Wyoming Corner Crossing Jury Trial Live Stream

[S-3 ranch]

Honest question.
Is there any determination on how high the airspace ownership goes?
10ft 300ft ? I has to end somewhere. Airplanes are avoiding the airspace around Elk mt ranch like its Russia.
I've never seen anything on how high they own.

“”the Supreme Court hasn't explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it's a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.””

Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?

National Geographic photographer George Steinmetz was arrested for trespass on June 28 after circling his paraglider over a Kansas cattle feedlot,...

slate.com

 

[BuzzH]

It seems to me, it's definitely determined that the landowner owns the airspace above their property, to what can be used within reason.


So I think the hunters were technically trespassing, just like if you bumped a boat on a river, walked down a sidewalk with your hand out. Question is if it would be an offense that would be ticketed. Seems it will likely not be ticketed now, I guess it will be handled like speeding, you can get away with some.

They were found not guilty of criminal trespass by a jury of their peers for crossing a corner owned by the SEVERAL owners of that airspace and corner. One half of said corner and airspace belonging to 327 million owners of public BLM lands.

 

[Billy Goat]

They were found not guilty of criminal trespass by a jury of their peers for crossing a corner owned by the SEVERAL owners of that airspace and corner. One half of said corner and airspace belonging to 327 million owners of public BLM lands.

And 50% of that space being privately owned.

 

[BuzzH]

And 50% of that space being privately owned.

So in your opinion the only owner that has title to a shared corner, and associated air space is the private landowner? I call bullshit...I, and 327 million people have an equal right to our half of that corner and airspace.

Make your case to the contrary.

 

[Billy Goat]

So in your opinion the only owner that has title to a shared corner is the private landowner? I call bullshit...I, and 327 million people have an equal right to our half of that corner.

Make your case to the contrary.

I think nobody has it, technically.

 

[BuzzH]

I think nobody has it, technically.

If that's your contention then how can someone trespass when nobody technically owns the corner or airspace?

Even if there is ownership of the corner or airspace the public still owns half of both.

What this all boils down to is claiming corner crossing is trespassing is just absurd. Exactly why common sense citizens in Carbon County found the Missouri4 not guilty. The same reason judge Castor found in favor of Kearney.

 

[Billy Goat]

If that's your contention then how can someone trespass when nobody technically owns the corner or airspace?

Even if there is ownership of the corner or airspace the public still owns half of both.

What this all boils down to is claiming corner crossing is trespassing is just absurd. Exactly why common sense citizens in Carbon County found the Missouri4 not guilty. The same reason judge Castor found in favor of Kearney.

Because nobody is small enough to only occupy that tiny little point that is the intersection.

If 4 sections come together, with 3 owners. One has two sections opposite each other, how does he cross between sections and not be on property of others? Unless we are now going to say airspace isn't property. That seems simple to me, it's trespassing, which I think you see, so the argument is around criminal trespass. So is that going to mean now that people can trespass, so long as that's the only activity? Or is that limited to only in the air? I just see problems coming from it, living and owning g land in the east, dealing with more people, I have lots of issues already, so I'm soured.


I'm not against access, that's not the point of my argument, I think BLM should be accessed, I just don't think this is the way forward with it. I see private property rights being lost, and new technology is changing how things are accessed, so we don't fully understand what reprocussions might be from just saying, it's only trespass, it's not criminal.


I also don't like the argument of me and 300 million people. What happens when 320 million don't want you to do something, even tho it's right? Only leaves you with 7 million in your favor. Kinda like non hunters versus hunters.

 

[BuzzH]

Because nobody is small enough to only occupy that tiny little point that is the intersection.

If 4 sections come together, with 3 owners. One has two sections opposite each other, how does he cross between sections and not be on property of others? Unless we are now going to say airspace isn't property. That seems simple to me, it's trespassing, which I think you see, so the argument is around criminal trespass. So is that going to mean now that people can trespass, so long as that's the only activity? Or is that limited to only in the air? I just see problems coming from it, living and owning g land in the east, dealing with more people, I have lots of issues already, so I'm soured.


I'm not against access, that's not the point of my argument, I think BLM should be accessed, I just don't think this is the way forward with it. I see private property rights being lost, and new technology is changing how things are accessed, so we don't fully understand what reprocussions might be from just saying, it's only trespass, it's not criminal.


I also don't like the argument of me and 300 million people. What happens when 320 million don't want you to do something, even tho it's right? Only leaves you with 7 million in your favor. Kinda like non hunters versus hunters.

I'm not convinced of anything you said here.

There is no private property lost when a person steps from one piece of public land to another piece of public land over a shared corner with the several owners, It's not trespassing either.

To think otherwise is nonsense... absolutely absurd.

 

[sasquatch]

This corner crossing stuff just oozes greed from our society that exist today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[realunlucky]

Because nobody is small enough to only occupy that tiny little point that is the intersection.

If 4 sections come together, with 3 owners. One has two sections opposite each other, how does he cross between sections and not be on property of others? Unless we are now going to say airspace isn't property. That seems simple to me, it's trespassing, which I think you see, so the argument is around criminal trespass. So is that going to mean now that people can trespass, so long as that's the only activity? Or is that limited to only in the air? I just see problems coming from it, living and owning g land in the east, dealing with more people, I have lots of issues already, so I'm soured.


I'm not against access, that's not the point of my argument, I think BLM should be accessed, I just don't think this is the way forward with it. I see private property rights being lost, and new technology is changing how things are accessed, so we don't fully understand what reprocussions might be from just saying, it's only trespass, it's not criminal.


I also don't like the argument of me and 300 million people. What happens when 320 million don't want you to do something, even tho it's right? Only leaves you with 7 million in your favor. Kinda like non hunters versus hunters.

Can you fence across the corner? Nope because they don't own it. Which is the same reason they can't hang the chain across it

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[HvyBeams]

This corner crossing stuff just oozes greed from our society that exist today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How so?

 

[Billy Goat]

Can you fence across the corner? Nope because they don't own it. Which is the same reason they can't hang the chain across it

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

So since I can't fence across it, doesn't that mean I don't own it? Meaning I can't go across it either.


My argument is independent of if it's between public parcels, or public and private.

 

[Billy Goat]

I'm not convinced of anything you said here.

There is no private property lost when a person steps from one piece of public land to another piece of public land over a shared corner with the several owners, It's not trespassing either.

To think otherwise is nonsense... absolutely absurd.

So its about lost property??

I thought it was about trespassing.

 

[BuzzH]

43 CFR § 9230.9239.2-1 - Enclosures of public lands in specified cases declared unlawful.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[BuzzH]

So its about lost property??

I thought it was about trespassing.

Lose of property rights...and there is none when a person steps from once piece of public land to another piece of public land over a shared corner of the SEVERAL owners.

Common sense...101.

 

[ben h]

Most municipalities, counties have building setbacks anyway, so it's not like the landowner could build on each of the corners, so they're not really losing anything and it is just as an earlier poster mentiond the "trespass" is literally the same as waving your arms onto private land as you walk down the sidewalk.

I'm curious on the civil case, what exactly are his damages other than his own lawyers who he hired? I guess he did lose the $ for the right to use public land for his own enrichment/purposes. Depending on their circumstances for the civil case they could just not even fight it and they'd get a default judgment against them and just not pay it. Course they'd need to get everything out of their name and probably declare bankrupcy, which does cause some pain for a few years.

 

[tdhanses]

Most municipalities, counties have building setbacks anyway, so it's not like the landowner could build on each of the corners, so they're not really losing anything and it is just as an earlier poster mentiond the "trespass" is literally the same as waving your arms onto private land as you walk down the sidewalk.

I'm curious on the civil case, what exactly are his damages other than his own lawyers who he hired? I guess he did lose the $ for the right to use public land for his own enrichment/purposes. Depending on their circumstances for the civil case they could just not even fight it and they'd get a default judgment against them and just not pay it. Course they'd need to get everything out of their name and probably declare bankrupcy, which does cause some pain for a few years.

I don’t think anyone could claim damages to having sole access to public that now is no longer that way. I’m interested in what he feels they damaged to warrant $50k, this seems frivolous and should be tossed from the courts even though people want it to run it’s course.

 

[Marble]

Not guilty.

Kinda wish this case could have been run through the courts. It needs to be figured out once and for all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It can still continue through the court system if the prosecution can find grounds for appeal.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[ben h]

I don't think there are any damages from these individuals, but I saw on another thread where in the realestate ad for the sale of the property it was mentioned that the new owner would have exclusive rights to the public lands that are landlocked within. I'd sue realtors and title companies who have insureance instead of these guys who didn't damage anything.

 

[mtwarden]

Show me a corner crossing case in Wyoming that has been successfully prosecuted under trespass to hunt or criminal trespass.

dude- you're complaining about reading comprehension? read my post (carefully) again

no mention of successful prosecution in my post, I said this wasn't the first prosecution in Wyoming