Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Gabby Johnson goes to court   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Property, Law, Federal government of the United States, Wil Wilkins of Ravalli County, United States Forest Service, Easement, United States Constitution, United States National Forest  
•       •       •

7621 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 28 Nov 2022 at 5:20 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



161 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-11-28 5:10:06 PM  
Grizzly Dumbass
 
2022-11-28 5:11:39 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 5:12:14 PM  
Now who can argue with that?
 
2022-11-28 5:25:44 PM  
Unfortunately, it soon became clear the government was not abiding by the terms of the original agreement.

Millions of First Nation people shake their heads knowingly and shout, "Could'a told ya!"
 
2022-11-28 5:26:26 PM  
Mr. Show: Mountain Dougie
Youtube FRmpZo5s4xw
 
2022-11-28 5:27:14 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


In this case, as least as presented, Grizzly is certainly in the right
 
2022-11-28 5:27:53 PM  
This isn't a news article, it's a press release from the libertarian legal organization representing him. They sound like the right-wing version of the ACLU.   Like, it's cartoonish: "Wilkins hasn't forgotten the response from a district ranger: "He crossed his arms, leaned back in his chair, looked at me and he started laughing," Wilkins recalls.

All it's missing is the guy twirling his moustache.
 
2022-11-28 5:28:01 PM  
The government needs to pay him.

It's just that simple.
 
2022-11-28 5:28:40 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


Name checks out, normally I like what you have to say but I think you're in the wrong here.
 
2022-11-28 5:28:44 PM  
Wilkins notes he's not asking for special treatment; he just wants the government to agree to "what they wrote and said they would do.".

Well, he's not wrong.  I hope he was expressing it in authentic frontier gibberish.
 
2022-11-28 5:28:49 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


In this case I'm on the side of the landowner.

Though the native Americans out front should have told him that the Federal Government is bad at honoring it's land agreements.
 
zez
2022-11-28 5:29:47 PM  
NewFreeLand!
Youtube UvXrn3iQN7Q
 
2022-11-28 5:30:12 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 5:31:08 PM  
You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.
 
2022-11-28 5:31:49 PM  
I wish him luck in winning his lawsuit.
 
2022-11-28 5:35:19 PM  
"You was born a hundred years too late, boy."

Also apparently filed his lawsuit a few years too late. But love how the article totally ignores the actual legal issue being decided.
 
2022-11-28 5:35:23 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


If you're floating new alt names that should work, but we'll need to see a pic to verify your hairiness.
 
2022-11-28 5:35:39 PM  

2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.


I read it and still don't agree with him. I've never heard of a semi-public easement. If park employees were allowed to use and maintain his private road, they can alter their access to allow the public.
 
2022-11-28 5:36:08 PM  

2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.


You must be new here

/Welcome
 
2022-11-28 5:36:22 PM  

2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.


That may be the case except two things:

1) The Hill
2) Jeff McCoy is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans' liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse
 
2022-11-28 5:36:44 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


Why, pray tell?
 
2022-11-28 5:40:20 PM  

Hinged: The government needs to pay him.

It's just that simple.


And, he's if going to sit there and sue the government he damn well better have a pretty clean background, cuz if there's anything in his past, they're going to use it against him for leverage
 
2022-11-28 5:41:22 PM  

UltimaCS: 2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.

I read it and still don't agree with him. I've never heard of a semi-public easement. If park employees were allowed to use and maintain his private road, they can alter their access to allow the public.


It happens all the time, next to state and federal lands. Just because you never heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

FS roads are commonly gated. The FS has keys, and can issue them to permit holders (loggers, etc.).

Dude is in the right, and the feds are trying to tweak the parameters of the agreement.
 
2022-11-28 5:41:51 PM  

enry: 2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.

That may be the case except two things:

1) The Hill
2) Jeff McCoy is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans' liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse


While on economic issues Libertarianism is crazy, on individual rights issues, they are mostly right. I mean I am a socialist (social democrat really--left in USA, moderate everywhere else) but if the facts are true: (1) the original agreement did not include public access (2) the gov't is now wanting to use the road for public access through this dude's property, then Mountain man has both law and common sense on his side.
 
2022-11-28 5:45:00 PM  
I just read another article from another perspective.
It talks about how private land owners are buying all the land surrounding public land and then blockading the public from access to that land.  Then the land owners consider that public land as if it was now private since no one can legal access it.
There was a discussion of the " onX Hunt" app that shows these property lines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/26/business/hunting-wyoming-elk-mountain-access.html
 
2022-11-28 5:45:27 PM  
Importantly, the 1962 easement did not grant access for general public use - the road was to be for Forest Service employees and permitees only

Let me guess how this goes. "I permit the general public to use this. US Forrest Service with love"

Lol. Good luck dude.
 
2022-11-28 5:47:13 PM  
No good deed goes unpunished!  Don't give anybody anything for free; less come back and not only ask for more; but claim all this here is theirs anyway, and now give me more of that over there!

Had too many moochers and other Karens encroaching on my things, ideas, property!  And so I can commiserate with this dude!  Camel's nose under the tent flap and all that!

PS:  neither a lender nor a borrower be!

Double PS:  lending a friend or relative money is a sure fire way to ruin the relationship!

Triple PS:  No!  Study this word; as it will serve you well in the future!
 
2022-11-28 5:50:26 PM  

Swampmaster: No good deed goes unpunished!


There never was a good deed. Easements can be forced and if the road was the only real way in the USFS was getting it.

Also "I'm a mountain man" probably uses the federally paid for road to ingress and egress the road as well as his neighbors to their parcels. So there is a return they get a maintained road. If the USFS loses you can bet your ass they will tear it up and get another easement with someone else that wants a very long and free driveway.
 
zez
2022-11-28 5:52:18 PM  

Ragin' Asian: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/FRmpZo5s4xw]


Dammit! I knew I shouldn't have watched the sketch first!
 
2022-11-28 5:55:40 PM  

cfreak: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

In this case I'm on the side of the landowner.
Though the native Americans out front should have told him that the Federal Government is bad at honoring it's land agreements.


It is standard practice for the U.S. Government to modify any agreement at any time at their own pleasure.
 
2022-11-28 5:56:51 PM  

UltimaCS: I read it and still don't agree with him. I've never heard of a semi-public easement. If park employees were allowed to use and maintain his private road, they can alter their access to allow the public.


One of the dumber things I've read today.
 
2022-11-28 6:00:52 PM  

cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass


How so?  Did you RTFA?
 
2022-11-28 6:01:16 PM  

lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?


I did read the heavily biased article.
 
2022-11-28 6:03:31 PM  

Begoggle: lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?

I did read the heavily biased article.


He still has a case though.  I take it you are intentionally not seeing it for your own amusement and self validation as your response is heavily biased.
 
2022-11-28 6:04:19 PM  
The government is treating him and his neighbors like Native Americans.  No white person should have to put up with that!
 
2022-11-28 6:04:36 PM  

hegelsghost: While on economic issues Libertarianism is crazy, on individual rights issues, they are mostly right.


You think it's bad for the government to require their girlfriends to use a car seat?    Or is that an "economic" issue to you?
 
2022-11-28 6:05:32 PM  

SpaceMonkey-66: Begoggle: lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?

I did read the heavily biased article.

He still has a case though.  I take it you are intentionally not seeing it for your own amusement and self validation as your response is heavily biased.


Typical response these days on this site.
 
2022-11-28 6:05:37 PM  

SpaceMonkey-66: Begoggle: lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?

I did read the heavily biased article.

He still has a case though.  I take it you are intentionally not seeing it for your own amusement and self validation as your response is heavily biased.


If you take a puff piece written by the guy's lawyer as fact, he has a case.
 
2022-11-28 6:06:16 PM  
The Pacific Legal Foundation is well known for its anti-public access stance.

From this article though it sounds like the property owner might be right.

(PCF has been involved in my state and the property owners were clearly NIBYs and not right)
 
2022-11-28 6:06:18 PM  

Begoggle: SpaceMonkey-66: Begoggle: lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?

I did read the heavily biased article.

He still has a case though.  I take it you are intentionally not seeing it for your own amusement and self validation as your response is heavily biased.

Typical response these days on this site.


Hey there's nothing wrong with having biases, just acknowledge them when you're making an argument. Believe it or not, I'm not bashing you personally
 
2022-11-28 6:06:45 PM  

lilbjorn: The government is treating him and his neighbors like Native Americans.  No white person should have to put up with that!


The government isn't treating him like a Native American in any way.
Even the article doesn't say that.
These injustices are all in your imagination, or you're just lying.
 
2022-11-28 6:07:27 PM  

SpaceMonkey-66: Begoggle: SpaceMonkey-66: Begoggle: lilbjorn: cretinbob: Grizzly Dumbass

How so?  Did you RTFA?

I did read the heavily biased article.

He still has a case though.  I take it you are intentionally not seeing it for your own amusement and self validation as your response is heavily biased.

Typical response these days on this site.

Hey there's nothing wrong with having biases, just acknowledge them when you're making an argument. Believe it or not, I'm not bashing you personally


Sure you are.
I don't have biases.
You're just mad that I don't agree with you.
And you're mad that I called out the article for what it is.
So did some other people in this thread.
 
2022-11-28 6:07:59 PM  

UltimaCS: 2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.

I read it and still don't agree with him. I've never heard of a semi-public easement. If park employees were allowed to use and maintain his private road, they can alter their access to allow the public.


Depends on how the easement was written.  Sometimes the landholder still retains a lot of control and the terms cannot be changed without landowner agreement.
 
2022-11-28 6:08:29 PM  
Throwing up my hands and walking away, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument this evening. The only thing I have to say about this situation is the guy was thrust into it through no fault of his own because it was a previous owner that made the agreement.

I get it that the article is a Libertarian leaning one, and I am in no means defending that. Doesn't mean that the guy doesn't have a case though
 
2022-11-28 6:11:08 PM  

SpaceMonkey-66: Throwing up my hands and walking away, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument this evening. The only thing I have to say about this situation is the guy was thrust into it through no fault of his own because it was a previous owner that made the agreement.

I get it that the article is a Libertarian leaning one, and I am in no means defending that. Doesn't mean that the guy doesn't have a case though


Anyone can file a lawsuit.
"Having a case" doesn't mean he's automatically right just because an article is written in a ridiculously comical slanted way in his support.
But that's why we have courts, to hear all sides of the case.
You just want the fantasy to be reality.
 
2022-11-28 6:12:04 PM  

SpaceMonkey-66: Throwing up my hands and walking away, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument this evening. The only thing I have to say about this situation is the guy was thrust into it through no fault of his own because it was a previous owner that made the agreement.

I get it that the article is a Libertarian leaning one, and I am in no means defending that. Doesn't mean that the guy doesn't have a case though


Well yeah it's a libertarian leaning article but the guy has a legitimate complaint about the deal being changed without consulting him.
 
2022-11-28 6:13:29 PM  
Likely the easiest, and cheapest, solution is to just eminent domain the road and pay him and his neighbors the hundred dollars or so that amount of land goes for in the middle of nowhere.
 
2022-11-28 6:13:45 PM  

hegelsghost: enry: 2headedboy: You should probably RTFA before going all dumb-ass-hick on the guy.

That may be the case except two things:

1) The Hill
2) Jeff McCoy is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans' liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse

While on economic issues Libertarianism is crazy, on individual rights issues, they are mostly right. I mean I am a socialist (social democrat really--left in USA, moderate everywhere else) but if the facts are true: (1) the original agreement did not include public access (2) the gov't is now wanting to use the road for public access through this dude's property, then Mountain man has both law and common sense on his side.


Again, it might be true but given the two items I listed I'm not sure.

Private land has rights ceded all the time, be they power lines above or below ground and sidewalks.  Public land that's surrounded by private land should be accessible by the public if that's the intent and use.
 
2022-11-28 6:15:20 PM  

Jake Havechek: SpaceMonkey-66: Throwing up my hands and walking away, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument this evening. The only thing I have to say about this situation is the guy was thrust into it through no fault of his own because it was a previous owner that made the agreement.

I get it that the article is a Libertarian leaning one, and I am in no means defending that. Doesn't mean that the guy doesn't have a case though

Well yeah it's a libertarian leaning article but the guy has a legitimate complaint about the deal being changed without consulting him.


The only legal issue presented in his appeal is if the twelve year statute of limitations bars it, because apparently the road in question has been designated by the Forest Service for unrestricted public access, and used that way, since 1972. And he bought the property in 2004.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1164/221825/20220425150059422_21-1164%20-%20Wilkins%20Opp.pdf
 
2022-11-28 6:15:35 PM  

Jake Havechek: SpaceMonkey-66: Throwing up my hands and walking away, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument this evening. The only thing I have to say about this situation is the guy was thrust into it through no fault of his own because it was a previous owner that made the agreement.

I get it that the article is a Libertarian leaning one, and I am in no means defending that. Doesn't mean that the guy doesn't have a case though

Well yeah it's a libertarian leaning article but the guy has a legitimate complaint about the deal being changed without consulting him.


How do you know that?
Oh yeah, because the article says so.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.