Boycott
.jpg)
Cpt. Charles Boycott was an agent for remote land owners in Ireland who was regarded as particularly severe. During the Irish Land War the Land League introduced the boycott, directing it first at Cpt. Boycott. They refused him everything, even conversations. The concept was introduced by Irish politician Charles Parnell, noting:
When a man takes a farm from which another has been evicted, you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him, you must shun him in the streets of the town, you must shun him at the shop-counter, you must shun him in the fair and at the marketplace, and even in the house of worship... you must shun him your detestation of the crime he has committed... if the population of a county in Ireland carry out this doctrine, that there will be no man ... [who would dare] to transgress your unwritten code of laws.
Charles Stewart Parnell, at Ennis meeting, 19 September 1880.
Maybe it's time to take a page from the Land League.
This comes up in the context of a Reddit post on Fred Eshelman's Iron Bar Ranch, his toy ranch in Carbon County about which he's zealously pursuing litigation in trying to keep people form corner crossing. So far, he's losing, having had the local Federal District Court first, and then the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals endorse corner crossing as legal. As we've noted here:
The Reddit post, which was linked into an out of state news article, provoked a series of responses on how locals shouldn't accommodate Iron Bar economically, the posters apparently being unaware that he's a wealthy out of state landowner that doesn't, for example, hit the feed store in Rawlins.
But I wonder if they were on to something?
Iron Bar is employing locals, and those locals are serving to oppress Wyomingites. There's no real reason to accommodate them. They probably do go to the feed store in Rawlins, probably stop by Bi-Rite in that city, and probably go into town there, or maybe Saratoga, from time to time.
Why accommodate them?
They're serving the interest of a carpetbagger and have chosen their lot. There's no reason to sell them fishing tackle or gasoline, or take their order at the restaurant.
Beyond that, as I've noted before, in his lawsuit Eshelman is making use of local lawyers. His big guns are, of course, out of staters, but he still needs some local ones. Originally that person was Greg Weisz, who now works for the AG's office in the state. Megan Overmann Goetz took over when Weisz left. Maybe she had to, as when a lawyer goes into the state's service, he leaves the work behind. Both of them are of the firm Pence and MacMillan in Laramie.
I don't know anything about Weisz, but a state website disturbingly places him in the Water and Natural Resources branch of the AG's office, noting:
Gregory Weisz
Greg joined the Water and Natural Resources Division in January 2024 after almost thirty years in private practice. While in private practice, he focused on real estate transactions and litigation, easement law, water law, general civil litigation, agricultural law, and natural resources. At the Attorney General's office, he represents many Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality agencies including the Land Quality Division, Industrial Siting Division, Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, Storage Tank department, Abandoned Mine Lands Division, and DEQ itself with general legal issues. He graduated with an undergraduate degree in Natural Resources Management and a law degree from the University of Wyoming. His prior work experience included private forestry consulting, oil & gas exploration, water treatment, ranch labor, and forest products manufacturing.
Lawyers very strongly believe that the justice system is great, and that by serving client's, they're serving truth, justice, apple pie, and motherhood. That allows them to stand themselves. And to some extent, it's true, particularly in the criminal justice system. The entire system depends on the accused getting representation, which is in everyone's best interest.
But that's not true of Plaintiff's cases. Plaintiff's lawyers make a big deal of how they serve the little man, but much of it is a crock. And in something like this, Weisz was serving the interest of a wealthy carpetbagger. Maybe he believes in the cause, but that doesn't mean that people have to accommodate him, then or now. Now there are questions that Wyomingites in particular and public lands users in general have a right to demand of Weisz, most particularly does he believe in Eshelman's cause. If he does, do we want him in the state's law firm, the AG's office?
Beyond that, for the Wyoming lawyers actively representing Eshelman, why accommodate them. They can be comforted by chocking down their service to a bad cause by liberal doses of cash. Locals don't have to accommodate them, however. Laramie and Cheyenne are not far from Colorado, they can buy their groceries there.
I know that if I was shopping for somebody to provide legal services, I'd shop elsewhere if I found my law firm was representing somebody trying to screw public land access for locals.
But it doesn't stop there. All three of Wyoming's "representatives" in Congress voted against what Wyomingites overwhelmingly believe. That ought to be enough to vote them out of office. But people don't need to wait until then. All three are still showing up, I bet, at Boy Scout, sportsmen's and other events. Quit inviting them. And if they do show up, do what Hageman did at the State Bar Convention last year, walk out on her if she speaks as she did to a speaker.
Is this extreme? It is. But these efforts never cease.
When being an employee of Fred Eshelman means you have to drive to Ft. Collins in order to buy a loaf of bread, it won't be worth it. When Escheman can't get a plumber or electrician to come to his house, or anyone to doctor his cattle, or give him a ride from the airport, it won't be worth it for him. When lawyers have decide if that one case is worth not getting anymore, I know what decision they'll make. When John Barrasso quits getting invitations to speak, he'll know what to do.
There are limits, of course, to all of this. You can't hurt people or property. If somebody needs medical service, they should get it. If somebody is stuck in a blizzard and you come upon the, they should get the ride. But you don't have to serve them at the restaurant or agree to fix their pickup truck.
Or, so it seems to me. It would at least seem worth debating.
Boycott.
