Haven't heard from him in a while.

Shhhh!!!! don't ask .... just be happy about it.

-Dan V.

On 21 Oct 2003 22:50:11 GMT, (Paddlec1) wrote:

Haven't heard from him in a while.

Shhhh!!!! don't ask .... just be happy about it.

-Dan V.

The fat lady done sung on this one. I figured he wouldn't want to miss this....

Stream access law survives in Supreme Court
By MATT GOURAS
Associated Press

HELENA (AP) – Montana’s stream access law has survived an appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the state’s attorney general said Wednesday.


The 1985 law, praised by many anglers and boaters for letting them get at
streams that run through private property as long as they stay within the “high
water” mark, was challenged by landowners who said it deprived them of liberty
and property without due process.


The U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday it was not going to hear an appeal from
the some landowners, who first had their case dismissed in District Court in
Helena.


That decision was first appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco, which in December upheld U.S. District Court Judge Charles
Lovell’s decision that the law was constitutional.


Now that nation’s highest court has decided to leave it alone, the case is
over, officials said.


“I’m glad this issue is finally put to rest,” Montana Attorney General Mike
McGrath said. “It is good news for all anglers in Montana.”


He said the state’s stream access law would probably be safe from future
challenges, now that a broad appeal has been shot down by the nation’s highest
court.


In addition to the state, the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Coalition
for Stream Access, Montana chapter of Trout Unlimited, and the Fishing
Outfitters Association of Montana, had defended the 17-year-old state law,
which guarantees Montanans the right to use the state’s rivers and streams for
recreation.


The law says the banks of streams and rivers – from the water’s edge to the
high-water mark on the banks – must be open to the public, even when the river
or stream cuts through private property.


The lawsuit was originally filed by the Denver-based Mountain States Legal
Foundation on behalf of three Montana landowners who argued that the 1985 law
deprives them of liberty and property without due process.

"Paddlec1" wrote in message
...
Haven't heard from him in a while.

I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No longer
owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

-Paul

"Paul Skoczylas" wrote in message ...
"Paddlec1" wrote in message
...
Haven't heard from him in a while.

I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No longer
owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

Gee, and there I thought he was merely here to troll us, not
necessarily to discuss land and riverside issues... ;-)

It's nice (and maybe a bit quiet) around here without the trolls.

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh kayaker(a t)chello(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No longer
owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

Didn't know he'd lost the land. That's gotta suck. Any details?.

Dennis

Paddlec1 wrote:
:I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No longer
:owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

: Didn't know he'd lost the land. That's gotta suck. Any details?.

I'd guess inheritance tax, but I don't know for sure? That tax is supposed
to be quite severe for those who have a lot, but not a whole lot (if that
made any sense).

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

"Paddlec1" wrote:
I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No
longer
owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

Didn't know he'd lost the land. That's gotta suck. Any details?.

As I recall:

The legal owner of the land was his mother. When she died, she left the
land to both Scott and his brother. The brother wanted to liquidate the
property to get his share in cash, and Scott was unable to buy him out.

-Paul

in article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing at
wrote on 10/23/03 3:52 AM:

I'd guess inheritance tax, but I don't know for sure? That tax is supposed
to be quite severe for those who have a lot, but not a whole lot (if that
made any sense).

--
John Nelson

Hi John,

Inheritance tax is nil for those with less than $1 million. After that,
you're taxed above and beyond the $1 million at 50% (as of 2002). Since
this is a tax that has been repealed by the Bushies, there is a schedule
associated with its repeal.

Maybe $1 million is a lot, but not a whole lot for you. For me, $1 million
is a whole lot. Maybe I just don't have enough sympathy for the Hummer
Class in society-- which Scott was. An unemployed jerk that drove a Hummer
all over the Boulder area.

Chuck

http://www.wildcountry.info

Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Paddlec1" wrote:
I don't think we've heard from him here since he lost his land. No
longer
owning riverside land, he doesn't have any interest in us anymore.

Didn't know he'd lost the land. That's gotta suck. Any details?.

As I recall:

The legal owner of the land was his mother. When she died, she left the
land to both Scott and his brother. The brother wanted to liquidate the
property to get his share in cash, and Scott was unable to buy him out.


Aha. So the inheritance "tax" was having to share the estate with his
siblings.

Seems to me that he could have managed to divide the land in two and let
his brother sell his half. Then again, if he negotiated with his
brother the way he behaved here, it's no surprise he's left with nada.

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy