.270 Report post Posted April 16, 2008 sounds like the good guys won, finally. maybe she can counterfeit some more money and hire a better lawyer. Lark. http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2008/04/...a4406785333.txt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmergoo Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Right on! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Does anyone know if Game and Fish was involved in the lawsuit, and why it wasn't if it wasn't? Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NRS Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Does anyone know if Game and Fish was involved in the lawsuit, and why it wasn't if it wasn't? Bill Quimby I think that the laws they were using come under the heading of "perscriptive right", which is where private individuals or groups can contest closing of an access. If a government entity contests a right of way, then it comes under the laws for "eminent domain" because of the power or authorities that the government can bring to bear on the land owner, in which case the government would have to pay fair market value for the right of way, which in this case the judge ruled was already a public right of way. In this case the G&F, BLM and Graham Co. all provided expert testimony in the case, but let the affected parties take the lead on the case because they were the ones that were denied their rights by the locked gate. The BLM is once again issuing permits for hiking in aravaipa canyon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. from the article it sounds like it was her son who got diddled.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. from the article it sounds like it was her son who got diddled.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KGAINES Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. from the article it sounds like it was her son who got diddled.... He is in jail for child molesting, allegedly, what you read in that article is that she says he was also molested, allegedly, and that is why he is what he is, maybe if she would have put no trespassing/private property signs on him and locked his gate, this never would have happened. As far as I'm concerned if her son was a molester the sob should be dead, child molesters should be shot when proven guilty, just like murderers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. from the article it sounds like it was her son who got diddled.... He is in jail for child molesting, allegedly, what you read in that article is that she says he was also molested, allegedly, and that is why he is what he is, maybe if she would have put no trespassing/private property signs on him and locked his gate, this never would have happened. As far as I'm concerned if her son was a molester the sob should be dead, child molesters should be shot when proven guilty, just like murderers. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/68013 Yikes, I could have lived a happy life without ever stumbling onto this little stain on humanity.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted April 17, 2008 <<<<<<<I think that the laws they were using come under the heading of "perscriptive right", which is where private individuals or groups can contest closing of an access. If a government entity contests a right of way, then it comes under the laws for "eminent domain" because of the power or authorities that the government can bring to bear on the land owner, in which case the government would have to pay fair market value for the right of way, which in this case the judge ruled was already a public right of way. >>>> If it was already deemed a public right of way, why would the government have to pay fair market value to remove a lock? <<<<<<<In this case the G&F, BLM and Graham Co. all provided expert testimony in the case, but let the affected parties take the lead on the case because they were the ones that were denied their rights by the locked gate.>>>>>>> The affected parties are their constituents, and the locked gate inhibited the proper management of their constituents' resources. This is another example of bureaucrats waiting for angry individuals to do what they should be doing all along. <<<<The BLM is once again issuing permits for hiking in aravaipa canyon.>>>> I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to hear that. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KGAINES Report post Posted April 17, 2008 Better watch what you say. She might get her son to come over and butt diddle ya. from the article it sounds like it was her son who got diddled.... He is in jail for child molesting, allegedly, what you read in that article is that she says he was also molested, allegedly, and that is why he is what he is, maybe if she would have put no trespassing/private property signs on him and locked his gate, this never would have happened. As far as I'm concerned if her son was a molester the sob should be dead, child molesters should be shot when proven guilty, just like murderers. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/68013 Yikes, I could have lived a happy life without ever stumbling onto this little stain on humanity.... She has been frequently brought up on this forum for a few years. http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...ghlite=%2Btapia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted April 17, 2008 i was just happy the road was open. sounds like ganes, silent and the bull got some other reasons to be happy. you guys don't get out much do ya? Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmc Report post Posted April 18, 2008 Does anyone know if Game and Fish was involved in the lawsuit, and why it wasn't if it wasn't? Bill Quimby No they weren't directly involved with the suit, the hearings yes. Why... that is a long story best told by the guys that fought it court. I know there were good reasons why the G&F didn't handle it one on one and I highly doubt the end result would have been the same if it would have been the 'state' against a 'land owner'. Private party and conservation group against a land owner looked a lot better in the courts, which by the settlement, was a good road to take. Let me know if wanted to get the details and I'll bug a few of the guys that was involved and see if I can get a write up. cmc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IHunt2live Report post Posted April 18, 2008 Glad to hear that its back open. I've never been out there but no one was benefiting by having that gate locked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted April 18, 2008 Does anyone know if Game and Fish was involved in the lawsuit, and why it wasn't if it wasn't? Bill Quimby Let me know if wanted to get the details and I'll bug a few of the guys that was involved and see if I can get a write up. cmc Thanks, I'm happy we can go back there. I used to use that road a lot in the past. It bothers me that Game and Fish, BLM, State Land, Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife have historically been reluctant to take the lead on access issues. It especially bothers me whenever Game and Fish, for example, comes up with compromises that force us to sign a logbook to cross private land to reach state and federal land. It truly is obnoxious when a compromise allows the lessee to lock all other routes to our land. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
