And the corollary to that might be that Mountain Man could set up gates and fencing on his property along with "Road ends here" and "No trespassing" signs. I would be doing that.
"After an immaterial breach of the contract, the agreement is still valid." - Kemmy Law Firm Whether any breach was "material" is for a court to decide.
The U. S. Government didn't keep their word? ...treated a citizen/veteran as if he were of no consequence?...ignored the Fifth Amendment? ...well, that's just tradition.
I'm not sure what veteran status has to do with anything, it's been quite a few decades since we had any wars that actually increased national security or where the veterans of the wars were given the full benefits promised either. It's been long established that they only care about veterans so far as they can use them to recruit the next batch.
First line of dialogue in that court should go like: "We too are the public, they are the public, and those committing wrongs in the area are the public. Now on this diagram where does the public touch itself at night getting horny with my antlers." You could sum up the entire National Constitution with but four words, "Never Kowtow to Guests" because that is their every damn motive shortselling citizenry for kickbackss by those who don't understand the meaning of family.
My parents bought a home in Massachusetts in 1959. It came with a utility company easement. There was a utility pole in the far back corner of the property to facilitate utility lines to a pair of homes that were behind us but had their own driveways on another street. The only purpose of the easement was to make it possible to connect utility lines, phone and electric to those two homes. They could have done so from the other street but it was a shorter distance using a pole in our parent's property. The easement was granted in exchange for an annual reduction in utility bills. I remember in 1968 when the utility company came in and parked multiple trucks in our yard not within the easement and without my parents' permission and then erected an 8 foot tall chain link fence down the side of the property. The easement was originally to include a 12 foot wide path that was to remain un obstructed so that the utility company could access the pole as needed but no permanent structures were to be placed on the property other than the pole which was to be located within the 24" square at the extreme corner of the property and no place else. So that day they ran the fence down the side of the property from the front corner of the property to the rear corner and then twenty feet over then back up to the front again basically commandeering a 20 foot wide section of our property leaving no driveway for my Dad to park in and in fact the fence came within 10 inches of the side of the house so we had no access to that side of the house for maintenance, window cleaning, painting or escape in case of fire. They then moved the pole. the installed a 50 foot tall pole within a six foot concrete structure. The pole then was used for high tension lines that ran through the neighborhood. They then added a maintenance shed that was about 12 feet by 16 feet to the back of the property. My Dad called the police the day they started but the police said they could do nothing since there was an easement in place. The property itself was 64 feet wide and 103 feet deep. The house was 28 feet wide so that left 21 feet on the easement side and 15 feet on the other side where there was no driveway but instead a stone wall that prevented parking in the yard. My Dad literally had no place to park his car. Three of our neighbors sued my Dad for various incursions onto their property as well as loss of property value blaming him for what the utility companies were doing. My Dad sued the utility company and it took two years but finally in the spring of 1971 he won the law suit (Mom was in the hospital at the time with a lengthy illness). I remember the day the police came along with the utility company and the police literally were ordering the utility company to tear down everything which resulted in all the electricity on the block being turned off for two days and our neighbors all hated us. We moved a month later to another part of the state. So the lesson here when it comes to easements is don't give them an inch because they will take a mile if you do.
The fact that your neighbors hated you goes to show how fucking stupid the average person is. How could they blame you guys for something the utility company did?
I'm so sorry this happened to your family, it's certainly not fair! Glad your dad won, but being hated for something that wasn't his fault is pretty harsh. I sincerely hope your family found happiness in the new home.
I had somewhat similar on my 2 acres, except the easement was for lines from the (somewhat small) hydro dam. I knew of the easement but on later review the easement was given for free electricity (no term limit stated). When the previous owner took possession the untility simply started charging him for electricity and filed a letter saying they'd decided the easement was "only for the original owner", without informing the previous owner (he said). I attempted to get the easement right reestablished but was told it wasn't enforceable in litegation. I'd probably have to had to live on the property for 10 or 20 years to payback the cost of fighting in court, even if I'd won. On my current property there's an easement on the back of my property for cable TV with no easement for access across my land. There have been times where they came thru the front of my property, climbed a fence, let the dogs out, injured a non-agressive dog, damaged a fence and trees, and cut down a bush... all done by subcontractors of the cable company. (All this when I told the cable company to simply ask for access to the box.)
As a retired Transportation Engineer and having a great deal of experience with Easements, you are 100% correct about what an easement can be used for. If that situation had happened to me and the Forrest Service had laughed at me, I would have set up a Toll Booth at the point where the easement road entered on to my property and I would have charged $5 per trip across my property. Then I would have allowed any and all Forrest Service and Logging Company vehicles to pass through for free. Then anybody who was foolish enough to pay me $5 to go through, would also have to pay $5 to come back through my property. That would cause the general public to pay $10 for a round trip. Then if the Forrest Service took me to court, I would present a copy of the easement to the Judge and defend my position as my actions do not violate the easement agreement in any way. Now, I am very aware that the landowner cannot place anything on the easement that abstructs the full use of the easement by those who have a right to use the easement. Here comes the rub....... In my State(Virginia), any WAY that has been in public use can be declared a Public Way if it has been in common use by the public for more than 20 years without objection and can be taken by Adverse Possesion(Squaters Rights) by the Government. That man needed to take action to prevent the public from using that road because if he did not protest, then it would eventually be taken as a Public Way.
@@imperialsilver3936 --- That sounds good on the surface, but many (if not all) of the public using this "road" have no idea they're infringing on this land owner, so the punishment would be directed at the wrong people.
@@smartysmarty1714 The odds of this guy having private property signs up is pretty high, if someone can't read and continues to trespass I would be calling law enforcement constantly until it became a big enough problem they actually did something to prevent the forest service from violating his rights.
@@unitedstatian there are signs directing people there and likely shows on gps. I don't understand why you think a no trespassing sign would mean anything. Where i live, a public road thru private property is pretty common and usually has signs that say so and to stay in your vehicle or not leave the roadway.
PV, I don't have your level of experience or education, but I do own properties and I would never allow an exception knowingly. That just might set a legal precedent that could come back to haunt me. I've seen it happen before where someone has been using your easement with or without your knowledge or permission and now claims the right to continue using it. I've also seen an easement blocked off (in quick fashion) and as they say: possession is 9/10ths of the law.
The guy that said "sue us" should be on the hook for the legal fees incur by the government instead of us taxpayers who have the good sense to understand how a limited easement works. I know that won't be the case but it sure be nice if it was.
That's called corruption. And honestly, if they Sued the government, got a win, and this guy STILL violates the law, it should be immediate grounds for Execution and the Woodsmen should legally be allowed to shoot and kill him. He is a High Profile criminal, on the lose, that is causing harm to an American Civilian knowingly and Maliciously. He should 100% lose his life.
You act like the enforcement officer has any power over the situation. Maybe, "Sue Us" was the very Best Advice the one man could give to the other? Dude could have given our Mountain Man a load of lip service, had him chasing Justice from department to department, sitting on hold or in waiting rooms for hours of the last years of his life. Instead he gave it to him straight. Should he quit his job because his bosses ignored agreements, or ruffle their feathers to get fired?
@@TheBooban ...This guys bosses are the ones who implemented the program. It is Obvious that litigation was the only way to change the policy. The Ranger knew it and told the *Mountain Man" the Truth. I see a lot of people here hate to hear the truth.
Im from Montana and this case has been going on for many years. The forest service has been extremely corrupt throughout this ordeal. Go and read all the documents regarding this case. 30 plus years this man has been fighting them. They are ultimately trying to steal his land.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." ~ Thomas Sowell
Paraphrasing Steve: I bet a handshake with this man is better than a contract with a corporation. Very well said. Wish more people were like the Mountain Man in this story.
I'd like to read the easement. If it's clear, he wins. That they're appealing to the Supreme Court means they lost in lower courts. If the language of the easement is as clear as Steve implies I doubt he'd have lost in lower courts. I spent 6 years battling the Feds, finally reversing a 50 year old precedent during an en banc panel at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Destroyed my financial future. That case was also about property rights. PCL defended Kinder Morgan, a billion dollar pipeline company. As if Kinder Morgan needed help. What about eminent domain being used to seize Americans property for pipelines to transport natural gas overseas. Does that comport with the 5th amendment "no property shall be taken save for The Public Use." Is natural gas being used overseas the American public??
More worrisome is that if this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court then presumably all the lower courts leading up to this have sided with the Forestry Service.
Ha ha ha, honesty and integrity have never been part of American society. Look at what happened to the native Americans and how treaties with them were honoured. Or not.
Government would even have extremely solid grounds for terminating the ranger's position as his willful actions led to extreme losses in court fees. As a judge I would be inclined to rule in the mountain man's favor and advise the government to pursue damages against the ranger.
The high amount of court and legal fees makes it unreasonably difficult to fight things in court. This is a denial of due process and legal protections.
And when they invoke 'civil forfeiture' it becomes impossible for the average person to properly defend themselves or properly process a claim as a plaintiff. The courts think there's nothing wrong with any of this.
In my past life I was a Technical Support Engineer for NY Telephone Company. I rarely got involved in easement disputes, that was the job of our Right of Way department, but sometimes I got called in to consult on technical issues, so I knew a few of the ROW folks. One day I was meeting my wife for lunch at her office and noticed that there were marker flags for buried facilities along the road to her place of business. I asked her what was going on and she checked with her company's plant superintendent, who told her that they were building a power co-generation plant and the switchyard was going to be located along side of the road on company property. When I got back to my office I called the ROW office and got a copy of the ROW map for that road and discovered that there was a 5 foot wide telephone and Cable Television easement down that side of the road. I then went to the town and located the construction plat for the cogeneration switch yard and discovered that they intended to build the switching station right on top of the easement, right over the telephone cable buried in the easement. Now putting a 30,000+ Volt power station right over a telephone cable might not sound too dangerous to some, but part of my job happened to be evaluating power stations and designing the setup necessary to protect low voltage telephone systems from high voltage power, so I set some wheels in motion and we contacted the necessary folks at the company involved. Their first reaction was to shoo us away, stating that they had called and gotten permission to place their power station there(?). It turns out that someone in their organization felt as though that since they had called the "Call Before You Dig" number and gotten the cable located, that meant they could build there as long as they avoided digging up the telephone cable. WRONG!!! It's an easement! And putting all of that power right over the top of the cable puts it right in the zone of any fault currents that might result if there were a catastrophic failure resulting in all of that voltage getting dumped to ground. It could literally turn a telephone down the road into a very bright light bulb with a fireworks show built in and endanger telephone people in the central office feeding the cable. We did battle with them for months, while the construction was halted, and their plant guy figured out that I was married to the person that asked him about the construction, so she got some flack, but we finally won and they had to pay us to negotiate easements and right of way with the property owners on the other side of the road and then relocate the telephone cable. It was very expensive. They even hired an expensive outside PE engineer to come in and tell us how small the shock hazard was likely to be, naming a very small percentage of likelihood of injury or death and that our approach was a "Belt and Suspenders" approach to safety. When I got up and asked him if he would be willing to explain the poor luck the death or injury was to the person or family that suffered it and pulled back my suit jacket to show that I was also wearing both a belt and suspenders, he sat down and shut up and just glowered through the rest of the meeting. Ironically, there was a project in the works to abandon that cable anyway because fiber optic was being placed, but my wife who was terminally ill when it started passed away during all of the wrangling, so after the way they treated her I didn't feel too inclined to let them get away with violating the easement.
Thats not even to mention the fact that all that power can and most likely will generate electro-magnetic interference on communication lines. I agree, the shock hazard was minimal.. but the interference was probable making the lines nearly useless.
Government would say they have an easement after they bulldozed the gate, ripped down the signs, and billed the owner for that work. Also, they might criminally charge the owner for blocking access on a public thoroughfare.
Correction: no, the Supreme Court only enabled him to argue his case on merits. Meaning he still has to go back to court to fight it. The Forest Service was trying to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds. The judgement was 6-3 with Justice Sotomayor writing for the majority, and Justices Thomas, Alito and Roberts in dissent.
I've said this over and over, government employees should ONLY be allowed to work for the government for a MAXIMUM of 10 years (in all capacities combined), then get out and live in the real world and NO RETIREMENT AT ALL. This includes (especially includes) politicians.
I had an uncle in Kentucky in a similar situation. His easement allowed him to make improvements. He had 650 acres and the dirt road going in to Mammoth cave national park was over a mile long. My uncle tried nearly everything to keep the public off his property. He got the idea to partially embed logs in the road. He did so, to stop "erosion" the logging trucks and heavy equipment, passed through easily, but cars and pickups could not. He used big logs which stuck out 8" to 10". He only used about twenty logs in two places, He made good money towing cars and pickups with a tractor, they bottomed out. End of problem.
And if the government did not block HIS ACCESS TO MAMMOTH CAVE, they were stupid. I would have blocked that road leading into Mammoth Care national park to KEEP HIM OUT.
When attending orientation for my new job with the fed gvmnt I asked the facilitator a question about why they had a certain policy. His very entitled and cocky response was, "We are the Federal Government. We can do whatever we want." I came to learn that was true. For the most part what I observed during my employment there was our gvmnt being utterly corrupt and not the least bit concerned about their illegal actions. Working for the feds was a shocking and depressing experience.
I always wondered why the government couldn't get anything done on time or on budget, until I started a career with the city as an operator. I am no longer wondering why nothing gets done. It's almost shameful to see the disregard for taxpayers' money.
@@insertcolorherehawk3761 Absolutely. When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania commissioned a new computer system for its Medicaid Program years ago (I worked there), they abandoned State Employee development of the System and hired a private contractor. Not only was there a $50 million cost overrun, but the system did not meet federal standards. Hospitals and doctors were enrolled late and paid late; reports required under the Social Security Act were not completed, and patients often had to wait weeks for care. The feds fined us about $13 million. I and a counterpart in the Comptroller's Office tried to warn upper management of the system failure, but they did not listen because the contract was awarded to a political contributor of the then Governor (GOP). Private enterprise is never the answer unless they can do it as cheaply and as quickly as the people who KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, and that rarely happens at all. And, as a former government employee whose behavior was covered by numerous laws and regulations, I am calling some of the commenters here liars. We would have been FIRED if we had the attitude "we can do whatever we want (look at what is happening to Mr. Trump, for example); the Civil Service Act, the Hatch Act and numerous other laws say that we cannot. The only public employees who can literally do whatever they want, including steal stuff (they call it borrowing) and kill people are the police, and only because the SCOTUS said they are generally immune from prosecution under the law and are legally allowed to lie to the public. As for the rest of the public employees, being a fool on the job can not only get you FIRED, it can get you JAILED and your PENSION FORFEITED. Furthermore, states do have to work within a budget because states, cities and counties CANNOT OPERATE UNDER DEFICITS. Only the feds can do that. IF A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS IN DEFICIT STATUS, IT MUST DECLARE BANKRUPTCY. This happened to NYC a few decades ago, and it continues to happen in many other places. This is why I don't believe that any of the "government negative" commenters ever really worked for the government. Otherwise they would know that exactly what I said is true.
I am reminded of Darth Vader saying "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further". That is what the Ranger who laughed at him was effectively saying.
...Why do you think that it wasn't the BEST ADVICE HE COULD GIVE? You act like that one cog in that Government Agency had the power to give this man Justice. Telling him to sue his bosses saves a whole lot of time. The dishonorable thing to do would lie, delay, and cover up Wrongdoing. The orders from above needed to be Changed, not it's application. Signs need funding and idiots to think of what to put on them. That comes from the policy makers, LAWyers.
@@truthsRsung It all comes down to personal responsibility. If the ranger had looked at the terms of the easement and seen that the owner was in the right then there's a ton he could've done. He could've even spoken to one of the lawyers they have on staff to get an opinion. But that would've taken effort. There are very few people that'll take charge of a situation. Most people do the minimum and then pass the buck. And the orders from above didn't need to be changed. He could've then taken the case to the magistrate and fixed it. But he didn't.
I've owned farmland in Michigan with natural gas wells maintained by an oil and gas company. Road easement was on my property with no gates. All was o.k. for a couple of years until some folks started treating road like a public road. But when I saw someone dumping garbage on my land I had enough and put up a gate. Gas well workers had no issues with this since I was protecting my land. I'd suggest mountain man install locked gate on his land, then let only those with legal access for this road have keys.
I had a farm with oil and gas wells and similar situation. When I needed a gate, the oil company paid for it and installed it. They also maintained the "driveway" because they were sending full size tanker trucks down it and making huge ruts. Altogether a very decent oil company that had that lease and right to enter. The oil field hand was there every single day to check on and maintain the wells. Nice person, never a single problem. Company was Atlas Oil in Ohio.
My daughter is a wildlife biologist working for a contractor and has to go on Private, County, State and Federal land each summer to conduct their studies. She signs out for keys to like 20 different locks for her job and returns the keys at the end of each summer. We have a National wildlife area (Old WW2 Camp Adair=Flat ground) near us and the locks on the gates are daisy chained for the different organizations and power company(Sub Station) that need access to the area. I say put up a forest service quality gate and restrictive lock chamber (lock up inside) and let the forest service come and complain. It would be rare that a forest visitor would have the ability to tear out the gate, because they are pretty stout.
Will probably come down to something like While you have rights on the land, all land in the USA is owned by the country. With a clause saying so long as they "fairly compensate" the property right owner, the government may reclaim the land of it deems that necessary. Usually how that goes when it's an individual vs a government.
I don't. He bought a piece of property that had an established access to the Selway Bitterroot Nat. Forest for over 30 years. Now he wants to claim he didn't realize the popular access was there and wants to shut the public out? It's like when you go to the beach and can't actually get to the public beach because it's all behind private access only.
@@kairu_aname it's already hard enough to hold a police officer accountable for breaking amendments, let alone the government. Those who hold enough power and money are above the law so long as they don't make themselves the enemy of people who are richer or hold even more power. Without a doubt there are a number of protections, exceptions, loopholes and special clauses that were put in place by the government in the past to shield them from liability or give them the ability to legally disregard certain rights.
Then those violations should be overturned in a court of law. Government can’t get away with constitutional violations and keep the public’s consent to be governed.
All of this happened to me in rural Kentucky. Neighbor shot my cat. Another neighbor ran over a cat. Neighbor who shot my cat took his John Deere tractor and mowed down my newly installed gate on my surveyed property. The neighbors here are of the misguided belief they own everything. I took them to court for a restraining order with videos, audios and photos of harassment and trespassing, vandalism etc and the judge, knowing the perpetrators, refused to give me an order of protection.
The forest service officers and administrators should be held personally responsible for all attorneys’ fees for both sides. The government attorneys involved in this case should be fired and disbarred. The forest service agent who smirked and said “sue us” should be fired, banned from ever working for the government, lose his retirement benefits, and sent to prison for abusing his position.
My god there should be nothing "old fashion" about wanting the government to be held to what they say but your right it is becoming that way and it's so disappointing...
The problem with all these cases is that no matter how many of them turn out in favor of the people against the government, it does nothing to prevent any more from cropping up. There should be some mechanism within the law to get cases like these dismissed summarily based on precedent.
Years ago I had a problem with an electric company that had a line across my property and a pole to hold up the line. The line was taken out because it was no longer needed but they would not remove the pole because they said it was part of their tax depreciation schedule for poles. They refused to take out the pole and told me if I tried to take it out they would file charges for destruction of their property. We had a few words and the next evening when I arrived home from work the pole was gone. There was involvement by another company and due to some other legalities, once the lines were down the easement was no longer valid. The pole also became mine since it was abandoned. I just wanted it gone.
I didn't get on with my father, but 1 thing he did teach me was "a man was as good as his word and a handshake was binding". He once had a farm that he sold with a handshake whilst in a pub having a beer..., next day somebody offered him a LOT more money..., even though there had been no papers signed, Dad refused the money (even though we really needed it) because he gave the man his word.
Put a gate across lock it deliver a key to the forest service office, make sure you have a witness and or video recording of delivery and enough said... they have access. USFS is notorious for such crap.
Why is the government fighting it? Because a bureaucrat with an ego would rather use taxpayers money to out spend a citizen than admit that he is wrong. The bureaucrat should pay that man personally for the unnecessary trouble.
My gut tells me Steve enjoys David vs Goliath court battles. Pacific Legal Foundation and The Institution for Justice are two organizations that deserve our help.
The Forest Service has learned that they can create promotions and broadened bureaucratic reach by taking small plots, claiming Very tenuous historical value or environmental preservation, and becoming litigious. They learned it directly from the green movement, but local Forest Service outfits have found it improves their personal incomes and retirement packages mightily.
During 25 years of dealing with the NFS while working at a couple of ski areas that were leased from the NFS or adjacent to a National Forest I found that many senior NFS officers are more worried about their pensions than any concept of right or wrong.
Keep us updated on this bc this is extremely important for many property owners and if this goes wrong and he looses then you know for sure to never go into any agreement like that with any entity especially government bc there not there to help you any longer and will take or do whatever they want and that man that laughed at him should also be held accountable for his actions towards these property owners
I am a Ranger with the NC state forest service and am mistaken for federal forest service often! the disdain folks have for these people for shitting on them is unreal. I am all for the little guy, get em sir!
Yeah, 'government' is out to get you... Moron. In this very story, the GOVERNMENT courts will be the ones to set the Forrest Service straight, and get this man his property back.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. We must all strive to be men that inspire fear.
@Unbroken what didn't we hear? where is this tyranny you are crying about? I notice the government isn't preventing you from speaking your mind. turn off faux news, go outside, get a life...
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. Thomas Sowell
When beaurocrats and govt employees lose lawsuits like this, they should be personally held accountable for everything up to paying for the legal costs, losing their job and prohibited from ever working for govt again and even going to prison. That will ultimately stop govt from abusing civil and property rights of Americans.
A government agent who violates someone’s rights, especially upon being out on notice, if they persist and make them fight it, and the court finds against them, should have penalties taken out of their pension.
Any bureaucrat that drags his feet on protecting that man's property, the easement, should experience the full wrath of the Federales'. I gave away such a property because it had no legal easement.
Steve, in my opinion . We have a "Legal System" ,not a justice system. I sure wish it had not become an industry. This guy has a chance here. That is good news. Keep us updated on this one please.
@@diablominero : Note the quotation marks around the words "Legal System", or did you fall asleep in English class the day the teacher was explaining the various uses of quotation marks?!?!
It’s never been about justice. They even made a law for it that required non slave states to return escaped slaves to the shithole states even after they had reached civilization. Then instead of legislating slavery away they had a war to see if it got to stick around. Presumably because it still had a chance to stay. I agree with the general who wanted to burn the south to the ground and start over again. Should have let him.
I'm actually for the Forest Service on this one... but you are right there are other options for some individuals! (P.S. I don't carry the best of light for the USFS either but I hate when people try to block off established NF access points.)
Yeah, I think if that official would have leaned back in that tax payer bought chair and told me to sue them he would not have been in that chair very long after that.
@@magicdinsmore3107 The point of this case is, that this was not, and was never intended to be, access for the general public to the NF. It is private property with limited access for the forest service.
Thank you for this video. Wish I had seen it a year ago. I am having this issue too. A thin 35 x 80 foot county easement along my frontage that allows them to maintain a pipe that exits the road onto my land. Neighbors view it as "state land, county land, public property," etc.... have even been told by Miss Utility they will not mark the utilities there because "it's not your land!" LOL..... people walk in there then walk the woods for 400 feet on my land. I need county approval for any improvements excepting a fence. The county yelled at me when I checked to see if they agreed with my interpretation of the easement language and so I promised not to put one up. Now I am going to do that plus a Private Property No trespass sign. The easement instructions are explicit that it is our land and the county has an easement for maintenance of that pipe alone. Awesome video. Thanks Steve.
I remember when the FEDs shot someone's dog, in a place called Ruby Ridge. That guy wanted to be left alone also, and that turned into a real S**t Show.
If you place a couple of big boulders in the road, it may be a deterrent also. Make the Government take him to court and hash it out. Once they misused the easement, it becomes a breach of contract. Of course, like you said, the potential of corruption is always possible.
The man should put up notices stating that his property is private, and public access is prohibited. Then put gates across the road, with notice that only forest service has a right to access. Then let the Forest service try and prove that the public has an access right. In addition, if it's a possibility, he should sue for the easement to be cancelled due to it being abused by the forestry department. .
My brother and nephew live right by there just asked nephew if they've been on that road he said yep its posted public land. He didn't know easement had restriction.
I vacationed with a veteran friend who lived in Montana on a piece of property that was part of a development for veterans. The original land owners dedicated the property to the memory of their son who died serving our country. About 50 vets and their families lived in the area along one of the forks of the Bitteroot River. It was the closest piece of land to heaven I have ever seen. I walked to the river and fly fished every day I was there. The only negative was the cold winters. I’m talking about minus 25 degrees below zero. My kids still talk about our visits there, and we haven’t been there in over 30 years.
I wish them success, land ownership and easements should be protected from abuse. To many cases of private land near public land that is not respected as private.
Is there any legislation or regulations in place in the US that allows penalties for a government official that behaves in deliberate legal obstruction or "vexatious" prosecution because they can rely on the taxpayer to foot the legal bill for them? If not, you might want to be asking your representatives in congress why.
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql Is that an actual law or provision of the constitution or is it just something like Presidential privilege that someone made up and no one has ever called them on it?
@@silverjohn6037 It's a precedent established by the Supreme Court, whereby State actors can't be sued for acts made as part of their job, as long as such acts are arguably legal. In practice, unless they violate an already clearly established constitutional right, you can't sue them. The intent was to provide cover for acting in unestablished areas of the law (example: cop knows your license is suspended, and sees your car out driving. Can he pull your car over even though he can't see whether it's you or not? As it turns out he can, but had it been decided otherwise, QI would protect the cop.), but in practice it gets used a lot to cover malfeasance as they think up new ways to violate your rights.
Yup, they want to break the terms. They broke the right to the easement. If they wanted a new route for travelers then renegotiate. My response would be responsible for any theft plus $3000 a month fee to keep the negotiated route open. Miss a payment the route is closed with a sign saying Forestry Missed a Payment.
If the federal government isn’t going to abide by its agreements, something is VERY wrong. This is the sort of thing that caused the creation of a particular Constitutional Amendment.
The original intended use has to bow to new facts of the matter. If there is nowhere else to send people to get through this area, the easement can be expanded. They have done this numerous times to various people in W. Va. and the W. Va. courts have said "I'm sorry... it is legal."
STEVE, Perfect!! It's an easement for a specific purpose as defined in the document. I've reviewed hundreds of these when doing ALTA surveys. Good on you for making it clear that the Gov has no more rights than you or I. The Mountain Man is right on! I'm a Professional Land Surveyor and in no way purport to be an Attorney. I read the document as the grantor did and show it on my survey as the parties in the agreement said. Rick Hofsess PS
@@KabobHope It could be argued in court they Did indeed have permission from the Forest Service as they put up signs and promoted access. It would circle right back to the same initial problem, but now he'd have additional legal bills. Oh sorry, the whole issue was the easement being used for public use. You didn't see the video?
I have easement on my property in Florida. The easement is taxed as property, but can only be used by county. Anyone attempting to cross the easement is trespassing.
Years ago I had a cousin in Atlanta (and a few local attorney friends) that had nice cars houses cloths etc: BUT, when they went to small towns they had the cheapest, black Ford made and some inexpensive suits with poly ties because they did not want to be the BIG CITY lawyer come to town...you "dress" for the occasion.
Ya know, it used to be a real thought in the back ones mond, that if you push someone hard enough, you might win but you won't live to long enough to enjoy it when you cross the wrong person.
Marvin Heemeyer ring a bell? The county/city did basically the same thing to him. Built a road through his property cut off access and then started fining him into oblivion. He made a big F you statement with a bulldozer
@@ericvoge6678 that's called a temper tantrum and Ll he accomplished was people getting fat insurance checks and leaving this world infamous but having accplished nothing but destroying property of innocents not involved and govt stuff the public pays for
What shocks me is how seldom it happens. Cops gun down someone's kid. Government takes someone's property. Local compliance officers charge people 10,000 for parking on their own grass. All these things happen and even in our heavily armed society vigilantes are still quite rare.
Once again, how many judges has this went through? I assume an initial circuit judge. An appeals panel of judges... I'm of the firm belief that this should not have gotten this far and judges are the ultimate enablers of government misconduct.... from bad policing behavior, to bad municipal behavior, prosecutorial misconduct, all the way to federal misconduct like this. Fix our judicial branch and put some direct accountability in place and most of our other problem with government violating people's right will go away or at least be reduced.
If this case is before the Supreme Court, then there have been a number of lower court rulings, would be nice to know what the lower courts have ruled.
Even in cities this happens far too often, government bureaucrats and their "friends" ignore the local people's rights. Land is suddenly rezoned and multi storey office blocks built on local residential land , major new roads and bridges built next to peoples houses and no compensation or help. The bureaucrats will ignore the law and laugh at any suggestion of payment while they are collecting a fat paycheck. It needs to be much easier to sue the government and this type of bureaucrat for relatively small amounts ( a house value is small compared to their budget).
Judges rush for two things to eat lunch, and go home. Start at 10am, end by 11:30am, (EXTENDED LUNCH) pick up again at 1PM and end at 4pm. 3 1/2 hours of work a day basically.
I was on a board for an NGO that fought government overreach on public lands. We had some cases with PLF. Great group of lawyers. USFS was the organization we fought the most. Some are absolute criminals. They were actually kicked out of Mariposa County in California by the sheriff. They could do their jobs but were not allowed to perform law enforcement. The sheriff took issue with one ranger putting a Tazer to the forehead of a disabled Vietnam veteran who was sitting in a creek, panning for gold on his own gold claim. She demanded he show ID and he told her to F herself. I worked with him on that claim and he is a wonderful man. But he knows his rights.
The government's resources are not unlimited. Depending on the agency, the number of attorneys is quite limited and their litigation budgets are likewise limited.
