That's how the conservation group Center for Wester Priorities characterized a three-page letter written by Wyoming populist legislator Bob Ide which asserted that the sale of the Marton Ranch in Natrona County to the Federal Government required the state legislature's permission.
A University of Wyoming professor confirmed that state law did not support Ide's position and frankly, it's abundantly clear that the claim is not only extreme, but baseless.
Every lawyer has been asked that question at some point. Usually it's "how can you represent somebody you know is guilty?"
Usually, amongst lawyers, it's regarded as kind of an eye rolling "oh how naive" type of question. For lawyers who have a philosophical or introspective bent, and I'd submit that's a distance minority, they may have an answer that's based on, basically, defending a system that defends us all. Maybe they have something even more sophisticated, such as something along the lines of St. Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
That's about the best answer that there may be, and frankly the only one that applies to civil litigation. We can console ourselves that in representing the interests of the potentially liable, we protect the interest of everyone.
But what about plaintiff's lawyers?
Frankly, the excuse is wearing thin.
I.e., I don't believe it for a second. It's all about cash.
And this is a real problem.
The question is what to do about it.
Well, frankly, the average person can't do much. But you don't really have to accept it, either.
Shunning has a bad name in our culture. Indeed, one English language European source states:
More specifically, shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse. It is discrimination and silent bullying. Unfortunately, often people who have been shunned also face other forms of abuse, ranging from death threats and physical assaults to murder.
And there's a lot of truth to that.
At the same time, it was and is something that is often practiced to varying degrees in religious communities. Indeed, up until the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, Catholic excommunications were of two types, vitandus and toleratus, with vitandus requiring the Faithful to cease all normal connections with the excommunicated. It was very rare, but it could happen. Since 1983 that distinction does not exist. Some Amish, however, still have such a practice, and they are not alone.
Realizing this is extreme, I also realize, as I've seen pointed out twice, that land locking rich magnates cannot do it without local help. They always hire somebody, I've heard them referred to as "goons" to be their enforcer, and when they need legal help, they hire a Wyoming licensed attorney. Indeed, in this instance, remarkably, the plaintiff did not use a Denver attorney, which I thought they likely would have.
And this has always been the case. Wyoming Stock Growers Association stock detectives were sometimes enforcers back in the late 19th Century, and they were hired men. In the trial of the Invaders, a local Cheyenne attorney was used, but then again, that was a criminal case, which I do feel differently about.
Elk Mountain is basically mid-way, and out of the way, between Laramie, Rawlins and Saratoga. People working for Iron Bar Holdings have to go to one of those places for goods and services. There's really no reason the excluded locals need to sell them anything. Keep people off. . .drive to Colorado for services.
And on legal services? I don't know the lawyers involved, so I'm unlikely to every run into them. But I'm not buying them lunch as we often do as a courtesy while on the road, and if I were a local rancher, and keep in mind that outfits like Iron Bar Holdings don't help local ranchers keep on keeping on, I'd tell that person, if they stopped in to ask to go fishing or hunting, to pound sand.
If this sounds extreme, and it actually is, this is what happened with some of the law firms representing Donald Trump in his effort to steal the election. They backed out after partners in their firms basically, it seems, told Trump's lawyers to chose Trump or the firm.
And there are many other examples. Lawyers bear no social costs at all for whom they represent in civil suits. People who regard abortion as murder will sit right down with lawyers representing abortionists, people seeking a radical social change will hire lawyers to advance the change, and the lawyers fellows feel no pressure as a result of that at all.
Maybe they should.
Or is that view fundamentally wrong?
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
ORIGINAL SENATEFILE NO. SF0056ENROLLED ACT NO. 60, SENATESIXTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING2023 GENERAL SESSIONAN ACT relating to game and fish; expanding the prohibition for entering private property without permission for hunting purposes to also prohibit traveling through the private property; and providing for an effective date.Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:Section 1. W.S. 23‑3‑305(b) is amended to read:23‑3‑305. Hunting from highway; entering or traveling through private property without permission; penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.(b) No person shall enter upon, travel through or return across the private property of any person to take wildlife, hunt, fish, collect antlers or horns, or trap without the permission of the owner or person in charge of the property. Violation of this subsection constitutes a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23‑6‑202(a)(v). For purposes of this subsection "travel through or return across" requires physically touching or driving on the surface of the private property.Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2023.
Governor Gordon Takes Action on 8 Bills on Saturday, February 18CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon took action on eight bills on Saturday, February 18. The Governor signed the following bills into law today:Enrolled Act # Bill # Bill TitleHEA0015 HB0035 Day-care certification requirement amendmentsHEA0016 HB0082 Defendant mental illness examinations-amendmentsHEA0017 HB0160 Drivers license veterans designation replacing DD form 214HEA0018 HB0147 Unlawful trespass signage-taking of wildlifeHEA0019 HB0019 State Indian Child Welfare Act task forceSEA0023 SF0078 Apprenticeship and job training promotion in schoolsSEA0024 SF0176 Solid waste disposal districts-consolidationSEA0025 SF0041 Skill based amusement games-authorized locations.
February 10, 2023
Speaking against the bill as voices of reason were conservation groups and a rancher, who noted that he had dozens of trespassers per year and though the bill was a bad idea.
The person whose thoughts lead to the introduction of the bill, a person who provides church security in Buffalo, admitted that if somebody was dangerous they already did what was necessary to escort a person out, although that really fits into a different category. It perhaps demonstrates why this bill was unnecessary at best.
SENATE FILE NO. SF0180
Corner crossing-trespass exception.
Sponsored by: Senator(s) Rothfuss and Gierau and Representative(s) Chestek, Provenza, Sherwood and Yin
A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; providing an exception to the offenses of criminal trespass and game and fish trespass regarding incidental contact associated with crossing two (2) adjacent parcels as specified; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 6‑3‑303 by creating a new subsection (d) and 23‑3‑305(b) are amended to read:
6‑3‑303. Criminal trespass; penalties.
(d) For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.
23‑3‑305. Hunting from highway; entering enclosed property without permission; penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.
(b) No person shall enter upon the private property of any person to hunt, fish, collect antlers or horns, or trap without the permission of the owner or person in charge of the property. Violation of this subsection constitutes a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23‑6‑202(a)(v). For purposes of this subsection, a person does not commit trespass under this subsection if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.
Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2023.
As is probably obvious, that's a Democratic bill and will likely go nowhere in this legislature.
Same day, same paper. One ad celebrating agriculture, and one celebrating its destruction.
