Hacker News Reader

Comment by idopmstuff | Hacker News Reader

Just step across.

From reading the article, it appears that there was a fence (presumably intersecting sections of fence) that had to be overcome. Climbing the fences would be, nominally, stepping foot on those fenced properties. Using the ladder let them go over the corner boundary without actually having to step foot on the other two adjacent properties.

         | Public
      ---+---
  Public |

The fences belong to the private properties (if my understanding is correct) and the ladder lets them technically remain only, with regard to "setting foot", on the public properties.

Clearly, the answer is to build a trebuchet to fling people across.

This is a brilliant "Age of Empires 2" reference.

The fence is also illegal.

I tried to Google about this, but I could not find anything. As one this page, there are no serious discussions about this matter. Can you share a reference?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36158967

The actual court ruling is here: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-...

(kudos to whoever linked it up thread - couldn't find that comment again, but had it open in a tab).

I should have been more clear in my original post:

    The precedent is that corner crossing is illegal and fences to enforce that are ok.

I meant to ask: Are fences around your lot of land legal? I would think, yes, to protected livestock against predators. However, it would be trivial to add a small space at the corner for people to do "corner crossing" between checkerboard public lands.

Next, the PDF is a great share. I am feasting on it now! Page 7 reads:

    Other than these chained-together signs, there were no posts, fending, or building within one-quarter of a more of the corner.

What a laugh! Thank goodness this kind of behaviour is being overruled!

Another good part (pg7 again):

    [T]here is no evidence the Defendants caused any damage to the Plaintiff's property.

On page 9, the photo of A-frame ladder in action is brilliant! The guy looks so hardcore in 100% camo. This is the like the ultimate HN "legal hack". If you position the ladder just right, all four legs will be in public lands.

Regarding you first point - fences around your land are perfectly fine (barring some other law, like an environmental protection law, zoning, whatever).

But it is illegal to block access to federal public lands. So you’d need to have some way through. Doesn’t have to be on the corner, it could be an easement or whatever somewhere else, but access can’t be blocked.

They intentionally did it to block people though, and try to defacto claim the public land as theirs - which is illegal.

According to this low level judge. The precedent is that corner crossing is illegal and fences to enforce that are ok.

No, according to the Inclosures act of 1885.

Judges make the law in this country due to our common law system. The law from 1885 may say that fencing off legally accessible land is illegal, but according to the land owner the supreme court said corner crossing is illegal so the fence in this situation would not count, because it wasn't blocking legal access. The question that matters here is whether corner crossing is allowed, the fence question follows.

This is well settled federal law. The landowner was attempting to make up an alternative story while ignoring the settled law. He failed.

It absolutely is not. Corner crossing was literally illegal right up until this decision came out. Using fences to enforce that was absolutely allowed since the public land was technically not accessible. This is far from the first case about corner crossing, hopefully it will be the last.

Cite? Because that seems like complete BS. The judge even dismissed it in the summary judgement, it wasn’t even a close thing.

And they aren’t allowed to put up fences to deny access to public land, that’s the entire point of the Inclosures act.

https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-video-do-they-realize-ho... goes over some of the case law. The local DA cites a few of the cases. Obviously it's a bit up in the air which is why the judge didn't toss this case before it went to trial.

Yeah no, this is what I called out in another thread. Corner crossing is legal, because making it so they can’t corner cross (or otherwise access the land) is illegal - The Inclosures Act of 1885. But the locals want to pretend the federal law doesn’t exist, because it lets them defacto capture this public federal land.

Still doesn’t make what the hunters did illegal, or what the rancher did legal. But it’s why it got to this point.

The Inclosures act had never been taken to court in relation to corner crossing before this case. Wyoming had a long history of corner crossing being illegal. That may have been contrary to the inclosures act, but as I said, we have a common law system. Until a judge says the current interpretation is wrong that's the law. So sure, corner crossing may have been "legal" since 1885, but only if you had the resources and knowledge to bring a case to federal court so you can get the wyoming corner crossing law overturned. Until that happened it was not legal.

I mean this is the same as countless supreme court decisions. Was gay marriage legal prior to Obergefell? No, obviously not. The ruling was based on a law that has been in existence since the civil war, but until the judges interpreted that law it did not matter.

More BS.

Federal law overrides state law. It’s Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the constitution, if you want to double check.

Where federal law says it is illegal to block access to public lands, it is illegal to block access to public lands. Even more so when we’re talking federally owned public land.

There is no law (or judicial interpretation) that Wyoming can pass that is constitutional to change that.

Here is a cite, which you haven’t provided any supporting you case, clearly stating as such, regarding the Inclosures act and someone playing similar games - around 1893. That instance was in Colorado, but was sustained by the Supreme Court and applied nationally.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/167/518]

If you have an actual cite to an actual applicable case, please do post it. The earlier link literally agrees with me, as the judge cited the Inclosures Act when dismissing the claims that corner crossing was illegal.

Otherwise, stop spamming this propaganda.

Which is also illegal, btw, due to terrible us laws around public land

Just build a ladder high enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

I see you, and raise you Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_us...

Or parachute in. Not sure how you’d get out though.

> Not sure how you’d get out though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery... , also known as "Skyhook" and pretty well demonstrated in "The Dark Knight".

Simple, you could use a Paramotor.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dkRoX-Z6_A

Seems as though it is not illegal, at least according to this ruling?

Not according to this ruling. But still possibly illegal in another federal circuit.

Blocking access to public lands is a violation of the Inclosures Act of 1885.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/cha...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com