also attack the Public's right to the easement saying it is "unnecessary", "demanding" FWP "voluntarily extinguish the easement" because they, the Gianfortes, are "entitled" to extinguish this "burdensome encumbrance, such as this alleged Easement."
From my perspective, this goes a long way towards determining motive. It appears they were trying to legally bully the Public's trustee into handing over our public land and access, simply because they felt they were "entitled" to do so. It is not FWP's fault if Gianforte's title company didnt provide them with the documentation concerning the easement, if that is even the case as they have publicly stated. Why sue FWP for it? Nor does it seem reasonable that they were truly unaware of the easement's existence for so long, since the Certificate of Survey, they kept referencing with each of their transfers, has it right there in a big circle.
On top of seeking to extinguish the "alleged easement", the Gianfortes sought attorney's fees and costs AND "For all other relief deemed proper and just". So they wanted to steal from the Public their land and access, as well as our sportsmen's dollars to pay for their bullying frivolous lawsuit (we had to do some of this anyway over the two years this was being dealt with) and then put the cherry on top with additional "relief deemed proper and just"? This is seriously messed up and that is not my first or second choice of words.
He writes like PERC or that ALEC LTE guy, I forget his name at the moment. I may pull up all his comment history, dissect the vocabulary and writing style, comparing it to some of the PERC/ALEC writers. He is one of these that targets certain sportsmens groups as being "green decoys".
