Showing posts with label Bill Allemand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Allemand. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

The 2026 Election, 10th Edition. The Setting the stage for a Pyrrhic Victory edition.

 


We start off this edition with what might be a little light at the end of a tunnel:

GOP Senate Challengers Emerge To Take On Harriet Hageman In Primary

I'll note that the LinkedIn article is the first really good article on Skovgard's views that I've seen.  Personally, I'm favoring Mead.

And something to remember:

Hageman's Senate Run Reignites Criticisms Over Public Lands

And then there's this:

Wyoming Republican Party plans to buck law and endorse candidates ahead of critical primary

The GOP is really playing with fire here.  It's correct that as a private organization the government shouldn't tell it who it can and cannot endorse.  But then, the laws of the state shouldn't give a preferential position to a private organization, let alone a political party.  As a "major party" it has a role in nominating replacement for some positions and has pride of place in primaries.  When challenged in court, and it could be, this might be the first step towards an open primary in Wyoming.  That is, one with no parties noted at all.

In other races, the amount of money being violently hurled by Chuck Gray and Reid Rasner at the House race is simply nuts.  Weekly flyers now arrive, printed obviously by the same company, by both candidates, and television ads appear constantly.  Frankly Rasner's television ads are a little better than  Gray's, the latter of which basically amount to a swooning expression of love, albeit by a man who comes across as so angry its unhinged, and absolute fealty to Donald Trump.  Rasner has, in my view, less than zero chance of winning the seat, but if he has any success at all it will be due to his media blitz.  At any rate, both campaigns are largely self funded, which gives rise to the "well, it's their money" comment.  None the less, the expenditure of this sort of money is obscene and is reason enough that neither man should win office . . . any office.

The Star Tribune ran an article about the Democratic candidate taking on Art Washut, one of the best members of the Wyoming legislature.  Stewart McAdoo turns out to be a South Carolinian, so we'd put him in the carpetbagger category, and he's running on the predictable Democratic seas of blood support of infanticide.  

April 30, 2026

Protect Wyoming ran an ad this morning in the Tribune against Bill Allemand.

Hunters and fishermen should really oppose Allemand, who following the corner crossing ruling of the Federal Court sponsored a Draconian bill on hunting trespassing.   While he claims no present interest in it, he's from a well known Powder River Basin Wyoming ranching family, a region of the state that features very limited land access.  He's fighting a charge for drunk driving in Johnson County presently.

He's being challenged by Bar Nunn Mayor Peter Boyer, who got cross wise in a Bar Nunn town council meeting according to news reports.  Allemand quixotically adamantly opposed a proposed nuclear generator project north of the small Natrona County Casper bedroom community.  The WFC seemed to align with that opposition, showing it thinks so little that its only concept of the energy industry is grounded in fossil fuels.

Democrat Keenan Morgan is also running against Allemand.  Morgan and Boyer are from Bar Nunn, Allemand from Midwest.  The district covers a large amount of territory but uniquely features three small towns, Midwest, Edgerton and Bar Nunn, with Bar Nunn being by far the largest of the three.  House District 58 also includes a sliver of Casper and the large unincorporated area north of Highway 20/26 in Natrona County.

It'll be interesting to see how Allemand, who has a semi uncontrollable temper, reacts Protect Wyoming's advertisement.

May 1, 2026

Maine Gov. Janet Mills dropped out of the race for the Democratic Senate ticket.  A popular Governor, she was being upstaged by Graham Platner for the bid to replace 72 year old Susan Collins.  Mills is 77 years old, so the race shows the steadfast refusal of Boomers to know when the heck to get out and let the young have a place.  

Platner is an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran who is a tender 41 years old, an age that would have been regarded as far from young in any era but the current one. As an oyster farmer from Maine this race is showing the interesting rise of some strong agrarian interests on the coasts, with Mary Peltola of Alaska, a Blue Dog Democrat, campaigning on the following:

 

It's Simple:

The fight for

Fish, Family, Freedom

depends on fixing the rigged system in DC

May 2, 2026

Teacher Brian Costello has announced his bid for House District 37, currently held by Steve Harshman who is running for Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Harshman is also a teacher.  He will be running against far right wing gadfly  Ross Schriftman and Democrat Betsy Erickson.

Schrifman is a Wyoming native.

Conicidentaly Protect Wyoming ran an add on Harshman in today's Tribune:


In House District 57 Luc Colgrove announced a bid for the seat occupied by Julie Jarvis and formerly occupied by Carpetbagger Jeanette Ward, who is trying to get the seat back.

May 3, 2026

About time:

Democrats are not OK with Boomers

Perhaps having learned their lesson with Joe Biden, the party’s voters are starting to reject older, establishment-bound candidates.

May 4, 2026

Democratic candidates announce legislative, county seat bids

All four Democratic state lawmakers will seek reelection. Democrats also have candidates for both commission seats, sheriff, county clerk and more.

Elsewhere I read an interview of Provenza.  Like me, she's been in both major parties, and has been an independent.

May 5, 2026

Statewide candidates split on Wyoming GOP’s plans to defy state law and make endorsements 

Some agree with the party’s decision and will seek out an endorsement. Others oppose a political party breaking election law.

This stands a pretty good chance of being the political equivalent of pulling the pin on a live grenade and then dropping it in your own foxhole.  There's a really good argument there that could lead to the state Supreme Court simply wiping out party dependent primaries under Wyoming's law, and creating a judicially mandated open primary.

Indeed, I hope that happens.

Part of what's amusing here is that Chuck Gray and Reid Rasner, both of whom assert their undying love for Trump whenever possible, are on opposite sides of this issue with Rasner claiming the "establishment" is trying to stop him.  Politicians are big on opposing "the establishment".  Gray likes the new provisions, Rasner does not, probably because Gray is bargaining on the WFC to endorse him with the Confederate Seal of Approval.  Gray was an original WFC Cornfederate, so Rasner is probably correct here that the "establishment" is trying to stop him, if the WFC is the establishment, which of course they'll deny that they are.

Ballow is frank she's opposed. She's been pretty quiet up until recently, but there's a good chance that she will secure the nomination.

May 6, 2026

Trump backed sycophants did well in Indiana where Trump intervened to punish Republicans who didn't vote for redistricting.  The result will help march the GOP right off the cliff its headed towards in theall.

This shows the extent to which the GOP is actually dead, replaced by a group of worshippers who follows the words of their leader, rather than reality.

In contrast, Democrats won big in special elections.

And we have this:

Yes, they are.  They're frankly really irritating.

May 7, 2026

Elissa Campbell is running for reelection in Wyoming House District 56.


Reid Rasner went to Gillette to speak this week at a meet and great at the city's Prime Rib restaurant and drew a whopping huge crowd of three people, according to the Tribune.

Three . . . pretty much tells you where that campaign is going.

At it he suggested that the 50/50 proceeds swap currently existing on public land rental proceeds be made 90/10 with the State getting the 90.  He claimed there's a lot of support in D.C. for this.  There isn't.  

Rasner has been dumping a ton of money into his campaign and apparently Chucky accused him of spending his mother's money.  I'm not a Rasner fan but that's ironic for Gray, who also is spending money that came in some form from his family.  Rasner denied the charge sort of, asserting that he's a highly successful businessman without really fully denying the claim.  Whatever the truth or distruth of it, it is circulating the internet now.  Anyway you look at it three candidates who should not get this office, Gray, Rasner and Freiss are dumping piles of money into it.

Albany County overwhelmingly approved a 6th Cent ballot issue.

And the Weston County Commissioners, to their credit, said nope to the three GOP picks for Clerk.

Weston County Commissioners Reject GOP Picks To Replace Hadlock As County Clerk

The current system, it might be noted, required the party of the outgoing clerk to nominate three choices, and if the Commissioners can't pick one, the district court judge does from the outgoing person's party.  The GOP's recently fit over complying with state law raises the question of whether this is constitutional.  It likely isn't.  

May 8, 2026

Oh my.

Rasner is now attacking Gray with a radio ad in which he calls him "China Chuck Gray". 

Reid Rasner Launches Attack Ad With Chinese Music, Gong and Ninja 'Hoi!’ Grunts’

I think the best response to that was Legislator Michael Yin's; "“I think Rasner’s campaign is a joke, so I don’t take anything he runs very seriously,”

Yin is right.  Rasner is spending money like crazy, but the primary beneficiary of it might be Gray, as the two "I love Trump more than Trump loves Trump" candidates are sucking so much air out of the room that even Steve Megabucks Freiss can hardly get in a word in about how he loves Trump, and Reagan.

Gray, for his part, has referred to Rasner as "Mr. Kronberg-Rasner” which appeared to baffle the Cowboy State Daily but which is pretty clearly a reference to Josh Kronberg-Rasner who must wonder what the heck he did to deserve this.  Apparently Gray figures that people will do some independent research on Kronberg and accordingly learn that Reid Rasner and Josh Kronberg were at one time married.  If you dig into that, you can learn that, as in this obituary of well known Casper businesman Darrell Decker:

Darrell was preceded in death by his parents and his wife, Billie Jean Decker. He is survived by his two daughters, Darlyn Decker McIntosh and Deborah (Debbie) Ann Decker, both of Casper, WY; four grandchildren Ryan Decker Rasner, Reid Rasner and his husband Josh Kronberg-Rasner, Darbi (Rasner) Westman and her husband Andy, and Zack Gentzlinger; and two great-grand children, Damion and Mason.

The interesting thing about that, of course, is that is Gray's backhanded way of trying to point out that Rasner is a homosexual, hoping that people won't cast votes for his vociferous opponent for that reason. 

Of course that brings up the question of why Gray, age 36, is unmarried.  I've not seen anything suggesting he's a homosexual (although Rasner admittedly is and there isn't that much public knowledge on it), but it's hard not wonder why the super conservative, family values, party has figures who don't fit  that mold.  Gray isn't married, Rasner is a homosexual, Hageman has no children of her own. . . *

Well, anyhow.  The ad is frankly slimy.  Rasner never had any chance in the first place, so violently hurling money in this fashion is really a waste.

Chuck also said the following:

Mr. Kronberg-Rasner sues others for defamation, while he’s the one who is actually lying. Mr. Kronberg-Rasner accuses others of what he’s actually doing, just like leftwing insider politicians like Liz Cheney.

That really didn't make any sense, quite frankly, as Rasner has been suing people for defamation.  I guess he's saying that Rasner is defaming him, which is a huge stretch.  The irony is that Gray built his entire campaign on the lie of the election being stolen and screams like a weenie every time anyone says anything about him.  He did so again here, accusing Liz Cheney, who was clearly a conservative, of being a "leftwing insider".  She may have been an insider, but she sure wasn't left wing.  

Normally, of course, Chuck is attacking people in the middle.  If he ordered lukewarm coffee and the waitress brings hot, she'd get accused of being a left wing radical.  This is the first time that he's been attacked from the right and he doesn't really know what to do.  It's clear he'd like to come out and say, "yeah . . .well Reid you're a homosexual", but he's clearly afraid to

Ideally, and the ideal really tends not to happen, the Gray/Rasner fight will take them both down and into political oblivion.  Their campaigns are self funded for the most part, so the longer this goes on the more of their own cash they're draining.  Wyomingites would be well served if they drained all of their reserves, Balow won the race, and Chuck went on to a McDonald's job in Los Angeles and Rasner went back to doing whatever he was doing before.

Footnotes

*Gray accidentally raises an interesting point here.  Does supporting homosexual marriage, which I do not, make you liberal by default?  It's hard to see how supporting something so fundamentally non traditional would not, in fact, put you in the far left no matter what else you might believe.  Of course, maybe Rasner has reformed.  People sometimes do.

Politicians with same sex attraction wouldn't normally be expected to reveal it, of course, but some just do.  Keeping it closeted while being a right wing Republican, and I'm not accusing anyone of that here, is hypocritical, however.

Of course, the GOP is hypocritical on this in general.  In his first successful campaign Trump suggested that same sex marriage would be reversed.  It hasn't been, but then right now its stare decisis that its legal.  Still, Scott Bessant is an open homosexual in a same sex marriage which, if you really believed what you professed, would raise questions, I guess.

Likewise, flat out avoiding having children isn't very traditional, and from an Apostolic Christian point of view, doing that chemically or artificially is flat out immoral.  This is tricker, however, as some people can't have children.  Usually you don't know what people's circumstances are, and its impolite to ask, unless their political persona has interjected it.

Finally, all the talk about relationships between men and women and tradition, it's pretty clear that Republicans don't have a problem with Trump having a string of bedmates in prior days.  At one time even being divorced was beyond the pale for a Republican President.  Now they can have a pre office moral history rivaling that of an alley cat.  If the Republicans really meant what they preach (and in fairness, some in the Heritage Society have taken this view), they'd be doing something about no fault divorce.

But then, that'd be contrary to the American Civil Religion, which holds you can pretty much do anything you want in this category, as long as its with the opposite sex.

May 9, 2026

Protect Wyoming ran an ad in today's Trib in favor of Julie Jarvis.


Jarvis captured House District 57 from WFC far right member Jeanette Ward, a carpetbagger from Chicago who had just relocated to Wyoming when she took over the seat that had been occupied by the universally disappointing Chuck Gray.  Ward is trying to get the seat back.

Late in the day change for Landon Brown.

Frankly, without a better reason than the one he's given, Brown's action is chicken, as it gives other people who would have run very little time to ponder running.

The Wyoming Freedom Caucus is engaging in complete bullshit here:

Wyoming Freedom Caucus Criticizes Nethercott For Calling For “Lawfare"

I listened to Nethercott on this and she's not calling for lawfare.  The WFC is just a bunch of ignorant babies.

Nethercott nearly became the Secretary of State, barely loosing to Lying Chuck Gray.  The WFC has never had any love for her in the first place, and basically hates the rule of law.

May 13, 2026

Just when you think the political far right in Wyoming can't get any stupider, Carpetbagger Rebecca "Check Gate" Bextel announces that she's running for Governor on the Constitution Party ticket. The Constitution Party is a third party that apparently has a copy of a double secret constitution that nobody else has.  She was head of, and censured by, the Teton County GOP, but has crossed party lines, something the WFC generally regards abhorrent, as she's afraid Barlow will win the nomination as the Cornfederate vote will be split between "I'm endorsed by the Blasphemous Donald Trump" Deggenfelder and the Sucking on the Government Tit Bien.

The level of self delusion that a person has to have to think that the Constitution Party can win anything, let alone that there are so many ignorant Cornfederates in the state that they'd vote fora  rich carpetbagging Cornfederate in the general election, is epic.

She probably has the cash to burn in such an effort, however, which is a good reason for Wyoming to contemplate a wealth tax.

Related threads:

Pollice Verso. The 2026 Political Negative Endorsement. The Don't Vote For List.

Last edition:

The 2026 Election, 9th Edition. The Sic Semper Tyrannus edition.*

Friday, May 1, 2026

Monday, May 1, 1911. Light v. United States. "All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country."

U.S. Supreme Court

Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911)

Light v. United States

No. 360

Argued February 27, 28, 1911

Decided May 1, 1911

220 U.S. 523

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Syllabus

United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506, followed to effect that Congress may authorize an executive officer to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests and that such authority so granted is not unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power.

At common law, the owner was responsible for damage done by his livestock on land of third parties, but the United States has tacitly suffered its public domain to be used for cattle so long as such tacit consent was not cancelled, but no vested rights have been conferred on any person, nor has the United States been deprived of the power of recalling such implied license.

While the full scope of § 3, Art. IV, of the Constitution has never been definitely settled, it is primarily a grant of power to the United States of control over its property, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89; this control is exercised by Congress to the same extent that an individual can control his property.

It is for Congress and not for the courts to determine how the public lands shall be administered.

Congress has power to set apart portions of the public domain and establish them as forest reserves and to prohibit the grazing of cattle thereon or to permit it subject to rules and regulations.

Fence laws may condone trespasses by straying cattle where the laws have not been complied with, but they do not authorize wanton or willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those willfully turning cattle loose under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

Where cattle are turned loose under circumstances showing that the owner expects and intends that they shall go upon a reserve to graze thereon, for which he has no permit and he declines to apply for one, and threatens to resist efforts to have the cattle removed and contends that he has a right to have his cattle go on the reservation, equity has jurisdiction, and such owner can be enjoined at the instance of the government, whether the land has been fenced or not.

Quaere, and not decided, whether the United States is required to fence property under laws of the state in which the property is located.

This Court will, so far as it can, decide cases before it without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175.

The Holy Cross Forest Reserve was established under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891. By that and subsequent statutes, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations of the public forest and forest reservations, and to

"make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations -- namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction."

26 Stat. 1103, c. 561; 30 Stat. 35, c. 2; Act of Congress February 1, 1905, 33 Stat. 628, c. 288; 7 Fed.Stat.Ann. 310, 312, and Fed.Stat. Ann.Supp. 1909, p. 663. In pursuance of these statutes, regulations were adopted establishing grazing districts on which only a limited number of cattle were allowed. The regulations provided that a few head of cattle of prospectors, campers, and not more than ten belonging to a settler residing near the forest might be admitted without permit, but, saving these exceptions, the general rule was that "all persons must secure permits before grazing any stock in a national forest."

On April 7, 1908, the United States, through the district attorney, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the District of Colorado reciting the matters above outlined, and alleging that the defendant, Fred Light, owned a herd of about 500 cattle and a ranch of 540 acres, located two and a half miles to the east, and five miles to the north, of the reservation. This herd was turned out to range during the spring and summer, and the ranch then used as a place on which to raise hay for their sustenance.

That between the ranch and the reservation was other public and unoccupied land of the United States, but, owing to the fact that only a limited number of cattle were allowed on the reservation, the grazing there was better than on this public land. For this reason, and because of the superior water facilities and the tendency of the cattle to follow the trails and stream leading from the ranch to the reservation, they naturally went direct to the reservation. T he bill charged that the defendant, when turning them loose, knew and expected that they would go upon the reservation, and took no action to prevent them from trespassing. That, by thus knowingly and wrongfully permitting them to enter on the reservation, he intentionally caused his cattle to make a trespass, in breach of the United States property and administrative rights, and has openly and privately stated his purpose to disregard the regulations, and without permit to allow, and, in the manner stated, to cause, his cattle to enter, feed, and graze thereon.

The bill prayed for an injunction. The defendant's general demurrer was overruled.

His answer denied that the topography of the country around his ranch or the water and grazing conditions were such as to cause his cattle to go on the reservation; he denied that many of them did go thereon, though admitting that some had grazed on the reservation. He admitted that he had liberated his cattle without having secured or intending to apply for a permit, but denied that he willfully or intentionally caused them to go on the reservation, submitting that he was not required to obtain any such permit. He admits that it is his intention hereafter, as heretofore, to turn his cattle out on the unreserved public land of the United States adjoining his ranch to the northeast thereof, without securing or applying for any permit for the cattle to graze upon the so-called Holy Cross Reserve; denies that any damage will be done if they do go upon the reserve, and contends that if, because of their straying proclivities, they shall go on the reserve, the complainant is without remedy against the defendant at law or in equity, so long as complainant fails to fence the reserve, as required by the laws of Colorado. He claims the benefit of the Colorado statute requiring the owner of land to erect and maintain a fence of given height and strength, in default of which the owner is not entitled to recover for damage occasioned by cattle or other animals going thereon.

Evidence was taken, and, after hearing, the circuit court found for the government and entered a decree enjoining the defendant from in any manner causing, or permitting, his stock to go, stray upon, or remain within the said forest or any portion thereof.

The defendant appealed and assigned that the decree against him was erroneous; that the public lands are held in trust for the people of the several states, and the proclamation creating the reserve without the consent of the State of Colorado is contrary to and in violation of said trust; that the decree is void because it, in effect, holds that the United States is exempt from the municipal laws of the State of Colorado, relating to fences; that the statute conferring upon the said Secretary of Agriculture the power to make rules and regulations was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to him, and the rules and regulations therefore void, and that the rules mentioned in the bill are unreasonable, do not tend to insure the object of forest reservation, and constitute an unconstitutional interference by the government of the United States with fence and other statutes of the State of Colorado, enacted through the exercise of the police power of the state.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Holy Cross Forest Reserve because he had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority conferred by the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35, c. 2), to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy, and preservation of forests. The validity of the rule is attacked on the ground that Congress could not delegate to the Secretary legislative power. We need not discuss that question, in view of the opinion in United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506.

The bill alleged, and there was evidence to support the finding, that the defendant, with the expectation and intention that they would do so, turned his cattle out at a time and place which made it certain that they would leave the open public lands and go at once to the reserve, where there was good water and fine pasturage. When notified to remove the cattle, he declined to do so, and threatened to resist if they should be driven off by a forest officer. He justified this position on the ground that the statute of Colorado provided that a landowner could not recover damages for trespass by animals unless the property was enclosed with a fence of designated size and material. Regardless of any conflict in the testimony, the defendant claims that, unless the government put a fence around the reserve, it had no remedy, either at law or in equity, nor could he be required to prevent his cattle straying upon the reserve from the open public land on which he had a right to turn them loose.

At common law, the owner was required to confine his livestock, or else was held liable for any damage done by them upon the land of third persons. That law was not adapted to the situation of those states where there were great plains and vast tracts of unenclosed land, suitable for pasture. And so, without passing a statute, or taking any affirmative action on the subject, the United States suffered its public domain to be used for such purposes. There thus grew up a sort of implied license that these lands, thus left open, might be used so long as the government did not cancel its tacit consent. Buford v. Hout, 133 U. S. 326. Its failure to object, however, did not confer any vested right on the complainant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land had been used for private purposes. Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 130; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 513.

It is contended, however, that Congress cannot constitutionally withdraw large bodies of land from settlement without the consent of the state where it is located, and it is then argued that the Act of 1891, providing for the establishment of reservations, was void, so that what is nominally a reserve is, in law, to be treated as open and unenclosed land, as to which there still exists the implied license that it may be used for grazing purposes. But

"the nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of its property. . . . Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of."

Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 126.

"The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale."

Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524. And if it may withhold from sale and settlement, it may also, as an owner, object to its property being used for grazing purposes, for

"the government is charged with the duty and clothed with the power to protect the public domain from trespass and unlawful appropriation."

The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property may be used. As it can withhold or reserve the land, it can do so indefinitely. Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 243. It is true that the "United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes." Van Brocklin v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 158. But that does not lead to the conclusion that it is without the rights incident to ownership, for the Constitution declares, § 3, Art. IV, that

"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or the property belonging to the United States."

"The full scope of this paragraph has never been definitely settled. Primarily at least, it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property."

"All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country." United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine. The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement, or to suffer them to be used for agricultural or grazing purposes, nor interfere when, in the exercise of its discretion, Congress establishes a forest reserve for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust, it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and public purpose. These are rights incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it. Even a private owner would be entitled to protection against willful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered unless the land had been enclosed with a fence of the size and material required do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor's land as a pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have no application to cases where they are driven upon unfenced land in order that they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Mont. 324; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex.Civ.App. 388; The Union Pacific v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 176.

Fence laws do not authorize wanton and willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those who, in disregard of property rights, turn loose their cattle under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

This the defendant did, under circumstances equivalent to driving his cattle upon the forest reserve. He could have obtained a permit for reasonable pasturage. He not only declined to apply for such license, but there is evidence that he threatened to resist efforts to have his cattle removed from the reserve, and in his answer he declares that he will continue to turn out his cattle, and contends that, if they go upon the reserve the, government has no remedy at law or in equity. This claim answers itself.

It appears that the defendant turned out his cattle under circumstances which showed that he expected and intended that they would go upon the reserve to graze thereon. Under the facts, the court properly granted an injunction. The judgment was right on the merits, wholly regardless of the question as to whether the government had enclosed its property.

This makes it unnecessary to consider how far the United States is required to fence its property, or the other constitutional questions involved. For, as said in Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 193,

"where a case in this Court can be decided without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution, that course is usually pursued, and is not departed from without important reasons."

The decree is therefore

Affirmed.

The decision still makes Bob Ide and Bill Allemand cry. 

There was a major snowstorm in Nebraska.

May Day a Snow Day in 1911

Not from 1911, but 1912:


Last edition:

Sunday, April 30, 1911. Fire in Bangor, Maine.

Saturday, March 14, 2026

Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 5th Edition, part two: The Saddle Up Edition

 


Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 5th Edition: The Saddle Up Edit...: The last edition of this was already sufficiently confusing that a new one is in order. In this one, when we list the candidates to start wi..
February 27, 2026

For some reason, this thread won't update, so were on to a part two of it.  This same glitch impacts a few other threads on the site as well.

Here's the old one:



The news to post is that David Giralt, combat veteran, is promising to be the biggest Trump stooge in the GOP if elected to the House, which now means that Chuck Gray, whose never really had a job, has to compete with somebody who has, for complete sycophant status.

Gray's released television ads, by the way, featuring himself in rural settings and promising a bunch of things won't happen on his watch, including men in girls sports, and "woke" wind projects, an easy promise to make as that's already been addressed.  He even went out and bought a Western cut wool shirt, which now means he gets to be subjected to Yeoman's questions, including "Chuck, would you like to ride this horse. . . "

In something really disturbing, it's been revealed that executive orders have been prepared for Trump to try to take over the 2026 election.  He will try it.  If he succeeds, that's the end of American democracy.

Cont: 

Gray took time out of his busy job of stamping UCC filings to shovel some s*** about the State of the Union address:
Secretary Gray Releases Statement Applauding President Trump’s State of the Union Address
 CHEYENNE, WY – Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray has released the following statement applauding President Trump’s State of the Union Address: “President Trump’s State of the Union was an absolute masterclass triumph.  President Trump discussed the tremendous accomplishments of his administration in unleashing American innovation and prosperity with an America First agenda.   

He has brought our economy roaring back. As we approach our 250th anniversary, President Trump also discussed the courage and perseverance of the American people with tremendous introductions of American patriots.  

And when the radical Left refused to stand and acknowledge that American citizens should come first, the truth was laid bare for all to see.  The radical Left is out of control and outrageously wrong.  But the silent majority will continue to stand for common sense policy that puts America First!” 

Gray is probably hoping for Don to endorse him.  Nobody really gives a rat's ass what the Wyoming Secretary of State thinks about a State of the Union address. 

March 5, 2026

Voting started Tuesday as primaries were held in North Carolina, Texas and Arkansas.  As these are primaries, state funded party elections (which are generally probably unconstitutional, frankly) I don't know that a person can draw too much from them.  I would note that the Texas GOP appears to be going even more MAGA than it already is, which is pretty extreme, which may end opening things up for Democrats in November.

In Wyoming, Converse Count Commissioner Robert Short became the first candidate to announce a bid for Secretary of State.  He is a long serving Republican.

Regarding voting in primaries:

Draco of Athens and 8/18/26

March 10, 2026

Kevin Richardson has joined the House race as a Republican.  He's a combat veteran, former employee of the BLM, and works in Denver.  He claims he's for protecting Wyoming's lands for industry, agriculture and tourism.  Other than that, you can't tell much about him.

There's a draft Bo Biteman movement going on, we'd note, although I've forgotten what its that his supports want to draft him to.  Drafting in a political sense is a long held tradition, although its very tough in a state with primaries, and a lot of snarky commentators don't know what that actually means as they associate "draft" with the military and Sportsball.  Looking at his legislative voting record, I wouldn't be in favor of him.

A Democrat has finally entered the race for something, with Worland Resident Bryan McCarty entering the race for Secretary of State.

March 11, 2026

On the best of the third parties, the American Solidarity Party:

A statement on yet another United States’ Attack On Iran:

Feb 28 

Written By American Solidarity Party

On June 22, 2025, I issued a condemnation of “President Trump’s unilateral, unjustified, unconstitutional, and unnecessary military action against Iran” on behalf of the American Solidarity Party.  Our principles, commitment to peace, and opposition to reckless and unjustified military aggression remain the same.  Accordingly, I again condemn President Trump’s unjustified, unconstitutional, and unnecessary attacks on Iran.

 Our platform states:  “Administrations of both parties have pursued a policy of reckless overreach, at great cost to both ourselves and other nations.   We oppose this tired elite consensus and believe the United States should use its influence to promote an international order that respects the dignity of the human person through means other than aggression.”  Additionally:  “Military interventions by the United States have rarely complied with just war principles and have usually been counterproductive.  We call for an end of the exertion of military hegemony over the world.”  Furthermore, “We insist that the United States must end unilateral military intervention in foreign countries.”

As Americans, we do not need regime change abroad; we need it at home.  We must escape the ghastly bloodlust and other demonic impulses of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Men and women of goodwill must unite in solidarity to build an alternative to evil.  

Jack Ternan

Chair, National Committee

A statement recognizing the affiliation of the Conservative Party of Delaware: 
Mar 4  
Written By American Solidarity Party 
At its most recent party congress, the Conservative Party of Delaware resolved to affiliate with the American Solidarity Party.  On January 19, 2026, the National Committee of the American Solidarity Party adopted a “Resolution Concerning the Affiliation of the Conservative Party of Delaware with the American Solidarity Party” setting forth the process and conditions of affiliation.  The Central Committee of the Conservative Party of Delaware adopted a resolution meeting those conditions and executed an affiliation agreement on February 27, 2026.

Accordingly, I am pleased to announce and recognize that the Conservative Party of Delaware has become a state party affiliate of the American Solidarity Party.  I appreciate the hard work of James Sloven and the rest of his state committee in making this affiliation possible. 

Jack Ternan

Chair, National Committee
Something to remember about third parties, because of the monopolistic illegality of the two major parties conspiring to seize control of the primary process, you can be a Republican or Democrat and still be in a Third Party.  This in fact drives Republicans in particular nuts, as in some localities its surprisingly common.

In the present day and age, frankly, anyone who is solidly Republican or solidly Democratic, flat out isn't thinking.  Looking at third parties makes sense, and indeed, may well be necessary to save the republic.

March 13, 2026

Far right divisive rust belt carpetbagger Jeanette Ward is running to try to regain her seat from Julie Jarvis, who replaced the ineffective Ward in the 2024 election.  Her early announcement shows she intends to be the toxic rust belt carpet batter that caused people to boot her out in the first place.

The candidate for House District 57 makes a big deal of her Christianity, while in the legislature showing that not to be the type of Christianity that most Christians would easily recognize.  She took a stand against being your brother's keeper, specifically, for example.

Legislator Bo Biteman is running running for the House.

While not a complete Trump toady like Gray, whose prospects are dimming by the hour, Biteman is on our No Go list as he's in the Freedom Caucus.

If nothing else, this election appears likely to put Gray in the unemployment line and Rasner off for his next hopeless campaign.

WFC member House Speaker Chip Neiman has announced he's running for Sen. Ogden Driskill's senate seat.

An interesting aspect of this is that the Confederate Caucus, after taking a pounding this legislature in spite of being in control, is really ready to abandon ship.  Of course with Neiman, he was probably aware that Biteman was bailing out, so now he's hoping to lead the Senate.

This might end up to result in just some minor deck shuffling, but it could also mean that the WFC has shot its bolt and its numbers will start to decline.  Neiman doesn't deserve to be reelected, let alone move to the Senate.

March 17, 2026

Kibler, the Californian carpetbagger running for Governor has now joined the Constitution Party, a far right third party.

A Natrona County legislator's story gets worse.  Allemand was handcuffed as he had a loaded handgun and the deputy who stopped him felt he made a worrisome move towards it.

March 19, 2026

Headline from the CST:

Casper attorneys form anti-Freedom Caucus PAC 

The Freedom Caucus has been particularly hostile to the rule of law, which in no small part is because, frankly, its members are generally lacking in education.  Ironically, as the same time they've been attacking the court, one of their members has been proclaiming he knows his rights while defending himself from a drunk driving charge.

In other news, the current head of the Cornfederate Caucus, Rachel Rodriguez-Williams is now running for Secretary of State, hoping to replace would be Trump No. 1 fan Chuck Gray in that role.

Gray had no suitable background for the job, nor does Rodriguez-Williams.  Like Gray, she's citing "election integrity", as a concern, a real irony given that generally the MAGA contingent of the GOP would regard her, a California Hispanic and a Catholic, as the sort of person who really should move out of the country.

Candidate for the House Reid Rasner is suing more people in a series of actions that started with Anthony Bouchard.

This is discussed in another thread today as well, but election season litigation is an extremely questionable tactic and is likely to backfire.  People tend not to appreciate that defamation suits bring to the general public the very statements that the plaintiff regards as defamatory, but which the public was otherwise ignorant of.  Most people don't pay very much attention to internal political party rumors.  If they did, there's at least one well known Wyoming figure who almost certainly wouldn't be holding office.

Bouchard was the first person suited, but now its expanded to Dan Sabrosky, Michelle St. Louis ,and Kit Jennings.  Only Jennings is well well known, or perhaps more accurately formerly well known, as he was once in the legislature, although that was years ago.  St. Louis is now likely to become known as she's filed a complaint with the AG's office seeking an investigation of the conduct of lobbyist Bextel of Checkgate fame.

What we can take, in part, from all of this is that the Freedom Caucus and MAGAs are not as well coordinated or aligned as it may seem.  Rasner, who has 0 chance of winning in the primary, is spending a lot of effort ripping Chuck Gray down, who may very well have less of a chance than he imagines.  Rasner, of the far right, has now sued four other members of the far right.  A PAC has been formed by lawyers, many of whom are genuine conservatives, to take the Cornfederate Caucus on.  A group of lawyers penned an editorial that appeared in the Cheyenne newspaper taking on far right lawyer Fred Harrison who has been attacking the Wyoming Supreme Court.    Rodriguez-Williams, current head of the Freedom Caucus is abandoning her legislative post to try to replace Chuck Gray at a time at which Wyomingites are expressing disgust with the WFC and MAGA is busy supporting deporting people like here who are, you know, brown, and Papist.
______________________________________________________________________________
Note:  This thread was reposted at its glitch.

Last edition: