An update on the Jackson River access lawsuit
For those who didn’t see my column in Sunday’s Roanoke Times, I wrote about Dargan Coggeshall’s mission to gain support — including financial support — to help his defense against a lawsuit.
Coggeshall is being sued for trespassing on the Jackson River while he was fishing a section of the river that, according to maps produced by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, is open to fishing.
Because of space consideration I couldn’t get too deep into the background. But I covered the basics of the case in depth for this Roanoke Times story, which ran a year ago.
Does anyone care to predict how this will turn out?
July 16, 2012 - 12:45 PM
These fact that land rights granted by a king prior to the establishment of this nation and the creation of its laws are still being recognized blows my mind! I really hope that the judge/judges that hear this case have a degree of common sense and rule in favor of the defendant. If a fish swims thru this particular section of river and is caught below the property line by a fisherman can the landowner take the fish away because since it swam thru his section of the river it now is his property? Too many men and women have fought and died for this country to have a man sued because of a document that was issued by the King of England, that’s right the King of England. Do we need to start looking into land purchased from France, the Louisiana Purchase, to see if any grants were given that still apply today even though the French no longer control it?
I agree with Jim, I predict the lawsuit will go in Mr. Coggeshall’s favor, and the previous ruling on the trespassing charge will carry some weight. He is right about the slippery slope here if they rule in the landowner’s favor, I seem to remember a similar lawsuit years back maybe having to do with the Rapidan river, I don’t remember how it turned out but that may set some precedence in this case, although I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with certainly erroneous centuries old land grants.
Earlier this afternoon I spoke with Dr. John Feldenzer, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. I had to run out for an emergency so we had just a couple minutes on the phone. The gist of it is that Feldenzer said that the May ruling in the plaintiff’s favor established that they had a clear title to the river bottom, meaning that the plaintiffs won that round. So, if I am understanding this correctly, the defendants can keep it moving forward by appealing. I hope to have more time Feldenzer on the phone tomorrow.
Hopefully John and Karen will win
I am 100% behind Mr. Basham’s opinion on this.
From reading the column’s and other research, the way I read it, the Feldenzer’s do not have a deed that states that the property is a “Crown Grant.” They are piggybacking off of a similar settlement up river where the land owner did in fact have in his deed a “Crown Grant” and was entitled to the river bottom. The way I read it, the Feldenzer’s should be litigating against the developer who sold them the property with the promise of “private river frontage” does not entitle the landowners to the river bottom to which they say they are paying taxes on.
If these folks choose to be protected by the King’s Laws they should open their wallets and pay their taxes to the King. (At a substantial higher rate than they currently pay in the US of A, I might add.) The Colonials fought this fight almost 250 years ago and it is ridiculous a sitting Judge ruled for this “Crown Grant” plantiff in the earlier case imho.
Thanks Mark for shining a light on this subject and ALL outdoorsmen that enjoy fishing and floating should not turn a blind eye this issue. I for one am certainly going to donate to Mr Coggeshall’s LDF as he is fighting the fight for all of us.
Mark, Thanks for the email on the Jackson, prior to this wonderful column.
Here is a letter to the Chairman ogf the VDGIF from Beau Beasley of VA Fly Fishing that articulates my stance much better than I can illustrate.
http://www.beaubeasley.com/Downloads/Open%20Letter%20to%20the%20Virginia%20Game%20Commission.pdf
I read your piece in Sunday’s paper and remember when you first started covering this case. I just can’t believe a king’s land grant from hundreds of years ago before our nation was formed holds any water. To me, it’s laughable that they even think this is a worthy argument to make their case. Hopefully, the judge will see reason and this case will be thrown out. If so, the wealthy doctor will live happily ever after even as law abiding citizens fish in the stream (that God made) that happens to flow through his property.
On the 4th of July, we celebrated our independence from England… any crown grants should have ceased as we became a new nation, without a King. Our country has elected officials and a Constitution to guide us, no longer do we answer to a King. Furthermore, the essense of wildlife is that it is wild and free and not owned or controlled by an individual. It is unfortunate that greed is so prevalent. Where can funds be sent to aid Mr. Coggeshall?
I’m guessing old S. Miller has permission to fish the Jackson River from his good doc buddy and doesn’t want anyone else honing in on his spot. To claim King’s Grant is just ridiculous. I would love for the DGIF to put a public access in his side yard.
I’d like to know what the title searches, land surveys, and purchase contracts showed about the river bed and areas within the banks when the state (or county?) built the pier of the old Smith bridge in the river and then the Forest Service built the platform. Constitutionally, whoever owned the land under them was owed compensation when the land was taken for those public uses. If those governments paid, they recognized that the landowner’s title within the banks had not been extinguished over the years; if they didn’t, the landowner might have forfeited his claim.
Historically speaking, the point is not where the property right to the riverbed and water originated — all land titles in the former British colonies will go back to sales or grants awarded by the British government or by the Indians — but whether owners of this or that parcel preserved and conveyed those peculiar rights when the properties were sold and subdivided over the intervening years.
Property that was already private when Virginia separated from Britain was not the state’s to take without compensation — in the language of today’s Tea Party activists, that would have been socialism. The Virginia bill of rights in 1776 recognized that “the means of acquiring and possessing property” is an inherent human right. Upon independence, the General Assembly affirmed the ongoing validity of “the common law of England” — which is most of all, law about property — except as altered by the constitution or statute.
Given how Virginia politics was controlled by plantation aristocrats for many decades after independence, it shouldn’t be surprising if the state did not buy the titles to the river beds and water in order to create a uniform waterway law and public access.
If they state didn’t buy up the peculiar rights, I hope that somewhere the private legal title to the river bed and water was forfeited by neglect or bad lawyer. It would be interesting to watch the owners of riverside McMansions go after developers who sold them something he didn’t really own.
Of course they have title to the land, the developer owns the property on both sides, that was really never in question. So you can’t call that a win for the plaintiff. However, the state holds in the public trust the rights to use the stream, including standing in the stream to fish, for navigable waterways. The Jackson below Gathright is in fact navigable. The previous “kings grant” case had specific language that said that ownership of the fish and fowl were transferred with the property, and there was an unbroken chain of title to those critters, as ridiculous as that may sound, it held up.
The previous charges for trespassing by the same plaintiff against the same defendants were dismissed with little fanfare. This is a civil suit, for $10,000, claiming that the streamside landowners were harmed by the guys fishing, also ridiculous.
There is in fact legal access to the river both above and below the property in question. Above at the Smith Bridge Access point and below along the Jackson River Trail that the county owns.
The streamside homeowner here should be suing the developer for trying to sell exclusive rights to a non-exclusive stream.
In all honesty this harassment of law abiding sportsmen and women by those with deep pockets trying to privatize a public resource, should have been prevented by the office of the Attorney General.
Contributions to the defense can be made here.
http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/
This one is tricky, definitely not straightforward. If the rights to the riverbed were passed down the line from crown grants from one owner to the next, I personally think they are valid and you should not be allowed to touch the riverbed. It would most likely take the state supreme court or the supreme court of the U.S. to overturn those.
“In 1996 the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Kraft v Burr that Crown Grants trump state ownership. While river lovers can float down navigable rivers like the Jackson, the court held no one can touch bottom or fish in these areas without the owner’s express consent.”
Source: http://www.bayjournal.com/article/anglers_across_nation_watching_va_crown_grant_case
It will be interesting to see what happens. There is definitely two sides to this argument and the definition of navigable (Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods) is also up for debate. I don’t have a Crown Grant, but if I did I would have to think long and hard about the value of it and if it was worth protecting.
Mark, I’m not sure Dr. Feldenzer characterizes the judge’s June ruling correctly. If you look at the plaintiff’s motion, they were seeking a judgement that they were “fee simple” owners of the river bottom. If the judge had granted this, that would have been “clear” title to the river bottom, case closed. That is the highest order of title possession. However, the judge only granted the motion in so much as he would declare the plaintiff’s “prima facie” title holders of the river bottom. This means they appear to have a stronger title claim than the anglers (whom he calls strangers to the title), and the judge left room for another party, with a stronger claim to the property, to step forward. Without putting words in the judge’s mouth, this is presumably the state. Where is the Commonwealth in all of this? The biggest risk of which Mr. Coggeshall warns is that if a riparian landowner has only to present prima facie title to a river’s bottom (show an original crown grant, with or without river bed being specifically referenced, plus a current valid deed) to sue someone for trespass, then we are likely to see many more of these suits as river’s edge property owners try to drive the public off our public rivers. Most of the riparian land east of the Blue Ride (maybe even further west) mountains was originally granted to cronies of the King. This Commonwealth is sitting on a time bomb. Mr. Coggeshall just happened to step on the first land mine outside of the perimeter. This is what is terrifying.
Predictions: The guys with the most $$ will prevail. The decision will be meaningless for any river/stream/creek EXCEPT the Jackson. Jackson fishing will continue to be with risks and therefore will decline (while the fish GROW). The only clear solution will be with legislative action. There will be no legislative action.
PS.
These guys would have been smarter to not force the issue. Countless people I have spoken to on the subject, while sympathetic to their cause, feels everyone would have been better of given the law is on the side of the land owners, to just move on OR to get organized, funded and then take it on. Great to fight on principals but best done when you have the $$ and resources. BTW, while the Jackson may be the best VA has to offer, it’s really not that good and certainly not worth the effort.
As I mentioned previously, I hope that the Feldenzers win, but it’s not because I can fish on John’s property. Reason being, I’m a land owner w/ creek frontage located in a county west of Mr. Feldenzers property, so I have something in common w/ John. My property has been in the family since the 1st landgrant from governor james monroe (interesting document, we still have it). In my opinion, no one, under any circumstances has the right to be coming on or thru my property w/out my permission. As for those who have asked for permission, I’ve never denied it, but unfortunately people put in above and below my property at road/bridge crossings and make their way onto and thru my property. That should be illegal and anyone caught doing it should be charged w/ trepassing; no questions asked. It’s common courtesy in life to ask for permission to use something that doesn’t belong to you. I think everyone would agree w/ that, even if you don’t agree w/ the real topic of discussion
Al, if you think this court decision only impacts one river in our Commonwealth, you need to do some more homework. Our state was a colony, and most of the riparian land was originally granted by the king, because that was the “good” land. If the judge in this case decides the crown grant presented by the plaintiffs (which doesn’t explicitly refer to the river bed) is sufficient to exempt them from the statutes that prevented further conveyance of river bottom, then judges in many circuit courts around this state will be influenced by his decision, regardless of the name of the river. While the decision only applies to one little section of one river, technically, it will have a ripple effect. You are correct in that legislation is the way out of this mine field. From what I’ve read, it is currently being crafted by Del. Scott Linghamfelter, who is running for Lt. Gov in 2013.
When I was 17, I floated a creek with some friends, at one point, we had to exit the creek and carry our canoe about 65 yards down a bank and then get back in the creek and continue on. We had put in at a public access point (not specifically desinged for canoe entry, but non-the-less, available for the public to swim and fish) While we were carrying our canoe, a man sprang from behind some tree with a 110 camera (remember those) and started taking pictures of us. Once he snapped several shots, he began yelling for us to get back in the water and off his land. The “water” was a series of 10-15 ft waterfalls. There was no way to get in the creek. We did however plead with him and we continued down until we could safely enter the creek again. He cursed us, and took more pictures. Hours later, we exited at a bridge we had previously left another truck at, and the game warden was waiting. He was polite, asked us if we had met Mr. Harsh. We said we had. He wrote us trespassing summons. I appeared in court, and Mr. Harsh was there, he was just an unhappy man, and the judge was sympathetic to my case because had I gotten out on the other side of the creek and walked, I wouldn’t have been in any trouble because it was National Forest. The judge had something to say to the landowner that sticks with me to this day. He said, “you may own the land on paper” but you are only a caretaker of it in Gods’ eyes. In todays social climate, it is unforetunate to see people clamoring over the right to water that passes over property. I know John I would say personally, as he corrected a problem I had with my back and I have been 110% every since. Not wanting people to stop and intrude ON your property is understandable, but the thought of shutting down the ability to float a river seems so selfish. God created this for all of us. Some are fortunate enough to be a “caretaker” while they are here. Others, like myself, enjoy waht we have access to.I really don’t know what to think about a land grant from the King of England, growing up and fishing the Jackson river from Lake Moomaw down across the part of the river that is in question was a great time in my life, I caught some huge browns in that water. It is ashame to see that good people can be so selfish with the good things they have. I agree if someone works hard to attain something, then they should be able to enjoy it as they wish, but when it affects the masses, as this situation does, because it keeps boaters from enojying a section of a very nice river, then it doesn’t make alot of sense to me.
Look up Virginia General Assembly HB 934, and vote for any Tom, Dick or Harry that will pass it.
David — Thanks for sharing that story. Was the guy’s name really Mr. Harsh? Because that’s pretty fitting, it sounds like.
Just to be clear, this case does not and will not affect our ability to float through that section. We can float to our heart’s content because the river has been deemed navigable. This case is about stepping out of your canoe, kayak, whatever, leaving the public water and stepping on potentially private property (river bottom).
As a matter of fact, this case is not even about fishing. Although there are signs up and down the section in question saying that fishing is not allowed, someone could press the issue using the same logic that Dargan Coggeshall used: The state clearly states that the section is open to fishing. Of course, they still could end up getting sued.
You know, even if the courts finally determine that the Feldenzers and Sponaugles legally own the river bottom, there could be a way to get the state involved in a FISHING case. Go fishing in the section. (But don’t leave your watercraft!) If/when a landowner approaches, take pictures and video of THEM, then seek out warrants for harassment. Of course a judge could throw it out, but that could set the stage for a lawsuit against the landowners in which they would have to prove that they own the fish.
Clearly, the right people would need to be in the right positions. I probably wouldn’t expect the state to jump on this while our current Attorney General is in office. No matter what it would be a gamble, of course, because the upstream landowners were able to prove ownership of the fish in Craft V. Burr.
Mark, can we bump this article to the top periodicaly to keep the issue in the limelight? It is election season, and we need to ask our candidates where they stand on HB934.
David.
It sounds like you were fine in the scenario because you were on national forest, but if you buddies were walking on his property outside of the stream, that is definitely trespassing, no questions asked. Maybe I misread your story. Mr. Harsh does sound pretty harsh, but a lot of that harshness usually comes from actual trespassers. If you own land it takes a lot of work, posting signs, erecting gates, fixing gates that are cut down, blocking illegal ATV trails with rocks and logs…and monitoring and catching those trespassers. It is really a pain and many landowners wonder why they even own the land if all they do is patrol.
This is a different situation with regards to the riverbed, but the landowners believe they own it, so there are similarities and is part of the reason for their harshness.
The creek that smiller refers to may be a different case than the Feldenzers’. If the creek is not determined to be navigable, then it is truly owned by the landowner.
All this is disturbing at best. And why wasn’t all this “Kings Grant” stuff considered null/void as of July 4th 1776?? Come on!! What’s next, someone claiming they own the air or the wind over a cerrtain property?!?!
I have read the legal documents posted on Mr. Coggeshall’s blog. In my opinion, this case is over at the Alleghany Circuit Court level. Judge Trumbo has ruled that the landowners on the Jackson River have prima facie title over the defendants. That’s all they need to win (that’s all that Burr et al. needed to win in 1996 versus Kraft in a similar Jackson River Crown Grant case that went all the way to the VA Supreme Court).
Fee simple title is an unnecessary formality in this case.
The judge’s ruling was based on two things:
1) plaintiffs’ lawfully recorded surveys, uncontested chain of title and the legitimacy of their 18th century grants.
2) established Commonwealth law over the past 250+ years
The defendants have admitted, in early court documents, that they were on the stream-bed in question. Photographs of their trespass have been submitted to the court as evidence. As John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” The trial at this point is a mere formality.
The defendants may continue to gin up interest in this case, appeal the decision and raise money that will fill the pockets of their Richmond attorneys but this will not change the facts. “We are a nation of laws not men” (also John Adams). In my opinion, further judicial review will not change the verdict. The defendants can go down honorably like Robert E. Lee or in flames like George Armstrong Custer.
The key here is the Commonwealth and the fact that the VDGIF instigated this problem. The VDGIF and the Attorney General’s office based their claim of “ownership” of the streambed on a faulty understanding of established law, a misinterpretation of what the landowners’ grants did indeed grant and an over-interpretation of early Virginia statutes.This resulted in the publication of their “map” which encouraged anglers to trespass.
The Commonwealth did not enter the case of Kraft v. Burr nor have they done so in this case. They are the only entity that could claim superior title to the stream-bed. The reason they have not entered is that they know that the Commonwealth does not “own” much of the stream-beds that were granted to individuals in the 1700′s. In addition, the Commonwealth fears the charge of an “inverse condemnation”, a violation of the takings clause of both the U.S. and VA Constitutions (“… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”)
And the Judge did not even consider the fact that these landowners have and continue to PAY TAXES on the streambed in question, which apparently they own!
No, this case is over at the Alleghany Circuit Court level.
George III
The post on 7/19 from David (Alleghany Ridge Runner) is awesome and makes great points. I have one other thought on the issue. If the Courts do decide that these owners of Crown Grant properties own the riverbottom, then the Government should declare them public domain/impound it for the common good and pay the Crown
Grant “owners” a fair/current market value price… Everyone should be able to enjoy a navigatble river.
Geo III, I too have read the court docs. I can’t find a specific reference to ownership of the streambed in the crown grant (Abercromby) the plaintiffs attach as an exhibit. To be exempt from the VA statutes (preventing further conveyance of streambed), I thought the riverbed had to be referenced explicitly (actually mentioned). Their crown grant just references points on the edge of the stream bank. If this is enough to qualify one for stream bottom ownership, then yes, most riparian landowners, east of the blue ridge mountains, could sue anglers, hunters and paddlers for touching the bottom. Can you please site the section of the crown grant that you think conveys the river bottom?
Also, how do you know the reason for the Commonwealth avoidance of this case? Do you have a source for this? I had heard it was purely political (KC running for governor and big donors being land owners who don’t want involvement).
Fly: I understand the “consequences” but my point is not that it could not happen but that NO ONE will fight over warm water stream like this. Can you imagine this would have happened if all you caught out of the Jackson were carp?! This is a fight over cold water trout more than anything else.
Rapala: Actually, as I recall from reading a Kings Grant, they did in fact extend ownership of the air over the property and all the fowl therein. FAA, however, actually owns all “airspace” and there in your find the need for buzzards and such to secure permits. Don’t believe me, check for yourself.
Interestingly enough, I never knew the landowners were paying taxes on the stream bed. Now my question is, where does the property divide if there are two different land owners “splitting” the waterway? Waterways over time have a nasty habit of changing, and there are places on the Jackson River that during the summer months when the water is low, all but dry up. SO do the landowners split the width of the water, or the riverbed? While I am at it, do these same landowners take responsibility when trees and brush wash into the stream, flow downstream, and ruin the swimming holes of other landowners? Or is this an “act of God”? I think that George III makes a valid and interesting point in the quote about private property not being taken with out just compensation. I believe the government at the county level, or state or national level for that matter, could simply step in and purchase the riverbed in the better interest of the general public if it has become such an issue for a private landowner to keep up with as Mr. Repipi has stated. To me it certainly makes more sense for the public to own property wherein hundreds or possibly thousands of people a year could enjoy the land that one man or woman and the 20 or so people they allow to use their land enjoy it during the year.Actually in retrospect of my own words, I realize that Alleghany County is missing out on the Trout stream they attempted to build in the late 80′s or early 90′s. I believe some serious consideration should be given to purchasing the riverbed where neccessary to allow fishing expeditions on the Jackson. Also, some food for thought and another questin to answer, Do we have the same problems on the other rivers in this state, say for example, the James, do we have to float one either side of the river as we pass private land? Does this mean that eventually rivers in other areas will be closed to boating and floating, fishing and lying?
Say David, just how much is my river bottom worth? Extending an offer to purchase it is a confirmation that I own it. Now, I don’t disagree that the state should own it but what if I don’t like the offer and refuse it? The only solution would be to “condem it” and take it from me and that will not happen with the current AG who is a strong advocate of individual property rights and who opposes such action by any city, county or the state. You do however make an interesting point about these rivers having a way of moving about. Where the stream may have been 200 years ago is just a guess but it’s probably different from where it is today. If it was on my property 200 years ago it may not be on my property today. Does that mean it is owned by the person who owns the property where it flows today???
Offering to buy the river bottom from the “owner” also has another challenge. Although there is a saying that everything has a price, I suspect that price would be beyond outrageous for some of these riparian landowners. After all, some already paid outrageous prices for their river bottom with the expectation that they wouldn’t have to deal with the public. So it would take, I suspect, an astounding figure to get them to open up “their” river to the general populous.
If you look at the website for the Kings Grant development, the selling point there is private access to the river. Not ownership of the river itself.
I have never seen property for sale that stated “Riverbed Property for Sale”. I have simply seen “RiverFRONT”. This whole idea of owning the bed is becoming somewhat laughable. I would like to know if anyone is familar with problems like this in other areas. I would also like to know where does the property divide when one side is national forest and the other private. I know of a great place to trout fish, and one side of about 200 yards of the private creek is national forest. Someone tell me I have a right to half that stream!
This issue is really not uncommon in a number of places. The South Holston, as I am told, has at least one parcel where it is established that the owner of a parcel owns the land under water to the middle of the river. I also understand that the owner was an equally big A#@ Hole about people walking on “his” river bottom. I further understand that he has recently sold the property and that the rights to the bottom clearly convey to the new owner. NOW, I actually don’t know if that true but that’s the skinny. There are also numerous others in PA as several western states where the issue is the river/stream bed as distinguished from the issue of simple access. Oh yes, in EVERY case we are looking at “cold water” fish…ie TROUT. I will continue to feel this is a fight over TROUT more than anything else.
AH yes, TAXES… one of my favorite subjects! I can still hear the cry of those colonists, “No taxation without representation!” And to think of all that good tea thrown into Boston Harbor, ugh! … and those mean-spirited things said about me by Mr. Jefferson in that “Declaration.” I digress.
Yes the Jackson River landowners pay PROPERTY taxes on the stream bed (to mid stream if they own one side and on the whole stream-bed if they own both sides)… as did the landowners before them… and the landowners before them… etc. One landowner states that 1/3 of his tax bill covers his land under the Jackson River. Now picture this, Alleghany County says you owe taxes on YOUR land (the land you bought) and this amount is calculated from your legal survey, lawfully recorded. You may be fined, jailed or both if you do not pay the full amount. Another state agency (VDGIF) then encourages D.C. and C.C. (and even publishes a map to direct them) and the public to walk on this property that you own and pay taxes on. I really don’t think the colonists would have tolerated this. George Mason wrote, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted June 12, 1776… ” all men… cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives.” This was the basis of the “takings clause” of your U.S. and VA. Constitutions.
The issue of stream-bed ownership to the midstream is well described and argued in the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Feb., 2012).
This was fully supported by Judge Trumbo’s ruling of June 5, 2012 in which he directly dealt with the issue of ownership of the stream-bed to midstream. It is a matter of English Common law (the basis for your Commonwealth law, remember you all were Englishmen and my subjects at one point!). “Conveyances of non-tidal waterways ran to the middle thread of the stream” (see the document for multiple references to established VA law cases confirming this). If you owned property on one side of a non-tidal waterway, your property ended at midstream; if you owned both sides then you owned the entire stream-bed. Nothing has changed and Judge Trumbo did not legislate from the bench but reviewed the documentation in this case and found it consistent with the existing law.
As for the surveys, the Abercromby Grant was surveyed by Thomas Lewis, official surveyor of Augusta County in the mid-1700′s. He also surveyed the
Wm. Jackson and Richard Morris grants (the basis of the Kraft v. Burr Crown Grant case in the 1990′s). There is no mention of a stream-bed in the Jackson or Morris grants but this did not deter the VA Supreme Court from
confirming stream-bed ownership to Burr et al.. The markers in those surveys only referred to points on the banks, which was standard surveying technique. Both of those surveys included both sides of the river but no mention of the stream-bed. It was not necessary.
New York State’s Dept. of Conservation recognized this issue years ago and respected the private ownership of stream-beds on great waters such as the Willowemoc, Beaverkill etc.. Their solution in the 1930′s was to purchase easements of 10 ft. of bank and the stream bed on such waters. Now you can buy a license in NY and legally fish on banks and stream-bed where these easements exist (and they run in perpetuity with the property). Nothing like that occurred in VA. No taking of private property there in NY.
Am I going mad?
Well, I believe my men have drawn my bath..
remember Virginians:
“nullum tempus occurrit regi”
George III
All of which SHOULD have been null and void when your buddy Cornwalis got his hat handed to him at Yorktown.
“So where is the real property line” Our Hunt club owns property in which a major stream is our property line. The Deed reads that we own property to the high water mark on the opposite side. So sometimes we own about 30 more acres after a high amount of water from rainfall upstream. Right now our neighbors own about 30 more acres because of the low water conditions. Since the stream is not navitable we dont have any of these probles nor do we have any trout
George III, if what you say is true, why did judge Trumbo not uphold the motion of the plaintiffs as requested. The plaintiffs sought a ruling delcaring them fee simple owners of the river bottom. In his ruling the judge doesn’t go near that far. He says specifically (and for some reason) he is granting the motion, “only to the extent the (plaintiffs) have presented a prima facie title” to the property. He seems to also leave the door open for another party to step forward with stronger claims, which could mean the Commonwealth, no? The judge could have ended the case with a motion grant ruling for the plaintiffs, but he didn’t. I assume he didn’t do that for a specific reason, and my guess is that he was not 100% convinced by the plaintiffs argument. Why do you think the judge did not end the case?
Mr. Hopkins, you should show more respect to your former monarch! My “buddy Cornwallis”…. really! The general was a disappointment to me in that dispute with the colonies and he did act like a child at Yorktown, refusing to meet personally with Mr. Washington to relinquish his sword. Nevertheless, Cornwallis was a good man and you may recall that I knighted him in 1786…”Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter”. He served me well thereafter. There are many opinions, Mr. Hopkins, about what should have, could have or would have happened in history. Yet all we are left with are the FACTS and the LAW which is the basis of the constitutional republic your continental army and militia fought for.
Mr. “TTF”, where do I begin… you seem to miss the big picture here by failing to focus on what this case is. Let me remind you. It is a trespass case involving landowners’ private property upon which two citizens are charged with entering without permission of the owners. That is the case as the court views it.
You keep referring to another party, the Commonwealth, and the “door being left open” by the Judge’s 6/5/12 decision. The State has been made painfully aware of this case since 2/11 when it was filed. Judge Trumbo denied defendants Motion to compel them to enter this private suit in July, 2011. The AG’s office has held all of plaintiff’s documents for a year including their grants, maps, chain of title etc… The AG’s office has been pelted with requests from citizens, state legislators etc. etc.
Yet, no entry by the state. “Stronger claims”… where are they? I explained my opinion on why in a recent entry on this blog. The “door has always been open” to them Mr. TTF.
Let’s review the facts. Defendants refused to admit evidence (including photos of the trespass) to the Court last Fall. Plaintiffs then had to seek Motion for Partial Summary Judgement to establish the facts… grants, deeds, chain of title etc.. before Judge Trumbo. After consideration, he ruled exactly as his predecessor, Judge Duncan Byrd, did in Kraft v. Burr: that the landowners held prima facie title to the stream-bed of Jackson’s River WHICH WAS NEVER QUESTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT in that case. The Judge exercised judicial economy in deciding to grant prima facie title as THIS WAS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO SETTLE THIS CASE BETWEEN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. He explains this in his ruling. The judge could not have “ended the case” with the Motion for Partial Summary judgement because the factual evidence of the trespass (photos etc.) had not been presented (defendants denied this last Fall). Defendants deserve their “day in court” to confront the issue in front of the Judge. In my opinion, the judge’s ruling was all that plaintiffs required to move forward on the final issue of trespass. Your fixation on this “fee simple” issue is simply moot. It does not matter to the plaintiffs and the decision grants no more opportunity for the Commonwealth to enter than they have had all along.
The defendants have attempted to sensationalize this case and present it as having global implications. The case remains remains a private civil lawsuit between riparian landowners and two trespassers. Yes, facts are stubborn things.
By the way, HB934 as written, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.
Yours truly,
George III
George,
I think you are bit harsh on the common folk as they do seem to have trouble relating to the facts at hand. Mr. Coggleshaw appears to have the same problem “Custer Did”, wasn’t that his last stand?. He is compelled to press his opinion and cannot understand why his opinion is not the right andswer rather than the law. In fact the Commonwealth of Virginia has had an opportunity to resolve this issue since the day that Virginia Ratified the Constitution on June 25th, 1788.
The relevance of waterways were of great importance to the Crown, then the young State and new Country. The leaders as unitelligent and naive as we may think they are( they only founded our country) couldn’t have over looked the importance that the Jasckson would have on State and National economic affairs being the mighty navigable river it is. It was not until 1871, that this rule can be traced back to The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557, 19 L.Ed. 999 (1871) that established this rule for navigability.
Or wait is the river navigable? I beleive not! Ahh! Yes, the river was granted the title of having navigable servitude after the appeal by the land owners fell short. In 1983 in the appeals case upheld the navigable servitude or the use of the surface but declared,
” The bed and banks of the Jackson River in question are not a public fishing ground at present, and the Corps of Engineers has not made them one. The decision of the district court which we affirm did nothing more than hold that “a navigable servitude applies to the Jackson River segment,” and that the defendants may “require plaintiffs to allow public access to the surface of the river.” (Italics added). The government has purchased certain properties along the stretch of river in question. It is a riparian landowner and has the right to allow the public to use its said lands as does any other property owner on the river, public or private. Just as the plaintiffs may permit fishing on their properties, so may the government on the lands it has acquired; and just as the plaintiffs may permit boats to enter the river from their properties, so may the government. Boats may use the surface of the entire disputed segment of the river. This does not require private property owners to permit access to the river through or from their properties. “The technical title to the beds of the navigable rivers of the United States is either in the states in which the rivers are situated, or in the owners of the land bordering upon such rivers. Whether in one or the other is a question of local law.” United States v. Chandler-Dunbar W.P. Co., 229 U.S. 53 at p. 60, 33 S.Ct. 667 at p. 671, 57 L.Ed. 1063 at p. 1074 (1913); see Appalachian Electric, 311 U.S. at 428, 61 S.Ct. at 309. The district court in its decision properly denied the right of the Corps of Engineers to regulate the use of the river under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 403 because of the exemption from such permit requirements under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 59 1. State Water Control Board v. Hoffmann, 574 F.2d 191 (4th Cir.1978). The Supreme Court of Virginia in the case of Boerner v. McCallister, 197 Va. 169, 89 S.E.2d 23 (1955), has pointed out the difference in the use of beds of streams where the land in question is derived by grants from the Crown or the Commonwealth prior and subsequent to 1802. 89 S.E.2d at p. 26-27. That decision also points out, but does not decide, that, at least in 1955, it was at the best an undecided question whether or not the public interest in a navigable stream, the bed of which is privately owned, extends any further than “the right of navigation.” 89 S.E.2d at 27. Thus, according to our decision, while the surface of the disputed section of the Jackson River may be used by the public, the use of its bed and its banks are matters of state law, subject only, so far as the United States is concerned here, to the navigational servitude and whatever regulation Congress may lawfully impose.”
And why would the Government have to purchase the land for access points if it were already owned by the State? (Good Question)
So after approximately 190 -200 years after the foundation of the Commonwealth, the Court still only ruled on the waters surface maintaining that the banks and beds were possesed by the riparian land owners. So still to this day almost 34 years after the corps delcared its surface navigable the state has not stepped forward to claim title, only the land owners have shown “their color of title”.
As barbaric as it may be over the last 224 years the “State” has had a chance to defend its position that Mr. Coggleshaw claims for them, implying that they are the rightful owners of the streambed. And only after modern tests of navagability were instituted and 4 courts cases from 1890′s to 1980′s finally ended in a surface descision.
“The rule of navigable in fact, though unchanged, has been refined over the years. In United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243 (1940), the Supreme Court described three ways that navigability may be established: 1) present use or suitability for use, 2) suitability for future use with reasonable improvements, or 3) past use or suitability for past use.”
I guess as the English say “The proof is in the pudding” Also the defendants were real big on “THE WATERS OF THE STATE” Read Chapter 13 it is very clear of how riparian ownership is established in non-navigable streams. So even though the surface was deemed navagable (not the strambed)in 1983, weren’t these deeds and surveys originated from as early as 1760 and 1785 when the river was considered “un-navigable”.
Seems pretty clear to me, oh yeah and how about that Western Waters thing from 1802. Oh wait it doesn’t apply either since the deeds originated before that.
Well thanks George!!
Sincerely
Concerned Land Owner
I wish you experts would stop trying to confuse the issue with facts and summaries of prior legal actions. It’s a whole lot more fun to just babble personal opinions and express views obtained from peeling labels off beer bottles!
Interesting discussions presented in this issue as noted above. I’m sure vested interests are presenting their point in this forum. I have no issue there as argument/discussion is healthy.
A couple of points that are not being addressed fully here:
Validity of grants from the king of a foreign country issued prior the the formation of this country. The laws and claims of that foreign country were “tossed out” with the formation of the US.
River channels change considerably over all time frames. I have seen rivers and streams relocate hundreds of yards in just my lifetime. How does this effect the boundaries of properties with deed references relating to a boundary established by the “as current” stream location. Would one landowner lose stream access or another gain land acreage when the course of the stream changes? Due to the Gathright dam the stream bed is now stable. I doubt that has been the case over a few hundred years. Could the past deed grants, if upheld, give the landowner on one side of the river ownership of the land where a house now sits on the other side?
Interpretations are subject to be reevaluated. Such would be the case for honoring grants issued by a foreign king at a time prior to the establishment of a new country with new laws.
One other relevant thought. Would such king grants have been issued to those most supportive of the kings interests rather than the interests of a new and upcoming nation? I doubt that the founding fathers intended to support such “rights” of the king’s cronies. I would suggest quite the opposite.
Ah Mr. Mike, you forget your history!
I’ve already referred to George Mason’s authorship of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) in which there is a clear protection of private property rights. This document served as the template for James Madison’s Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments to the US Constitution).
Virginia’s first Constitution was BASED ON ENGLISH COMMON LAW and was written by a Committee of five including Mr. Mason and two signers of that Declaration against me. I must tell you Mr. Mike that I would have hung Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Wythe for treason against the Crown had I captured them
in time! Other than abolishing primogeniture and entail, the new VA Constitution protected private property rights as they had been enacted into law. READ about what these Founding Fathers actually did say and their concern about private property rights not what you want to believe they said. Many of these “liberties, franchises and immunities of Englishmen” have their basis in the Charter to the Virginia Company of London issued by James I in 1606. There is some REAL history to this Mr. Mike.
Mr. Mike your statement that “the laws and claims of that foreign country were ‘tossed out’ with the formation of the US” has NO basis in historical fact or previous and current Virginia law. I think it is something you want to believe but it is not factual. READ about the Kraft v. Burr case (1996) to understand how the VA Supreme Court UPHELD my pre-revolutionary grants (with rights and privileges) to VA colonists: Mr. Jackson (yes the river was named after him) and Mr. Morris). The land in question in this lawsuit
was owned by Virginia farmers and frontiersmen not MY “cronies”.
Well I must cut this short Mr. Mike. I’m about to have some eggs benedict
with none other than Benedict Arnold! Am I going mad?
George III
Rex Dei Gratia
Well, George III, it seems I hit a nerve with you. Perhaps you really are “going mad”.
Hey Georgie. I hate to break it to you, but 192 years after you assumed room temperature, the royal family is all but irrelevant. Virginians are tired of your overbearring laws and are demanding a referendum. HB934′s time has come.
“… Oh yes, in EVERY case we are looking at “cold water” fish…ie TROUT. I will continue to feel this is a fight over TROUT more than anything else.”
Comment by Al — July 25, 2012 @ 8:19 am
================
I think you got that right.
The landowners want to lay claim to the river the TROUT are in and who can fish for them. The trout fishermen (Trout Unlimited) want to lay claim to the TROUT in the river and how they can be fished for (not necessarily so in this case).
Let the cat fight continue. The elite vs the elite.
I need more popcorn.
GIII, the river bed is explicitly mentioned in the crown grants of the Kraft v. Burr case. From my reading of that Supreme Court case decision, the ownership of the river bottom was never the question in the case (as it had been previously conveyed), but rather what exclusive rights (say to hunting or fishing) that ownership conveyed. I don’t see river bed explicitly mentioned in the crown grant of the River’s Edge case. If the bed doesn’t have to be mentioned explicitly, wouldn’t most river’s edge property owners in Virginia be able to claim they too own the river bottom? Seems an awfully slippery slope.
Ah, George III, to do seem to possess certain behaviors of madness. Speaking from the grave, your time prior to, and even from the present state of time. Modern academia would assign a clinical term to that. Ah, and that you throw Cornwallis under the proverbial bus would reflect such madness.
Your ship has many holes as the stream has rocks over which it flows. Perhaps with only madness would one try to sail such a leaky vessel. The perceived rewards must be great to cause such madness. This smells quiet fishy as you may be taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker (of course with regards to regulations allowing the use thereof). The fishes are swimming through the holes in your craft as they will after it sinks.
Let’s consider a thought process. I purchase beachfront property along the ocean granted by a foreign king. My deed claims a boundary line being the ocean and extends for 800 feet away from the ocean to the west giving me 5 acres. It does not specify high tide or low tide. Does my western boundary change as the tide changes? Do I sometimes have ocean frontage and not at others? Do I sometimes own the ocean? If the beach erodes considerably will I simply acquire my western neighbors property to maintain my 800 ft and 5 acres? Will he/she then do the same to his/her western boundary?
In the interest of a river/stream that is subject to drying up prior to dam regulated releases would it not be expected that a surveyor or land grantor to specify the center of a stream to allow for the access of parties on either side water rights as the stream bed moves/relocates naturally and through periods of drying up whence a reference to the stream would be non existent for a period of time? Would it not be reasonable to express a boundary as being the middle of the stream to allow for this while not considering an ownership of that stream bed while covered in water? Would it not be considered that the king would have never even thought that such an argument would be made?
George III, perhaps your time as king was based in reality and the modern interpretation is really the madness. Perhaps you were then not really mad, only your spirit is now. So, as there is much interpretation as to your question “Am I going mad”, I would ask “Are you nuts?” I hope this doesn’t make you roll over in your grave and the unicorns escape your stable as your subjects that defeated you in the past have now evolved to the current state.
The arguments of ownership of the stream bed under the water seems spurious at best.
I now need more beer to go with my popcorn. Let the show continue. Action please.
As I sit here rubbing my crystal balls to try to rise George III from the dark recesses of the cyber space, I wonder if I will be banished to the depths of obscurity by alienating the keepers of the Trout. Yes, I have flowed down the center of the proverbial river and have shored neither side and only need to fear the bottom. I feel all alone but accept solace that neither side can get my beer and popcorn, however, the bottom can be a threat as it has been in the past.
The Trout seem to smile at me. Am I going mad? A quick check of the cooler and it is empty. In short order the Trout will probably stop smiling and all will be back to the normal state, whatever the norms of that state are. So, I am not going mad. I feel much better now.
Yes I’m back Mr. Mike and “madder” than a Hatter! Modern doctors theorize that I may have had porphyria, a disease that contributed to my intermittent “spells” of delerium. In any event, no hurt nerves here, I have very much enjoyed the mental jousting. In fact, I’m having the time of my life… er.. let me re-phrase… I’m having the time of my AFTERLIFE (since Mr. Hopkins so rudely reminded me of my reported demise in 1820!) That fellow (if he indeed exists and is not simply the Mr. Hyde of another contributor to this blog: Dr. Jekyll) has alot of free floating hostility and would definitely have spent some time in the Tower of London before 1820. MY family “irrelevant”? I IMAAAAGINE!
I grow weary arguing the same points to some here who cannot accept the facts, the law and the truth (no, I’m not talking about “the best truth money can buy” as some have characterized this case on other sites but the REAL truth). It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks (including your humble monarch) or what they can or can’t find in a Crown grant or what “is spurious at best”. It doesn’t matter about the theoretical mind games we play here about beachfront property, grants and what happens to the property line as the tide goes out or where the bank ends on a river.
Only the facts matter and what the law says about the facts and how the Judge rules on the issue. That is what matters. That is what your system is based on. Facts are stubborn things. Though this is not fun for Mr. Al who enjoys peeling labels off beer bottles.
It’s too bad that some fishermen got hoodwinked by the VDGIF’s map and it’s failure to come to their defense. Perhaps that’s what happens when your Crown Grant research expert is a fisheries biologist and not a lawyer. Some have said that the defendants were looking for a fight… well they got it! It is also too bad that the rightful landowners and tax payers of the stream bed have had to sue and incur large legal fees to protect what has always been legally theirs. “It is”, as you now say, “what it is!”
And Mr. Mike, don’t rub those crystal balls too much. Ancient Chinese
proverb says “He with crystal balls should always wear a cup!”
Am I going mad or was I mad and now am sane? Or have I always been mad?
George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland and Hanover.
Your demise in my homeland was a national holiday, as my ancestors had more in common with William Wallace than with King Edward.
Maybe you should have another round of Spanish Fly and mustard. Have fun with the blisters.
Oh, you might want to worry less about our streams and rivers, and more about your son, the Prince of Wales.
Ah, George III, your prose seems to be degrading rapidly. Your rebuttal seems more in line with a failed butt tuck. Effects from that Mad Hatters disease?
There was once a time that there was a “right” to convey (in deed language) to allow only transfer of a given property to those of the Caucasian race. Where is that today?
I read that the court interpreted the exclusive fishing “rights” was interpreted from the written word “etc.” in a previous court case. Interesting court decisions they are.
I would be most interested as if there is any way one can blame this issue on “global warming” as that is the most current buzzword driving madness today. The one who can inject “global warming” into this madness wins.
Ah, George III, in your earlier time cool was the REAL threat. If you want to win today you must inject the current buzzwords.
I will check back later to see if you have blown more holes in your sinking ship. I’m not up on Chinese proverbs but you will need more than a screen door on a submarine vessel.
I’m still waiting on someone to show me the explicit language in the crown (Abercromby?) grant presented by the River’s Edge homeowners that entitles them to ownership of the bottom. Can someone please share that citation with all of us? The statute says “unless otherwise conveyed,” so it would be helpful to read that prior conveyance. I’m just a peasant, but I can read. thx,
Can you read this?? Ignorance is bliss! Why don’t you ask Judge Trumbo the question? Or try READING his June 5th decision AGAIN.
The Court ruled that a trespasser cannot raise technical objections to a landowner’s title. Plaintiffs were only required to show prima facie title.
They did so. As we say across the pond, “Game, set, match!”
By the way for those of you who love to quote that renegade Thomas Jefferson…here it is from his own mouth, “… the JUST (my monarchical caps) rights of riparian landowners have not been so well investigated and understood as they should be.” (Thomas Jefferson to VA Governor James Monroe, 1811).
I’m so happy, EVERYONE loves the King!!!
Am I going mad?
George III
Hopkins the Scot, I do believe you are right! I should be more concerned with George IV, the Prince of Wales. His mother, Queen Charlotte, and I (behind closed royal doors of course) referred to him as The Prince of WHALES! Grotesquely fat, prone to sexual indiscretion and quite the dandy, he clearly was not a good replacement for me in 1820. The British public despised him.
But they loved me! It’s good to be the king. I am the king aren’t I?
Someone, please tell me, AM I going mad???
George III
Does/has anyone read the last couple of issues of The Farmville Herald? The Town owns a small farm pond upstream of their water treatment plant – bought specifically to supplement the Appomattox River flow in periods of drought. As we are having now. Well, about 2 weeks ago they went to release “extra” water and were told they could only do so – 1. If permission was received from PE County and 2. After applying for, paying for and getting a permit from DEQ.
It was stated that “ALL ponds and lakes in VA, depending on the volume of withdrawal, are considered to be waters of the State of Virginia.” And that the State of Virginia possesses the authority of high and low justice when it comes to those waters.
WHAT? If the State of Virginia considers ponds and lakes to be “waters of the State” then how does this NOT apply to the Jackson River???? I think this is something that needs to be looked into and used in this fight over the Jackson.
Ah, George III, you arise with such passion as to cloud my clear thinking but as you have brought forth to this discussion perhaps my thinking was just desire and passion?
Ah, how will the arguments as to ownership of the river bottom affect the throwing of “witches” into the water to see if they float or not. Would an innocent “witch” be guilty of trespass for touching the bottom? I’m sure your earlier life was much informed of the legal theory here. Murky waters justice be.
Perhaps you were in the past in all your wisdom and forward thinking with regards to the current frame of time preparing for the needs of the future. There is a clear way you can win this debate on its own merit. That is, free access to the river will cause global warming and the destruction of all mankind. Your grand university, East Anglia University (EAU) and Phil Jones, in the (now called) United Kingdom projects your wisdom from a couple of hundred years ago. Jones is one of the leading authors and gatekeepers of the Climategate. Your winning hand may work like this. The CO2 generated from anyone (other than the resident landowner of the shoreline) while traveling to the river to fish will cause rapid and unprecedented global warming that may increase the Earth’s temp by 1 degree Celsius (European measurement for you) over the next century and cause the rivers and seas to boil and the Trout to cook in their skins. Astounding!
As the governments proceed to tax the air we breathe it may be prudent for any tax repressed landowners to seek redress from the local taxing authorities as to taxing the rivers that flow by their land/soils. Yes taxes are a source of wealth that you were so aware.
Ah, George III, have we reached the tipping point in that everything and everyone is going mad except you?
And I just read on the ‘net that new research proves that buttered popcorn causes Alzheimer disease. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/08/10/butter-popcorn-chemical-linked-to-alzheimers/ . Who woulda thunk that? I will now anguish as to whether the popcorn will cause me to loose my mind or madness as you might say. Did you eat buttered popcorn much?
I will take my chances with regards to the ice cold beer.
I’ve read the opinion posted on the anglers’ website. Unfortunately our judicial history is full of flawed decisions. This may or may not be one of them. Some of those are reversed, some are not. I guess I should pose the question directly to you, since you authored the crown grant. What sentances in YOUR document convey the Jackson river bottom? I didn’t ask what was the judge’s decision. I get that only one man’s opinion really matters in this case, at this stage, so spare the patronizing come back and just transcribe on this computer screen, the specific language you drafted with the quill and ink, that conveys the river bottom to your cronie Abercromby? For Pete’s sake, it’s your prose, you should be proud of it and share it with us all. What language conveys the bed?
“Patronizing comeback”!! Really, you forget who you are Mr. TTF. I AM THE KING and I patronize whomever, wherever and whenever I want to. In the words of Colonel Jessup (A FEW GOOD MEN): “… extend me some f’ing courtesy, you gotta ask me nicely.” And, “Take caution in your tone Commander, I’m a fair guy but this f’ing heat is making me absolutely crazy.” As you lectured Mr. Al, it is now time for me to tell YOU to do your homework. “Are we clear Lt. Caffey?”
I am George III and I DID NOT “author” the Jackson OR Abercromby grants. You should know this if you read these grants so carefully for “explicit language.” These grants came from my grandfather, George II. By the way, Kings don’t author anything they have others do their writing for them. Do you think I bothered myself with the “prose” you speak of or what exactly one of these grants said. Mr. TTF, I am George III and I did not “micro-manage” as you say today. Grants were issued by royal Governors acting as agents for the Crown in the colonies. I did authorize the Morris grant which troubles you so much regarding the references to “ETC.” “ETC.” Sorry about that but you can blame the VA. colonial clerks who got tired of writing the same thing again and again (do your homework on what Form Page I means). The Supreme Court of VA. did theirs in Kraft Burr (1996).
Since your fixation on wording remains, I refer you to the 4/3/12 document
“Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”
on trespassers’ blog. There you will find IA, pages 2-3, for a lucid and compelling explanation of why you don’t see what you want and why English Common law, subsequent VA case law and 18th century surveying conventions support the fact that the owner of land adjoining a river is entitled to the soil and fishery of the river to the “middle thread” (medium filum) of the water. Hint: do your homework on what “down the several courses of the river” means to a surveyor.
Alas Mr TTF, you bore me. I will not be responding to your further questions on what you don’t see and what you clearly refuse to admit to.
You, sir, are an ideologue. You remind me of yet another scene from A FEW GOOD MEN.
Colonel Jessup: “Please tell me that you have something MORE Lieutenant (Mr. TTF). These two marines (grants) are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn’t pinned their hopes to a phone bill” (faulty reading of a grant). And, “Would you turn to the chapter that deals with CODE REDs please”. Not written down but they surely occurred. Yes folks, the King is a fan of Mr. Nicholson (greatest role: THE SHINING). Oh, perhaps you should object, NO… you should “STRENUOUSLY object to” this decision. The fact is, Mr. TTF, “You Can’t Handle the Truth!”
Mr. Mike, where are you? I would like to discuss witches with you… now THAT would be interesting! AM I going mad?
George III
BORING banter. A funny quip is OK. Fairy tails and bed time stories are quite another. Bang! Your dead georgie boy. Now, go away.
It’s TALES Al, FAIRY TALES (rhymes with Prince of WALES!) not tails!
Like the Crown Grants (on the Jackson and MANY other colonial rivers), I, the King, AM NOT GOING AWAY. I am your nightmare Al.
Rex Dei Gratia………
Nullum tempus occurritt regi. Quid est veritas? Veritas vos liberabit.
Figure it out Al. Maybe TTF was right, you should do some homework.
P.S. The answer is not in the comic books or on the labels of beer bottles!
George III
After hundreds of years of examining human behavior, I, George III, have learned that the narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a distorted sense of self importance often fed by the exploitation of other people or causes. It is often seen in radical ideologues. By the way Dargan, I am not a “dead despot”. I was one of the greatest monarchs in the history of Great Britain… LEARN your history man. And please don’t blaspheme Thomas Jefferson, traitor that he was, by suggesting that, in the “Commonwealth of Jefferson,” he cared not for private property rights!
And so it was with great interest that I read the latest narcissistic comments on trespassers’ blog, “What this is and what this isn’t”. “I never predicted I would… see MYSELF on the front page” and “get off of MY cloud” certainly smacks of narcissism. Perhaps the Beatles, “I, ME, MINE” would be more appropriate. One thing that narcissists really hate is someone more vain, more arrogant and more narcissistic than themselves. Hence the creation of me, George III!
What this case is NOT about is two trespassing fisherman. Oh, that is how it will work out in Court BUT IT IS a primal battle for the rights of Virginia citizens who happen to own river property (and the stream-bed) against an over-reaching State bureaucracy that doesn’t abide by the law. Coggeshall and Crawford are merely the latest pawns in the never-ending dispute on Jackson’s River. IT IS AN ATTACK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! IT
IS A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY! It just so happens that one of the defendants is a radical ideologue so it is being portrayed as something different. Gary Martel and his minions at VDGIF, including their crack research team of Larry Mohn and Curly, got the ball rolling when they aggravated landowners by suggesting that they may have illegally posted their property in 2009… property that the plaintiffs own by legal survey, tax records and payments and a recent ruling by Judge Trumbo. Coggeshall got caught trespassing and the State has left him high and dry.
For the record (if anyone cares about the truth) the third defendant, a pastor, was let off the suit because he admitted trespass and promised not to trespass again. IT HAD NOTHING to do with his occupation as a pastor. Don’t be fooled folks, THIS CASE IS very much about private property rights.
Coggeshall asserts, “This is not about breaking the law. We follow the laws of the state.” POPPYCOCK! This case is EXACTLY about breaking the law. And defendants ARE guilty of trespassing especially in view of Judge Trumbo’s ruling on partial summary judgement. They ARE GUILTY! They won’t admit to it and any denial is a LIE. They are not the “law-abiding citizens” they wish to be seen as. These guys will never accept the ruling of the Court because they are driven radical ideology: “the river cannot possibly be privately owned!”
Coggeshall claims that this is not about the haves and have nots… POPPYCOCK! Why does he feel the need to identify one plaintiff by his occupation, neurosurgeon? Is there is something wrong with that? Have you ever opened a head, Dargan, at 2 AM to save someone’s life? I didn’t think so. And why is what the landowners paid for their land important? All that matters is that they OWN the land. No this IS very much about class envy and warfare from the defendants position. By the way for those interested, check out the resume of William Dargan Coggeshall on linkedin to see what he did before “helping the learning disabled.” I don’t think any lives were saved!
No this is WHAT IT IS: this case is about Private Property Rights, an abusive state agency (VDGIF) guilty of a constitutional violation (of the takings clause) and another example of class warfare by a radical ideologue who loves himself for doing it.
Royally yours, the ultimate narcissist,
George III
Hey George III how do you celebrate July 4th? Are you sitting at home crying because you were a failure to all your people. Exactly you couldn’t even satisfy the men and women an ocean away so they gave you a big F-you buddy now I would suggest you take your british ignorance back to England before Virginians give you a big F- you. Quit living in the past buddy its 2012 not 1800s sheesh.
Yes, aren’t you quite the bright bulb Mr. patriot!!! And such a varied vocabulary with most words beginning with F-!! Niiice!
Matches your knowledge of history. Factually, I stopped being King in 1820 when I reportedly died so don’t lecture me on how the Brits treated me, one of their most illustrious monarchs. Oh, and I am not your “buddy” Mr. patriot!
My my… that VDGIF white paper doesn’t instill much confidence in the state agency that directs sportsmen as to where they might recreate in Virginia. In fact, it sounds like they don’t know what they’re doing! Once again, if the Commonwealth had ANY evidence that they REALLY own the stream bed of the Jackson River, we would have seen it. They don’t (courtesy of research by Larry Mohn and Curly) and now they don’t know what to do… hmmmm. How about admitting you were wrong and try to prevent this from happening again! No, the VDGIF will just assume they own everything else and ignore the other 9 Crown Grants they know about on the Jackson tailwater.
Must cut this short as my servants have prepared my afternoon tea!
As for you Mr. patriot, all I can say is, “It’s good to be the King!!”
George III
Rex Dei Gratia
In 1779 Virginia’s revolutionary government claimed an “exclusive right of preemption” over all lands within the bounds of its “chartered territory,” including the lands north and west of the Ohio River. Moreover, the act made null and void every land transaction between individuals and the various tribes of Indians, or grants from English crown to any individual within the commonwealth, transferring control of all such lands into the hands of the commonwealth. This was made a statute by Thomas Jefferson. Va realty code asserts that riparian landowners own only to the highwater mark of a waterway, centerline of such is only for boundry reference. Even in England Kings Grants DID NOT restrict public use of the water and the crime of trespass DID NOT exist unless a building was entered or property was damaged. (caffynonrivers.co.uk) Our courts ignore our earliest laws that nullify grants and the English law of trespass they try to claim.
Sorry paddler…
your information simply does not fit with the body of VA. case law and the many historical court decisions made over the centuries. Kings in England, like me, George III, restricted whatever they wanted to. Incidentally, I don’t believe that I relinquished control and jurisdiction of the Colony of Virginia until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (though my man Cornwallis did yield at Yorktown in 1781).
This case DOES NOT restrict public use of the Jackson river as it remains legal to float (even in the Kraft v. Burr case, this was not an issue).
The defendants in this case WERE trespassing on the stream bed (see Partial Summary Judgment, 6/12, for the Court’s opinion on title).
George III
Nullum tempus occurritt regi
Well George, you may want to consult some of your own law professors in jolly old England. Even in England rivers were held in public trust for highways of trade and travel, fishing and wading included. Trespass never existed unless damage was done or a building was entered. Just because the courts have made the wrong decision for fifty years doesn’t make it right. Many cases were decided by local judges with local influence, some that owned land along the river or were members of some exclusive hunt/fishing club. Gee, you don’t think there’s any corruption there do you? Can you find the term “private river” anywhere in the Code of Va? You can however find the term “riparian” and “highwater line”. Va is nearly dead last when it comes to honesty in politics, and of course water access, but as soon as some of our lawmakers grow a pair we will resolve it through the GA much like Montana did.
Mr. obviously angry patriot paddler…
I imagine all those judges on the VA. Supreme Court in 1996 were “local” too.
If you know anything about trout and salmon fishing in England you’ll realize that most of it is done on “private water.” And just how did it get that way?? Montana’s Stream Access law did not have to contend with privately granted and owned streambed (as in my original colonies) as there were no Crown grants there. See Wyoming where it didn’t work.
You see paddler there is this thing called the Constitution… you should read it sometime as regards private property. Do it while you’re waiting for lawmakers to “grow a pair.”
Your lovable monarch,
George III
All this back and forth has got me thinking….this is a really good time to fish the Jackson River with spinners and streamers. I might have to head that way one of these days.
Of course if someone on the bank starts taking pictures I might get a bit nervous.
You could use your camp on the Cowpasture as a “safe haven”….
and if it’s cold and rainy, just pretend you are in Alaska !!
For the record, you would not believe how many Crown Grants there are on the Cowpasture River! All made by me and my grandfather George II. Check out the Library of Virginia sometime to confirm this. I believe that water is also technically non-navigable.
Well, I have just learned that plaintiffs have been “forced” into a hearing next week by a “Motion to Compel”. Apparently our trespassers and their legal team are having trouble following the rules of the Court. I notice that this legal document has NOT been posted on trespassers blog. HMMMMM, I wonder why??
I hear that pictures are still being taken… something about a “record of trespassers”, I don’t know… just be careful as the VDGIF still has not removed their erroneous maps and fishing the Jackson is at “YOUR OWN RISK” as our canaries warn us!
Is it me or is everyone else going mad??
George III
George III,
For the record, I would believe the number of grants on the Cowpasture. Never had my picture taken on that river, though. I wonder if it comes back to something mentioned above in comments: trout. Something about those coldwater creatures really stirs up provincialism and ownership, doesn’t it?
As for those picture-takers on the Jackson, I will be sure to wear bright colors. Drab attire doesn’t make for pretty pictures, you know?
In fact, I’m thinking that hearing next week might be an ideal opportunity for some on-the-water research…
Travel at your own risk Mr. Taylor. Lawsuits are not limited to the current defendants. Don’t worry about your clothing, however, I hear those photographers focus on faces… easier to identify in court you know.
Seriously though, the landownership issue precedes the Jackson as a great trout fishery. The first suit against a trespassing fisherman went to the Supreme Court in 1955 (Frank Boerner v. McCallister). This was long before the tailwater was created.
Actually, what “really stirs up” ownership is, in fact, ownership! Perhaps if you had to pay taxes on something you can document that you own but that the state says they control, you’d feel differently. Perhaps not.
Good luck with your research. If you get caught, let me know… perhaps a royal pardon might get you off!
George III, your humble monarch1
Ah, taxes. Those things do tend to muck things up, don’t they?
I can sympathize. Heck, I can empathize. I may be a simple, landless peasant, but I’m not carless or boatless. I hold titles to several of them but still pay taxes on them. Every year! Of course the state doesn’t ask me to make those vehicles available to the public. At least they haven’t yet!
As for that research, I am humbled by your offer to consider me for a royal pardon should the need arise. But I have no concerns about getting “caught.” By nature I am not a gambler — and, really, that’s what this is: a poker match replete with high stakes and a potential for lots of bluffing — so I will not be doing that research on any of the currently disputed stretches.
Of course the whole river (and many others) has potential to become that poker table, which means there’s always a possibility a new player will appear and start taking pictures. To be safe I will wear bright colors. Probably orange, which I’m told really brings out my eyes.
Mark I, your humble jester
When candidates for VA Congress knock on your door in the next few weeks, take them to task about HB934 and ask them just where they stand.
Hey George, funny you should mention the Constitution, didn’t think you were a big supporter of that since the Revolution. Interesting you didn’t mention the trade and travel clause. You can’t build a dam, build a pier or impede the waterflow whatsoever without the Corps of Engineers approval on ANY river in Va, and you try to claim you have an exclusive right over the water?? I don’t think Uncle Sam would agree with you on that one. Why would Jefferson enact a law in 1779 to nullify any land deal between the Crown and any Indian or individual? Maybe he didn’t want trade or travel impeded on the new country’s rivers by some arrogant shitbird such as yourself. Since the only travel possible then was by water or horseback he wanted to make certain the CITIZENS of this great state were always afforded use of OUR natural resources. Your latin quips are amusing but this is America, you may think “time never effects the King” but folks today don’t trust the courts any more then they trusted you in colonial Virginia. Once enough people are informed of this injustice you will find that “all power is inherint in the people”. If you know the rest of this quote you’ll know that I’ll be the guy wearing the camo and totin’ a sidearm, as provided for in our Constitution. So take all the pictures you want, the half a peace sign is for you. Other then crappy politics, it’s not the PEOPLES fault that this state has never devised a standard to determine navigability. Oh, there’s that term again, let’s see, according to the same folks you gain permission from to alter anything water related, navigability is based on past use for trade or travel. Nice that you mention the Cowpasture, historical facts from their Chamber of Commerce note it was dredged from Williamsville to the James for logging. Maybe the local cronnies don’t like history back there, but to anyone with a modicum of common sense, that would mean COMMERCE. Uncle Sam’s NPS lists it as a scenic, historic and outstanding river for recreational use from Headwaters downstream. Fort Lewis was a frontier outpost, you know, for traders, trappers and explorers to float their goods to the James. Now it’s deemed “private” from the local “court” because of prior decisions made by courts of the same color. You know, crooked. The biggest problem with the prior “case law” you refer to is that it emboldens every idiot with a piece of river dirt to claim they own the water. Simply not true.
I KNEW I wasn’t MAD!!!!!!
Ah yes, it ended just as I said it would didn’t it? You must pay more attention to your lovable monarch.
Verdict for the plaintiffs: North South Development, John and Karen Feldenzer and Frank E. Sponaugle, Jr.. They are the UNCONTESTED owners of the stream bed in question on Jackson’s River. So it is written, so it shall be done.
And why? Is it because the hapless trespassing anglers ran out of money?
That’s the current published spin necessary to continue to raise money and fuel the efforts of our piscatorial ideologues. No, it’s not about how much money you can throw at this litigation. It’s about facts and the law. “FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS” as I quoted you from John Adams earlier in this blog.
These are the facts and they are undeniable…
1)In this case, the landowners hold an uncontested and uninterrupted chain of title back to valid 18th century Crown and early Commonwealth grants that convey stream bed ownership and other appurtenances to them. This chain of title defines 34 transactions from my grandfather King George II to John and Karen Feldenzer and is part of the Court record.
This is nothing new… it was also shown for landowners holding two other Crown grants in Kraft v. Burr (1996). Landowners on the Jackson also prevailed over a trespassing fisherman in Boerner v. McCallister (1955). These last two cases were ultimately settled at the VA Supreme Court. The stream bed of the Jackson River is largely privately held. FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS!
2) Judge Trumbo ruled the Jackson River a Western water and non-navigable.
This also is not new… see Judge Duncan Byrd’s opinion in 1993 and 1995 (both rulings were attached to the Order but conveniently left off of the trespassers website). The river is NOT navigable according to state law. Of course our trespassers, even after losing, continue to call the Jackson “navigable”. It is not except as regards the surface of the water upon which individuals may still legally access (Loving et al. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980). FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS!
3)Damages were dropped by the landowners… it was never about damages. This was lost in the spin of Coggeshall’s publicity machine.
If there was real “bad guy” in this case, it was the VDGIF. They forced landowner/taxpayers to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend and confirm what these citizens always knew… that they owned the stream bed.
Similarly, they did not rise up to defend the fishermen whom they sent in on private property like lambs to the slaughter. The fishermen too lost tens of thousands of dollars. The VDGIF’s recently published “white paper” is a laughable example of bureaucratic incompetence. Perhaps there should be some sanction on such a rogue and irresponsible state agency.
Well, I must go now… must get dressed for the big aristocratic ball this evening.
Remember, Nullum tempus occurritt regi!
George III
Rex dei gratia
Alas, I was amused to read some of the publicity surrounding Judge Trumbo’s decision and victory by the landowners in the Jackson River dispute. Some of it would be laughable if it were not so pitiful and downright pathetic.
Example: Quote from Dargan Coggeshall’s blog 5/5/12 “A Good Day in Court…”
“We are fortunate to have such a considerate and knowledgeable judge for such a critical case for our state and I believe the issue is already receiving a fair hearing considering the time it appears this judge has dedicated to the question so far…”
Fast forward to last week after trespasser Coggeshall loses and is interviewed by Larry O’Dell of AP: “Ultimately the ambiguity has to be cleared up by the General Assembly, not by circuit court judges in small courtrooms in the state.” That’s right Dargan, disrespect the judge and all those other judges who made decisions that don’t go your way. Apparently he can only respect those who agree with him. Typical response of a narcissistic ideologue that loses! As I said, pitiful and pathetic.
The only ambiguity continues in Coggeshall’s mind and the spin machine he continues to operate. The landowners are the UNCONTESTED owners of the stream bed. Perhaps our trespassers need to be reminded that the Commonwealth did NOT enter their case (or the Kraft v. Burr case or the Boerner V. McCallister case, need I go on?).
The dinner bell rings, I’m hoping for a nice baked trout tonight!
George III
George III,
I had a feeling you’d have something to say after last week’s news, and certainly understand why you’d want to celebrate.
You’re dead on, of course, that this was never about money. The plaintiffs were very smart to not add insult to injury on that front.
The judge’s ruling on the navigability, while, as you point out, “not new,” is not without legal contradiction. It will be interesting to see if further lawsuits re: navigability follow. And it doesn’t just affect the landless poor. The Homestead, with its organized trips for the privileged few, would be up a creek, too, so to speak.
I take some exception to your throwing DGIF under the bus. You and I both know that their role (or non role) was dictated from above. None the less, they are the agency of record and this has really put them in a pickle. Those signs and maps, after all, have their logo and, hence, their approval.
Do the signs stay up? Come down? Do they pull out the White Out and start making some corrections?
This is not the end. It is the beginning. Or middle.
I still haven’t lost my desire for a little field research trip to the river, though my excitement has been slightly tempered.
On your celebratory trout dinner, just make sure your chefs don’t keep any rainbows between 12 and 16 inches, and only one of “your” limit of four may be a brown and it must be at least 20 inches on the Jackson River tailwater. Oh, what am I saying? You/they will be out there with the blessings of the landowners and I suspect they own the fish, too, or at least presume to.
Meanwhile, Powhatan’s ancestors are hating the fact the chief wasn’t so good with a paper trail…
HB934
The whole stink of this is the burden of proof falls on the accused. Any landowner can take a picture and harass you with threats of litigation and even haul you into civil court on your nickel and not have to show proof of title?
Really makes you think twice before buying that trout stamp, doesn’t it?
John — This isn’t a designated stocked stream, so no need for a trout stamp. But, we get your point.
Riparian landowners could be emboldened by this to harass fishermen, floaters, etc. Any floater who bets that the threats are a bluff risks the fate that befell Coggeshall and Crawford.
Floaters could also turn the tables and pursue the landowners for harassment, which might be a way to force the state’s hand.
Let me assure you that any time I go on a stream that is in question I will be carrying a video camera, just in case.
Mr. Mark, the humble jester, SURELY you Jest!!!!
The VDGIF should not only be under the bus they should be rolled over a few times! Mark, they are the problem here. How can you know so much about this case and make statements like you do? Have you missed the forest for the trees?? Let’s review the facts (ONCE AGAIN!)
1) Landowners post their land (as it is their right to do) in 2009.
2) Gary Martel (VDGIF)sends a a nasty, threatening, ill-informed letter to the landowners challenging them. He even criticizes the “catch and release” policy of the Jackson River Fly Fishing Club!
3) Research from Larry Mohn and Curly, all VDGIF (yes you had Larry’s picture on the front page of your cover story in Roanoke Times (summer 2011)results in the “infamous map” encouraging public wade fishing from Natural Well to Covington (published and posted 4/10). The map does not just “have their approval”…. IT WAS CREATED AND PUBLISHED BY THEM Mark!
4) Coggeshall and Crawford documented trespassing in summers of 2009, 2010
(they rely on what VDGIF tells them).
5) Mohn retires, Case ensues.
6) VDGIF fails to defend Coggeshall and Crawford. Mohn denied as an expert in 7/11 hearing as Judge Trumbo questions his knowledge and authority.
(I think I saw you at that hearing Mark… I was seated in the back in the purple robe… took my Crown off in deference to the Judge)
7) Undated, unsigned VDGIF “White paper” is published (8/12) in which VDGIF denies knowledge OR authority to confirm private v. public property (and thereby direct anyone anywhere) or defend anyone basing decisions on their published material! Bureaucratic incompetence, appropriately recorded for all to read (see all of this material on trespassers blog).
So why do you take exception?
From the landowners standpoint: VDGIF caused and inflamed this situation. This started in their dept. despite tacit approval from a yet unnamed person in the Attorney General’s office. Mohn did the “research”, VDGIF created and published the map, game warden present at the criminal case to defend trespassers… (are you getting this Mark?)
From the fishermens’ standpoint: they relied on official information from VDGIF (that was wrong) and based their stand on this. VDGIF failed to defend them or even respond in a meaningful way until the futile “white paper” was published 2 months ago. As of 10/16, VDGIF still has their maps up, endangering unsuspecting fishermen to this day!
No Mark, the VDGIF IS the main culprit here. You know it too.
There is a difference between journalism and journalistic activism.
Which would you call yourself Mark, the jester?
Royally and most definitely mad as can be!!!,
George III
Rex Dei Gratia
George, you arrogant sack of puke, you will receive no grace from God or anyone else on judgement day.
George III,
In fact, I was recently recognized by the Outdoor Writers Association of America for my jestering, with two humor writing awards. And yet they still elected me president. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why they elected me. Certainly wasn’t for my smarts.
I don’t recall saying that DGIF is not without some culpability here. I don’t think anyone would say the DGIF wouldn’t have been better served to pay a pro to exhaustively research grants and deeds up and down the river, and perhaps derived from that research that legal challenges to ownership of the river bottom, and associated fish, fowl,invertebrates and didymo would eventually be challenged.
You know well how much that kind of research costs.
But they didn’t take that approach. Did they underestimate the risks? Or simply disregarded them? Whatever the case, they went forward with establishing a public trout fishery. It was a gamble. DGIF apparently felt the potential payoff — a great fishery that would be beneficial to many anglers (as well as the community) — was worth the risk.
Silly them, huh? That’s what they get for trying to serve the common man.
So how does DGIF make it right? Do they replace all the maps with dire warnings that read: “Some landowners along this river have something written by the King of England (yes, we know that we beat them in the Revolutionary War, but our courts still defer to these grants) that gives those landowners ownership of the river bottom and, in some cases, the fish. You may be sued for floating, fishing or wading in this stream. Or you may have a fun day of fishing. But proceed at your own risk.” Do they then shift funding from other programs so they can hire that pro to do the deed research so they can produce an “accurate” access map?
Seems like a lot of trouble and expense. And, hey, at some point you just have to cut your losses and bail, right?
So, then what?
The dam is not coming down. And I’m guessing a certain company downstream might not like the idea of the Corps of Engineers altering the dam discharge away from a cold water mix to a surface mix that would lead to warm discharges in the summer.
So, that leaves the DGIF to join in the “It’s-my-ball-and-if-can’t-play-I’m-going-to-take-it-home game” which is essentially the game the landowners (just a few) have been playing, except the landowners are saying, “It’s my ball and I’m not going to let you common folk play.”
Fortunately for the DGIF, it has a very inexpensive and effective way to punt.
It’s called rotenone.
Just dump a boatload of the stuff in the river below the dam. (Actually, that is public water, so they probably should do it at the bottom of that public stretch.) DGIF can then replace those controversial maps at access points with a letter of apology. “Sorry we screwed this up by creating a trout fishery. We thought it would be good for everybody, but it turns out not everybody is welcome here. So, we removed the offending trout and went home.”
The residents of the Rivers Edge on the Jackson River (a name which, by the way, reminds me of the American Dodgeball Association of America every time I type it) can then start from scratch. And not just with the fish.
Let’s face it, that stretch of water from Smith Bridge to the Feldenzers is one of the worst stretches of water on that river. Pretty much worthless frog water. That riffle right by their house (aka Trespassers Riffle) is nice. But one good hole within wading distance of the homestead? Come on! That’s 30-minutes worth of fishing. At best. If it were me, I’d get in there with a bulldozer and start moving rocks and stuff around and actually make that whole stretch from the bridge down to the Feldenzers into decent water.
Shoot. Why stop there? Just rebuild that whole “club” stretch.
And, of course the members of the “club” can establish their own fishing rules. Catch and release. Catch and keep. No fishing on Sundays. Whatever.
And, while they’re at it, they might as well make their own hunting rules, too. Not that they would participate in something as barbaric as hunting. But, on the off chance, they certainly wouldn’t need to abide by the rules and regulations established by the DGIF, which, if you carefully read some of those grants, really overstepped its boundaries by trying to make us believe that the people of the state own the wildlife.
So, facts…
Fact one: This is a mess.
Fact two: You are smarter than I am. Your use of Latin proves it.
Fact three: I have to go judge a photo contest in five minutes, so I’m out.
Mark the Jester
Amen Mark, thanks for some great writing.
If George can play King can I play Thomas Jefferson? I believe it was I that enacted a statute in 1779 that nullified all grants from Crown to any Indians or individuals in the territory of Virginia. Seems our present statesmen have forgotten our very first laws and victory for Independence. They and the pompous pretend king George are indeed a slap in the face to my fellow Virginians that fought and died to birth this nation. If I could again return and serve for the good of all the common people I fear there wouldn’t be enough trees left on Broad Street to hang all the tyrants that now occupy our statehouses.
Just as I thought, a journalistic activist.
Not an objective thought in your mind. Spending time on the “frog water” was apparently quite costly for our trespassing friends.
Mr. Paddler, your theology is weak. One only needs God’s grace on Judgment day. I believe it was Jesus Christ (whose Grace you seem anxious to disperse among those you wish), who said “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” I’d say “see you in hell at this point” but I do not intend to be there. Jesus also said, ” I am the Way, the Truth and the Life…” Veritas vos liberabit, baby! Remarkably, in the end, He OWNS the stream bed and we know it!
Your humble monarch,
George III
“Nullum tempus occurrit regi”
Nope Georgie, not an activist, just a vocal defender of all the good and common people.
“To sin by silence makes cowards out of men”.
We left Europe to escape the likes of you, our Forefathers dealt with the same oppressive rule….but only for a while.
Your time ran out a couple hundred years ago but we do have a few weedy tyrants cropping up in our midst from time to time.
Don’t you have a latin term for “double standard?”
Come on George, you can’t have it both ways, the crime you cite as trespass today didn’t even exist by your own laws in your time.
Our once beloved Commonwealth, where we ran your henchmen from our very shores, now ranks nearly last in a state investigative report on honesty and integrity in politics. When the PEOPLE relinquish power and trust to the self-serving few, we end up with the debacle we are now faced with.
“Those that refuse to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it.”
It’s sadly ironic you mention our Savior, He came to save the weak and downtrodden from the authoritative self-righteous, and He was indeed persecuted by the same noble aristocrats that you claim to enjoin.
Was he not finally pierced by a “sword of the King”?
True, He does own the rivers, and He did promise that ” the meek shall inherit the earth”.
As the very first Americans attest; “The earth does not belong to us, but we belong to the earth”. We will all return there some day.
The Jackson River story is really no different then the plight of the common man throughout history, it is a constant struggle between the meek and the power, privilage and wealth of the “noble”. But we all know what the Good Book says about pride and nobility don’t we?
The men that founded this nation, and our state, believed we should all be equal, free from the bonds of a king, but they also knew that this would be a philosophy that we would always have to guard and be willing to defend.
“Guard with jealous attention the PUBLIC liberty….”
I am not a writer, nor an activist, but I will voice my opposition to injustice, and I will inform, educate, and enlist the voices of my fellow countrymen to any such prejudice against the common folk.
“Upon the alter of God I pledge eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”.
In Mr. Jefferson’s mind, as well as any free thinking Virginian today, we should no longer be held to any of the “kings” restrictions.
All politics and theology aside, exactly what harm does a guy and his kid do wading down a river fishing? We wonder why kids these days are stuck in front of TV sets and video games yet so many outdoor activities that were once freely enjoyed are now off-limits.
Case in point, kids can be intimidated, folks like myself aren’t and when threatened by someone that “owned” the North river in Rockingham County, I agreed with his threat that he should call the warden. I advised him that I had waded that river all my life and had never heard such a claim. Of course he was irrate but I remained in the water off his land and assured him if he wanted to join me for a more “personal” debate I’d be more then willing to oblige. At that point he became more civil and admitted he had stocked that section with trout so he could charge city folks to fish there.
When I informed him I was just fishin’ for smallies he didn’t like the treble hook on my rooster tail as it would kill “his” trout if I caught one. I switched to a Mr Twister jig and we parted on good terms, but had I been a kid on his first trek up the river I probly would have run home to the safety of my play-station.
Kinda like Fort Lewis ain’t it? And so many other rivers. A free flowing body of water that’s not really owned by no one person, and sometimes stocked by the state, but a few greedy people can call it “private” for the sake of the almighty dollar.
sic semper tyrannis
The judge did not declare the developer and neurosurgeon to be free and clear owners of the river bottom. All his ruling says is that the plaintiffs had a superior claim to the bottom when compared to the anglers’ (who had no claim to it). “UNOCONTESTED,” which is the word Geo. III keeps using in all caps, does not mean “OUTRIGHT.”
The judge was very knowledgeable about r/e law, which is exactly why the whole unbroken chain of deeds and crown grant never came into play in his decision. He wasn’t going to fall for that head fake. The court transcripts show he told the plaintiffs as much. He saw “river bottom” in the current deed (first placed there in 1940s) and that was all he had to use to support simple trespass. One could say he took the easy way out, but really he opined only on the issue before the court. Without the state stepping forward to contest it, the anglers were toast (they had no deed). So, I’ll give it to Geo. III, “uncontested” was all that was decided that day. Rightful ownership was not! The ruling even leaves open the chance that the state (or someone else) may emerge as the outright owner.
The ironic thing in all of this is that this case never even got to the point of having to decide if the crown grant was valid. All simple tresspass takes is “color of title.” So, Geo III’s (or was it Geo II’s, all their in-breeding gets me confused) grant may not even be worth the toilet paper on which it was written. We may never know. So ironic that he struts around this board, acting like he made this all possible for the brain surgeon and the developer to exclude the public from a fishery the public’s dollars created, when that credit goes to some hilljack in the 1940′s who wrote in “river bottom” into a title description of a piece of property bordering some unknown backwater smallmouth and perch stream in SW Virginia. If the state doesn’t step up to assert ownership at some point in time, then the hilljack’s work wins the day, and Geo. III is relegated to play a bit part on a side stage. However, the the “king” and “revolution” do have a way of getting people all riled up.
By the way. From now on, I will refer to the poster George III as the name by which the media and the fans of obliterated native populations prefer to call him; RGIII. For those cutural philistines, that stands for Rectalus Georgius the Third.
Or was it Rectalus Georganus the Third. Can I get an activist journalist to fact that check for me. Oh god, I am thankful every night I don’t have to go to bed as Rectalus Georganus, First, Second or Third.
Definition of “delusional”:
spending $130,000 (or is it $140,000?) on attorneys and losing!
Two Definitions of “insanity”:
1)keep repeating that the “state or someone else” will “come in” and assert
superior title like they did in Kraft v. Burr and Boerner v.
McCallister (i.e. repeating the same act over and over again, expecting
a different result).
2)deny the wording of Judge Trumbo’s October 9th Order, in which he openly
recognized and validated the said 18th century grants “… conveyance
documents of record… of which documents the Court takes judicial
notice…” and from which the Judge declared the Jackson River
“non-navigable” and a “Western water” and that the Grants conveyed
streambed ownership to mid-stream on the Abercromby Grant and the whole
streambed on the Man Grant. Indisputable facts, unless you are
1) delusional and/or 2) insane.
For all intents and purposes, UNCONTESTED = OUTRIGHT.
How’s that for a strut, Mr. TTF?
Georgius III Rex
So it is written, so it shall be done.
P.S. I have heard it said recently, that some fishermen on the Jackson are
pissed at Coggeshall for “screwing the pooch” on the Jackson, calling
attention to the private stream bed and messing up their fishing
opportunities.
RGIII, I just re-read the order on the anglers’ site and don’t see the language to which you refer specifically leading to valid crown grants. Unfortunately for you “intents and purposes” does not equal “rule of law” in this case.
I heard that the pissed anglers to whom you refer are the guides that were hired by the developer to take prospective lot buyers or fee paying anglers on the colored rod beats at River’s Edge. I hear there’s not a lot of work for those guys now. Bet they are pissed, but they should focus their ire on the folks who sued Coggeshall, Crawford and the pastor and sought $10,000 in damages. What were those guys supposed to do, give up and stroke a $10,000 check. Shame on the plaintiffs’ lawyers for forcing a fight by seeking such high damages. Bush league tactic if you want a quick lay down of arms. Great idea if you like the smell of nepalm in the morning.
But then again, maybe the most pissed is the neurosurgeon and his wife (who likes to take tea on her sun porch without the filth of anglers in her viewshed). They paid $600,000 to two hilljacks for two lots in Alleghany County Virginia, and now everyone floating down the river wants to either shoot out their windows or piss on their lawn…which would be in poor taste and illegal, but that’s the word on the river.
RGIII, I like that, ‘specially the Rectalus part, “now that’s funny I don’t care who you are” as Larry would say. I just hope his new name doesn’t in any way make him think he’s as embraced as our rookie QB.
I hear some duck hunters are starting a guide service out there. The kings chickens must be plentiful this year.