Shouldn't Elk Mountain Ranch be held liable for unlawfully violating Hunting Activity?

P.T. Jeffers

Member
Messages
88
Not just Fred, but also his badazz Mgr., Steve Grende. I won't burden you with the WYGFD laws pertaining to Hunter Harassment (which, so far, Grende has not been held accountable), but I'm shamelessly going to cut and paste a couple of things that I found on another site. I'd think that Eshelman's pennies to the acre Fed land "leases" should be in jeopardy... Will look forward to your comments>>>>
Taylor Grazing Act
43 U.S. Code § 315 – Grazing districts; establishment; restrictions; prior rights; rights-of-way; hearing and notice; hunting or fishing rights
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as in any way altering or restricting the right to hunt or fish within a grazing district in accordance with the laws of the United States or of any State, or as vesting in any permittee any right whatsoever to interfere with hunting or fishing within a grazing district. ******
CFR Subpart 4140 – Prohibited Acts
§ 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.

(7) Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing free transit through or over public lands by force, threat, intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates;
A grazing permittee or lessee performing any of the prohibited acts listed in paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section on an allotment where he is authorized to graze under a BLM permit or lease may be subject to the civil penalties set forth at § 4170.1-1, if:
(i) The permittee or lessee performs the prohibited act while engaged in activities related
§ 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.
(a) The authorized officer may withhold issuance of a grazing permit or lease, or suspend the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part, or cancel a grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, or a free use grazing permit or other grazing authorization, in whole or in part, under subpart 4160 of this title, for violation by a permittee or lessee of any of the provisions of this part.
§ 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.
Under section 2 of the Act any person who willfully commits an act prohibited under § 4140.1(b), or who willfully violates approved special rules and regulations is punishable by a fine of not more than $500.
§ 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), any person who knowingly and willfully commits an act prohibited under § 4140.1(b) or who knowingly and willfully violates approved special rules and regulations may be brought before a designated U.S. magistrate and is punishable by a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, or imprisonment for no more than 12 months, or both.
 
Back to WYGFD Hunter Harassment violations - anytime I've had the experience of, or had good knowledge of any conflict with a legal hunter getting harassed by one the the "big" landowners, the G & F would side with the landowner, ALWAYS. If you review the WY hunter harassment Statute, Elk Mtn's Grende is double dog-guilty of hazing and harassment of the Missouri 4. Yet, the tough guy has never been charged. While the BLM is not the G & F, a betting man would lay down the chips in favor of Eshelman vs. the Feds regarding obstructing and harassing Public Land hunters. Would love to see both the G & F and the Feds prove me wrong and shut me up
 
Not the way it works.
Yes it is and it's going to be argued successfully that way in federal court.

UIA has been applied successfully in cases very similar to this.

Your other post, watch the body cam footage of Grende, the harassment is there for the world to see.
 
Good hell I will post it. I would love to hear the explanation how the hunters were in the wrong.

Here is what the Google machine produced with a 3 second search.


 
Good hell I will post it. I would love to hear the explanation how the hunters were in the wrong.

Here is what the Google machine produced with a 3 second search.


Where's the video NFH?
 
You asked earlier why was the Missouri 4 harassed. I have provided a couple links showing that. I don't understand why you have to be difficult.

I fully understand why buzz said he is not your secretary. You don't want to do the search or read the provided material then clearly you are on this thread to start more B.S.
 
Fact: tri will always take the side of landowners/ outfitters. No matter what facts are

What he said on this thread, I have no clue because I wised up and used the block feature a loooog time ago
No one cares Karen.
 
Fact: tri will always take the side of landowners/ outfitters. No matter what facts are

What he said on this thread, I have no clue because I wised up and used the block feature a loooog time ago
You might want to go read the other thread about this before you type stupid things. If you weren't so busy being a fake texan carpetbagger you might know what's going on.
 
I guess yall really don't want to see the video.

Just like most of your emotional endeavors this one will fail.

Idiots are people who cry on the internet for change when they don't even understand how the system can be fixed.
 
You might want to think Hossblur. In Texas you can't cut people off from public land or anyone else from their property.

So yeah, you might want to look at Texas.
 
I could not locate any video of the incident, but did locate statements given by the hunters concerning the harassment by the ranch employees. RELH
_____________________________________________________________________
Nevertheless, a Carbon County sheriff’s deputy cited Phillip G. Yeomans, Bradly H. Cape, John W. Slowensky and Zachary M. Smith on Oct. 4 for criminal trespass. All have pleaded not guilty. They asked Monday that the circuit court judge dismiss the charges.

Ranch employees spied on them to the point they couldn’t relieve themselves in private, stalked the group, harassed them in their tent, swore, yelled and intimidated them and caused one deer they were pursuing to run off, according to the allegations.

The bowhunters killed two elk and one deer but said one bag of game meat – the “highest tied” in a hanging cache — went missing. At one point ranch manager Steve Grende followed them slowly for about a half mile as they walked, they wrote. He was in a pickup within about 30 yards while they were on public land, their statements say.

Elk Mountain Ranch did not return a call seeking comment regarding the allegations.
 
I could not locate any video of the incident, but did locate statements given by the hunters concerning the harassment by the ranch employees. RELH
_____________________________________________________________________
Nevertheless, a Carbon County sheriff’s deputy cited Phillip G. Yeomans, Bradly H. Cape, John W. Slowensky and Zachary M. Smith on Oct. 4 for criminal trespass. All have pleaded not guilty. They asked Monday that the circuit court judge dismiss the charges.

Ranch employees spied on them to the point they couldn’t relieve themselves in private, stalked the group, harassed them in their tent, swore, yelled and intimidated them and caused one deer they were pursuing to run off, according to the allegations.

The bowhunters killed two elk and one deer but said one bag of game meat – the “highest tied” in a hanging cache — went missing. At one point ranch manager Steve Grende followed them slowly for about a half mile as they walked, they wrote. He was in a pickup within about 30 yards while they were on public land, their statements say.

Elk Mountain Ranch did not return a call seeking comment regarding the allegations.
it's probably for the best that my small posse (4 of us) weren't taking the place of the Missouri 4. All 4 of us have 0 tolerance for hunter harassment and If the Elk Mtn henchmen tried the same garbage on us, there would of been a guaranteed beat down. Steve Grende would've been offered no way to back out plus a no-sheet opportunity to show how 'tough' he was. Never less, Grende and his boyfriends are damn lucky it was the Missouri 4 instead of P.T.'s 4
 
Last edited:
it's probably for the best that my small posse (4 of us) weren't taking the place of the Missouri 4. If the Elk Mtn henchmen tried the same garbage on us, there would of been a guaranteed beat down. Steve Grende would of had a no-sheet opportunity to show how 'tough' he was. Neverless, Grende and his boyfriends are damn lucky it was the Missouri 4 instead of P.T.'s 4
Here we go. Now it's time to get internet tough.

Go get you some tags over there and do some hunting. Sounds like it's awesome hunting. They were able to kill 3 animals while being "harassed".
 
You might want to think Hossblur. In Texas you can't cut people off from public land or anyone else from their property.

So yeah, you might want to look at Texas.

You don't have public land, let alone checker board.

I know, the Republic thinks it's special, but it's still subject to federal laws
 
We do have public land. Both federal and state. You can hunt on it.

You can not legally land lock any of it. People have tried. They lost handily.

Go fix your laws and quit thinking somehow you will get a victory from talking tough on the internet.
 
Wait. You can post that but you can't post this mythical harassment video??????

???????


You keep praying for something you think is precedent instead of trying ro actually pass law.

Why do you think nobody is actually trying to right a law that will protect a hunter's access onto these public lands?????
 
Wait. You can post that but you can't post this mythical harassment video??????

???????


You keep praying for something you think is precedent instead of trying ro actually pass law.

Why do you think nobody is actually trying to right a law that will protect a hunter's access onto these public lands?????
No reason to pass another law...on second thought Ryan may need to buy a bigger box of crayons.

Apply the laws already available.

I think the word you're looking for is "write". And I don't know what "ro" is.

 
Oh and because you're either too lazy and/or too ignorant to type "corner crossing" into the YouTube search function for a few days now...

That's it??????

That's the horrible "Grende video"???????


Stay off the sauce Buzz.
 
I am a rancher and can not see any problem with corner hoping, even if it occurred in my neck of the woods. It just makes no sense to control and have exclusive access to that much public land. Truly Landowner welfare.

“But, but, but if they lost the exclusive use of public land, that would negatively affect the value of their land. OMG! What a f@c@ing nightmare!”


I sure hope they get somewhere on the hunter harassment angle.
 
Last edited:
Stay in Texas studying deer ears, you're insignificant to what's happening in Wyoming.
You are arguing it's a federal case but texas has nothing to do with it.

Good gawd!?????

Maybe you should stay out of legal issues.
 
You are arguing it's a federal case but texas has nothing to do with it.

Good gawd!?????

Maybe you should stay out of legal issues.
Texas already has it covered according to you, remember?

So Texas is as insignificant as you are to this discussion.

Want Ryan's number, he can explain the law to you?

I've talked with him several times, I know what laws that will be argued and how they will be argued

Also privy to a lot more information that I can't share right now.

It will come out when the attorneys decide the time is right.
 
Last edited:
Texas already has it covered according to you, remember?

So Texas is as insignificant as you are to this discussion.

Want Ryan's number, he can explain the law to you.
Good. Now that you recognize Texas precedent tell your sweetheart with the crayons to get off the TV and start trying to fix it.
 
Good. Now that you recognize Texas precedent tell your sweetheart with the crayons to get off the TV and start trying to fix it.
Don't you worry, there's a stable of attorneys working this, every single one of them smarter than you.

Also, in a federal case, Texas State law is meaningless. That combined with your trivial amount of federal lands in Texas, is not in any way precedent for Jack chit.
 
Don't you worry, there's a stable of attorneys working this, every single one of them smarter than you.

Also, in a federal case, Texas State law is meaningless. That combined with your trivial amount of federal lands in Texas, is not in any way precedent for Jack chit.
You really have no clue what is being discussed. Quit wasting your time with the stupid lawsuit.
 
It is probably best it will be argued in Federal Court over Wyoming superior court. The hunting public will have a better chance of a win for excess to landlocked public land.
Large ranch owners and outfitters have too much influence in local Wyoming politics and Elk Mountain has been in the news before concerning the public land that is landlocked behind private ranch property.
I have hunted a ranch that sits at the base of Elk Mountain and have heard the stories about excess or lack of excess to the public land.
RELH
 
You really have no clue what is being discussed. Quit wasting your time with the stupid lawsuit.

Careful, I don't think you realize the voice buzz has for the wyoming hunters. Not all of us are able to attend meetings but buzz and @jm77 Do attend these meetings and speak for the hunters. They fully understand this case from the start and help organized a go fund me so people like me and others could donate to this cause.

Why don't you understand the iron ranch is money and power hungry. Did you even take the time to see what the jury decided on the previous cases? I highly doubt you did but instead you just want to create another argument spinning this into well at this point I don't even know.
 
Nfh,

I want you to actually deal with the problem in a way that will actually settle it. Not just turn it into a political football that gets batted back and forth for interpretation by whatever judge sits over a trial.

You have a fairly serious fiscal component that is real and has to be dealt with. It's not just about what two sides want.
 
Nfh,

I want you to actually deal with the problem in a way that will actually settle it. Not just turn it into a political football that gets batted back and forth for interpretation by whatever judge sits over a trial.

You have a fairly serious fiscal component that is real and has to be dealt with. It's not just about what two sides want.
Start your own campaign if you don't like how things are being done.

You like to run your piehole but do nothing.
 
Start your own campaign if you don't like how things are being done.

You like to run your piehole but do nothing.
Yeah nothing. I just told you to quit wasting time and money and what you actually have to do to solve the problem.
 
Yeah nothing. I just told you to quit wasting time and money and what you actually have to do to solve the problem.
You aren't going to tell anyone what to do, in particular when you do nothing. You know nothing about this case. You're out of your depth and mind.

Cheap seat carnival barker...from Texas, that's no shock.
 
You aren't going to tell anyone what to do, in particular when you do nothing. You know nothing about this case. You're out of your depth and mind.

Cheap seat carnival barker...from Texas, that's no shock.
I already did. To late. Stay off the sauce.
 
I already did. To late. Stay off the sauce.
Yeah, it's TOO late for you to do anything but continue the high pitched whining.

What's your best at.

You're a blister, show up after the work is already done.

Triblister...has a truth to it.
 
I understand why you are angry and bitter. You just found out you've wasted time on Mr. Crayon Esquire.
I'm not angry or bitter...I'm making things happen. Never been more happy about corner crossing.

You're delusional triblister.

You can watch things happen, make things happen, or wonder what the &_$# happened.

I make things happen, and you're still wondering what the $_&# happened.
 
Rrrrrrrright.

So have you asked Mr Crayon Esquire yet how they can do this in Wyoming but can't do it in Texas?
 
Rrrrrrrright.

So have you asked Mr Crayon Esquire yet how they can do this in Wyoming but can't do it in Texas?
You want his number? You can argue with him and the stable of attorneys working the case.

I'm sure they would really think highly of your expertise on all things law, UIA, and corner crossing.

You're a joke, boy.
 
I don't need his number. I don't live in a state that doesn't know how to fix this problem. Hell we've had it fixed since before you were born.

What you scared of? Just ask him.

What's more profitable for Mr Crayon Esquire? You actually resolving this problem, or him in a federal trial.
 
I don't need his number. I don't live in a state that doesn't know how to fix this problem. Hell we've had it fixed since before you were born.

What you scared of? Just ask him.

What's more profitable for Mr Crayon Esquire? You actually resolving this problem, or him in a federal trial.
You just don't know what you don't know... you're ignorant of the facts.

Let's just say that those interested in public access are getting a very good deal. I have all the financials for both the criminal and civil trials. I know how much work is being charged and how much is being done pro bono.

Big cases are like that...
 
You just don't know what you don't know... you're ignorant of the facts.

Let's just say that those interested in public access are getting a very good deal. I have all the financials for both the criminal and civil trials. I know how much work is being charged and how much is being done pro bono.

Big cases are like that...
????

Man you must be a big shot.

????

Who are you kidding?
 
????

Man you must be a big shot.

????

Who are you kidding?
Well, that's for you to decide.

I would say very actively involved in this case from day 1. Essentially it's been WYBHA and @jm77, who we call the "lone wolf". Lots of financial supporters as well, putting their money to work for access

We make things happen...if only obviously.
 
Can we get back on topic tri?

Do you think they were harassed according to wyomings game fish definition ? Not a Texas definition

Do you think the ranch is in the right?
Was the ranch hands in the right?
 
Tristate there is a good reason why access to public land is not a big issue in your state of Texas. Good old Texas, largest state by land mass and yet only 4.2%, that is four point two percent, is public land. 95.8 is private land.
Wyoming has 55.9 % as public land. Higher percentage of public then private land. Just might be the reason it is having a problem where greedy landowners are tying up millions of acres of public land and preventing the citizens from having access to those lands.
Those hunters and Wyoming citizens is taking care of this the right way by going to the Federal Court system and making new law that will effect all states. They can not trust their local courts and D.A.'s as they have been bought off by the rich land owners and Outfitters Assoc. that contributes big bucks to their election campaigns.
I remember when some hunters used a helicopter to fly into the public land on Elk Mountain to hunt. To counter that, the Wyoming Outfitters Assc. got the state lawmakers to pass a law that prevents you from hunting for 24-48 hours after flying. I can not remember if it was 24 hours or 48 hours. Going to Federal courts to make new law is the most effective way to counter the roadblocks that Wyoming may try to throw up to stop the big ranches and outfitters from their big money they charge to hunt that landlocked public land.
RELH
 
Can we get back on topic tri?

Do you think they were harassed according to wyomings game fish definition ? Not a Texas definition

Do you think the ranch is in the right?
Was the ranch hands in the right?
Nfh,

Bravo! These are straight questions and I always give straight answers to straight questions.

Do I think they were harassed? Probably not. But what I think is as worthless as the guys that think they were harassed. Evidence could be presented that shows that harassment occurred.

For your other questions I know most people don't think like I do but I will try and answer even though I don't think in terms of right and wrong.

Do I think the ranch is right? By letter of the law, yes. But I do wish they would allow public access through their property.

Were the ranch hands in the right? Yes. They are regular folks working a job. They aren't button punchers they are the buttons. As best they can tell they haven't been told to do anything illegal.they want the same things you or I want probably and it takes doing a shi++y to get that money. I tend to think the best of people. I think if there was some obvious malfeasance on the part of the employees the sheriff would have acted appropriately.
 
Tristate there is a good reason why access to public land is not a big issue in your state of Texas. Good old Texas, largest state by land mass and yet only 4.2%, that is four point two percent, is public land. 95.8 is private land.
Wyoming has 55.9 % as public land. Higher percentage of public then private land. Just might be the reason it is having a problem where greedy landowners are tying up millions of acres of public land and preventing the citizens from having access to those lands.
Those hunters and Wyoming citizens is taking care of this the right way by going to the Federal Court system and making new law that will effect all states. They can not trust their local courts and D.A.'s as they have been bought off by the rich land owners and Outfitters Assoc. that contributes big bucks to their election campaigns.
I remember when some hunters used a helicopter to fly into the public land on Elk Mountain to hunt. To counter that, the Wyoming Outfitters Assc. got the state lawmakers to pass a law that prevents you from hunting for 24-48 hours after flying. I can not remember if it was 24 hours or 48 hours. Going to Federal courts to make new law is the most effective way to counter the roadblocks that Wyoming may try to throw up to stop the big ranches and outfitters from their big money they charge to hunt that landlocked public land.
RELH
Relh,

Accessing public land in Texas is just as important here as anywhere else. That's why my state guaranteed by law our rights to access it a very long time ago.

You told me about the % public land in my state. Do you ever do the math on that? I'll help you. It's 7.2 million acres. And no matter how land locked any of it is, it is all guaranteed accessible for its intended usage.
 
Nfh,

Bravo! These are straight questions and I always give straight answers to straight questions.

Do I think they were harassed? Probably not. But what I think is as worthless as the guys that think they were harassed. Evidence could be presented that shows that harassment occurred.

For your other questions I know most people don't think like I do but I will try and answer even though I don't think in terms of right and wrong.

Do I think the ranch is right? By letter of the law, yes. But I do wish they would allow public access through their property.

Were the ranch hands in the right? Yes. They are regular folks working a job. They aren't button punchers they are the buttons. As best they can tell they haven't been told to do anything illegal.they want the same things you or I want probably and it takes doing a shi++y to get that money. I tend to think the best of people. I think if there was some obvious malfeasance on the part of the employees the sheriff would have acted appropriately.
You are pathetic, lol
 
Do I think the ranch is right? By letter of the law, yes. But I do wish they would allow public access through their property.

Were the ranch hands in the right? Yes. They are regular folks working a job. They aren't button punchers they are the buttons. As best they can tell they haven't been told to do anything illegal.they want the same things you or I want probably and it takes doing a shi++y to get that money. I tend to think the best of people. I think if there was some obvious malfeasance on the part of the employees the sheriff would have acted appropriately.
1662948062366.jpeg
 
Tristate there is a good reason why access to public land is not a big issue in your state of Texas. Good old Texas, largest state by land mass and yet only 4.2%, that is four point two percent, is public land. 95.8 is private land.
Wyoming has 55.9 % as public land. Higher percentage of public then private land. Just might be the reason it is having a problem where greedy landowners are tying up millions of acres of public land and preventing the citizens from having access to those lands.
Those hunters and Wyoming citizens is taking care of this the right way by going to the Federal Court system and making new law that will effect all states. They can not trust their local courts and D.A.'s as they have been bought off by the rich land owners and Outfitters Assoc. that contributes big bucks to their election campaigns.
I remember when some hunters used a helicopter to fly into the public land on Elk Mountain to hunt. To counter that, the Wyoming Outfitters Assc. got the state lawmakers to pass a law that prevents you from hunting for 24-48 hours after flying. I can not remember if it was 24 hours or 48 hours. Going to Federal courts to make new law is the most effective way to counter the roadblocks that Wyoming may try to throw up to stop the big ranches and outfitters from their big money they charge to hunt that landlocked public land.
RELH
Everything in TX is BIGGER at least so it seems until you see Alaska! More than 2x the land mass. Just felt I should contribute to the thread.
 
Yes! Tristate you missed something. Savage 110 was trying to convey the message to you that the deputy sheriff on the scene may not have been impartial, but following the wishes of his elected sheriff.
I will give you an example that happen to me concerning the elected sheriff being in the pocket of certain rich people that contribute to the Sheriff's election campaign.
As a young deputy sheriff I was on patrol in the South end of my county at about 6:30 A.M. Was driving on a 55 mph road when a late model pickup truck passed my marked patrol vehicle at a high speed.

I speeded up and clocked the PU at just over 75 MPH in a 55 zone. My Sargent, who was passenger told me to stop him and I did. Contacted the driver who was one of the biggest orchard owners in the county. He also failed the attitude test by demanding I let him go as he was in a hurry and my sheriff would hear about me stopping him. I wrote him a traffic citation for 75 in a 55 zone.

Two days later my patrol Lt. called me in to his office. proceeded to tell me that the driver I cited was a big donor to the sheriff's last campaign and the sheriff wanted me to void the ticket.

I am a hardheaded hillbilly to the point of being stupid at times. I told the Lt. I would not void the ticket and if the sheriff wanted to void it, he would have to do it himself and walked out.

"When I did not receive a summons for traffic court, I checked the files and saw the ticket had been marked "voided" either by the Lt. or the Sheriff.

That sheriff only lasted one term as we voted him out next election. So do not be naive enough believing that the deputy on the scene may not have taken sides based on the wants of his elected sheriff. Not all officers would have put their career on the line like I did. In fact that sheriff, when he lost the next election, did fire me prior to leaving office. I took him to court and the firing was ruled illegal and I was re-instated with all back benefits.

It appears you have a agenda to pursue and will not admit it and give such a weak response to the incident.

RELH
 
Yes! Tristate you missed something. Savage 110 was trying to convey the message to you that the deputy sheriff on the scene may not have been impartial, but following the wishes of his elected sheriff.
I will give you an example that happen to me concerning the elected sheriff being in the pocket of certain rich people that contribute to the Sheriff's election campaign.
As a young deputy sheriff I was on patrol in the South end of my county at about 6:30 A.M. Was driving on a 55 mph road when a late model pickup truck passed my marked patrol vehicle at a high speed.

I speeded up and clocked the PU at just over 75 MPH in a 55 zone. My Sargent, who was passenger told me to stop him and I did. Contacted the driver who was one of the biggest orchard owners in the county. He also failed the attitude test by demanding I let him go as he was in a hurry and my sheriff would hear about me stopping him. I wrote him a traffic citation for 75 in a 55 zone.

Two days later my patrol Lt. called me in to his office. proceeded to tell me that the driver I cited was a big donor to the sheriff's last campaign and the sheriff wanted me to void the ticket.

I am a hardheaded hillbilly to the point of being stupid at times. I told the Lt. I would not void the ticket and if the sheriff wanted to void it, he would have to do it himself and walked out.

"When I did not receive a summons for traffic court, I checked the files and saw the ticket had been marked "voided" either by the Lt. or the Sheriff.

That sheriff only lasted one term as we voted him out next election. So do not be naive enough believing that the deputy on the scene may not have taken sides based on the wants of his elected sheriff. Not all officers would have put their career on the line like I did. In fact that sheriff, when he lost the next election, did fire me prior to leaving office. I took him to court and the firing was ruled illegal and I was re-instated with all back benefits.

It appears you have a agenda to pursue and will not admit it and give such a weak response to the incident.

RELH
I didn't miss it. I just don't base my decisions or opinions on a maybe. I know that a sheriff can be corrupt. Just because I know one has been corrupt it is unreasonable and bigoted to assume any sheriff is corrupt if I don't agree with their professional decisions.
 
I didn't miss it. I just don't base my decisions or opinions on a maybe. I know that a sheriff can be corrupt. Just because I know one has been corrupt it is unreasonable and bigoted to assume any sheriff is corrupt if I don't agree with their professional decisions.
Except you're wrong. The sheriff was directed by the county attorney that got her ass kicked in the criminal trial. Ashley Mayfield-Davis, who isn't running for county attorney after the loss she took over corner crossing.

It was brutal, nobody bought her Lego story.

It's really too bad she got bullied into that courtroom by 15 phone calls in a single day from iron bar holdings...aka Fred and his minions.

She knew better, she just forgot who she works for.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the carbon county sheriffs chance at reelection. Only way he saves his job is pleading he was bullied into issuing the tickets by Mayfield-Davis.
 
Except you're wrong. The sheriff was directed by the county attorney that got her ass kicked in the criminal trial. Ashley Mayfield-Davis, who isn't running for county attorney after the loss she took over corner crossing.

It was brutal, nobody bought her Lego story.

It's really too bad she got bullied into that courtroom by 15 phone calls in a single day from iron bar holdings...aka Fred and his minions.

She knew better, she just forgot who she works for.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the carbon county sheriffs chance at reelection. Only way he saves his job is pleading he was bullied into issuing the tickets by Mayfield-Davis.
People loose sometimes. Doesn't mean bullying. Doesn't mean corruption. Just means different opinions or bad strategy.

Quit acting like a drunk and calm down.

I'm sure every time you've never failed in an attempt to get your way was because of bullying and corruption.?
 
People loose sometimes. Doesn't mean bullying. Doesn't mean corruption. Just means different opinions or bad strategy.

Quit acting like a drunk and calm down.

I'm sure every time you've never failed in an attempt to get your way was because of bullying and corruption.?
There's losing a case, but this was a complete beat down.

Lost the case, her job, and credibility of those that elected her.

Brutal, but that's what happens when you take on a case you get bullied into trying.
 
There's losing a case, but this was a complete beat down.

Lost the case, her job, and credibility of those that elected her.

Brutal, but that's what happens when you take on a case you get bullied into trying.
You're living in a dream land.

Can you please elaborate on this "bullying"????

Do you have any evidence of bullying whatsoever? Not what your rich lawyer hero is telling you but some actual evidence that there was bullying? He'll has SHE said she was bullied?
 
You're living in a dream land.

Can you please elaborate on this "bullying"????

Do you have any evidence of bullying whatsoever? Not what your rich lawyer hero is telling you but some actual evidence that there was bullying? He'll has SHE said she was bullied?
Yes.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom