A Wyoming judge’s decision that corner-crossing is not trespassing will seriously affect landowners across the western U.S., a Montana group says in court papers that ask for reversal of the ruling.
The nonprofit group United Property Owners of Montana filed papers supporting Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman, who lost a civil suit claiming four hunters trespassed by passing through the airspace above his ranch. Eshelman has asked the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn his loss; the Montanans claim an interest in the issue and support Eshelman with their amicus brief.
Though Montana is not part of the 10th Circuit, the appeals court’s pending decision will extend beyond the six states over which the court has jurisdiction, the Montana property owners state. The group fights against trespass and opposes conservation measures like the American Prairie Reserve that it sees as a threat to public land grazing.
“This was deliberative and provocative conduct [to] trigger a test case.”
United Property Owners of Montana
“As a practical matter, this Court has been tasked with deciding whether corner crossing is trespassing or legally permitted throughout the Western United States,” the brief states. “This case presents the first opportunity for an appellate court (state or federal) to consider whether there is some … legal justification that would allow recreational hunters to corner cross private property.”
Wyoming Chief U.S. Judge Scott Skavdahl decided earlier this year that corner crossing — the act of stepping from one piece of public land to another at the common corner with two pieces of private property, all arranged in a checkerboard pattern of land ownership — is not trespassing.
Skavdahl found that four Missouri hunters did not trespass when they corner crossed in 2020 and 2021 to hunt public land near Eshelman’s Carbon County ranch. In corner crossing, the men passed through the airspace above the ranch without setting foot on private property.
Across the western U.S. some 8.3 million acres of public land — an area larger than Maryland — are considered “corner locked” and inaccessible to the public by any interpretation that corner crossing is illegal. The appeals court’s decision will set a precedent, the Montana group states in its Nov. 13 brief, because litigation on the issue is rare and unlikely to come up in other appellate courts.
1885 law
The hunters argued that the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prevented Eshelman from blocking their access to the public checkerboard land. The Montanans claim corner crossing is trespassing under Wyoming law and that the 1885 law does not “create a right to trespass.”
A Carbon County jury in 2022 found the hunters not guilty of criminal trespass. Eshelman filed his separate civil suit against the hunters later that year.
The Unlawful Inclosures Act was used to uphold public access to corner-locked land in earlier court cases, including those where stock was fenced out of open range, sheep were driven across private property, the federal government sought to construct a road across a checkerboard corner, and a rancher’s fence blocked antelope from their winter range. But some of that was in error, the Montana landowners claim.
Among the points the landowners make are that the law’s principles ended with the 1934 closing of the open range in the West and that the law distinguishes between wandering stock and purposeful recreationists. In shoehorning a recreational hunting case into the boot of an agricultural law, Skavdahl “was attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole,” the brief states.
Allowing his ruling to stand “‘will upset settled expectations’ of landowners across the West ‘to accommodate some ill-defined’ right to corner cross,” the brief states. Accessing public land via corner crossing is poor public policy, will occur without public planning and deprives landowners of “the right to receive compensation for providing public access,” the brief states.
The hunters, including one who is a fence builder who works professionally with property boundaries, said they researched court cases used to support the notion that corner crossing was illegal. They determined the cases didn’t apply, even though, as Skavdahl later observed, the practice “was largely treated as disallowed and was rarely attempted.”
But the Montana group said it has been waiting for a corner crossing challenge to property rights and see the Missourians’ excursion as purposeful.
“This was deliberative and provocative conduct with the apparent intent to force criminal prosecution or civil litigation that would trigger a test case to push their legal theories in court,” the Montana brief states. The hunters are scheduled to respond by early next year.
Why do landowners insist on using public land for their exclusive use by denying corner crossing by the public? We all paid for the public land thru taxes paid to the government.
Nothing but an attempt by the wealthy to further privatize the west.
Ranchers have no right to be paid for public land access. The same ranchers that cry wildlife damage are the same ones that refuse to let good people of Wyoming hunt. I will corner cross every chance I get. Just recently a rancher in buffalo built a gate on public land and placed no trespassing signs on it. According to on X and my rhino gps, it’s 125 feet on national forest. I plan on contacting USFS and having it torn down.
The question is, does the tax paying public have a right to taxpayer funded land. If the answer is yes. Then access must be provided. If the landowners won’t allow for easement. Then corner crossing is the only option.
I believe the Montana group has no standing. Those land owners, who have hijacked public property, who want to block access of the public lands need to cough up the money to lease or buy those enclosed lands. The BLM should develop acceptable egress to those parcels that belong to the American people. Yes, it will be a big change; long time coming. Those land owners have profited from exploiting their fellow Americans for generations because of the unknowing points of access. Now they’re angry because technology has caught up with their secrets- to bad selfish a-holes.p
United property owners do not speak for the majority!! Only their rich clients. The public has a right to access public land wherever it may lie, and not allow property owners to block state lands and treat it as if they own it, it belongs to all the people.
Making corner crossing illegal makes publicity owned property defacto private property with no land taxes.
The land owners should not have any more rights then me or the rest of the public. If corner crossing becomes illegal then the land owner effectively takes control of the public land. Keeping me and the rest of the public from using it. It’s not fair and should not be aloud to stand. Land owners own a peace of land and then they think they own the world. And that is horsepies!
Ranchers don’t own the air. I am for corner crossing.
Lock us out. We will find a way in. Drones are coming a long way. Won’t be long. I might have to start a personal drone drop service
I really hope the court sides with the MAJORITY in this case. The majority are not the wealthy land owners. The landowners association is trying to save it for a very few. The public should have an easement into every parcel of OUR public lands. It is nothing but greed that these landowners want it for themselves and their highly profitable outfitting businesses. You don’t own the damn air, no one does. Common Sense and democracy= corner crossing is legal.
Yes! Exactly!
It can’t really be considered public land if there is no way for the public to utilize it. There should be some easement to ALL public land so corner crossing wouldn’t be an issue.
You won’t believe this, but: Did you know you have access to private land that has split estate for legitimate geologic exploration work. It happened to a neighbor of mine in Niobrara County ( Jim W. ) who found a man walking on his private land with a geiger scope. When Jim approached him he said he was doing geologic exploration for uranium on the Federal mineral rights under Jim’s surface; and that, since he wasn’t driving on Jim’s land and not doing damage to the grass, he didn’t have to pay surface damage fees. Jim checked with an attorney who confirmed the geologist was right – he could do geiger counter work without Jim’s permission. Since the Newcastle district of the BLM was redoing their RMP, we brought the issue up with the BLM. They responded with a superb legal analysis by US Attorney’s of case law which affirmed the right to surface exploration of underlying mineral rights in a split estate situation – their legal opinion is published in the Final RMP of the Newcastle District from the mid-1990s.
The point is, many if not most of the large landowners in the western states have a whole lot more to worry about other than corner crossing – that is, the public can do legitimate geologic exploration on their private land that is split estate ( Federal minerals and private surface ) without their consent, and if on foot, not paying surface damage. Exploration with ground penetrating radar, magnetometers, X ray technology, geiger counters and hand collection of rock samples would qualify as legitimate mineral exploration of the Federal mineral estate.
Us landowners in Niobrara County received quite an education about split estate land ownership in the western United States and came away understanding that the mineral estate has legal rights too; and that, the surface estate is not entirely dominate – geologic exploration of Federal minerals is allowed on private surface although the ranchers are normally paid for seismic work surface damages,
They don’t care about geologic exploration. This has nothing to do with thier land. They want huge tracts of public land set aside for themselves because they’re the only ones with access to it.
Pure case of big money land owners wanting to keep Joe public from being able to hunt public land n keeping it for themselves n paying clients! It’s our land n they should not be able to keep the public off it!
Of course ranchers and outfitters will not like this judge’s decision because it gives the advantage to the average hunter or fisherman to access lands which heretofore, were locked behind gates, or locked behind laws.
For decades these lands have been off limits despite their being categorized as “public lands”. The reason is simple: greed. Yet the ranchers have free use, by the by, as do the outfitters who contract with the private land holders who many times, are one in the same.
I think corner crossing should be made perfectly legal and that step crossings should be installed where there are fences.
That said, I think the ATV has been the worst thing to ever happen to hunting in the West. People have pioneered roads, tossed out waste, and generally made a mess of what once was a only accessible by foot or horseback, thereby removing the entire point of the quest of hunting. And because of that, I am in support of the land owners who understand and excel at stewardship. Note I said understand and excel. Many ranchers can say they do, but one need to only look around to see the lie in that.
I believe that cattle should be watered and fed on the private or leased federal or state lands, they should not be on the forest service, nor languishing in our riparian areas polluting our water supply with bovine urine and feces.
I also believe that hunters should be polite and considerate when it comes to wanting to cross into public lands which are adjacent to private lands. We can’t just think of the whole world as “ours” just because it’s the right color on the map. Many land holders are 3rd and even 4th generation ranchers and they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accessing these beautiful pristine areas.
Additionally, I find it disgusting that the railroad companies scoop up so much land next to their tracks. We already subsidize both railroads and landowners to a mighty degree. Joe Average deserves a better shake and most people would agree to that sentiment.
“People have pioneered roads, tossed out waste, and generally made a mess of what once was a only accessible by foot or horse”
Or horse?? Horses are the original ATV and do almost as much damage if they’re ridden by people who don’t care.
WHAT!!! I had no idea it was ILLEGAL to land an aircraft on BLM or USFS lands as Mr. Robert Koller pointed out in his comments. I thought that restriction only applied to wilderness areas and possibly National Parks. What about access to back country skiing and wildlife management by big game biologists??? I was really surprised by Mr. Koller’s ascertains but he’s retired USFS and should know.
this is public land paid by the taxpayers . flying over a property to land in a landlocked property is not trespassing . as we know we do not own the airspace above our land such as many do not own the minerals below their land . from what I’ve seen this Ranch owner is operating a hunting facility . has a hunting facility he wants to keep people out of their public land that way he can utilize it . to make money off of it . well the true citizens cannot do so . prices are very high for hunting on private land at these hunting ranches. and it is much cheaper to hunt on public land . benefiting those who . cannot afford the high prices these ranches charge so it’s beneficial to the state to allow this land to be accessed by those that’d be great tax paying citizens who own it for their hunting fishing hiking outdoor use
I agree with this Ruling! It fair and just! Wealthy land owners are not just, by stopping the enjoyment of land locked public lands,by people who should BE ALLOWED TO ENJOY EVERY ACRE OF PUBLIC LAND LOCKED BEHIND A DEFIANT LAND OWNER!
Rich Property owners are stealing public lands from the residence of the state Corner Crossing is not trespassing
We are land surveyors licensed in all western states (52 years, 4000 surveys). Certainly private land ownership entails a right to reasonable air space over ones land, say 1000 feet up? But certainly up to 20 feet. Impossible to cross that corner w/o trespass into private air space, unless the hunter is as one dimensional as their argument. If you want access, pay for it, or go back to Missouri. Landowners might oughta build 20 foot electric fence. Oh and a dopey fencer that claims authority on boundaries is practicing land surveying w/o a license.
We shouldn’t have to pay for access to our lands. The public lands do not “belong” to the ranchers that lease these lands for grazing or other purposes.
I’m not sure what you are talking about. For now, at least in Wyoming, case law says a land owner must suffer a temporary incursion of their air space for access to public lands. So in the case of Corner crossing, they control zero feet of the air space. A judge bought their one dimensional argument, maybe you missed that part.
Don’t own the water, and can’t own the wind.
Who is in the United Property Owners Association?
Corner crossing and 30% by 2030 go hand in hand. Ranching and private land ownership are under increasing pressure.
When UPOM starts squirming, they know that this case is going to going to upend the whole west. It’s about time.
Simply put these rich private landowners are just trying to shut the public out of public land because we are a bunch of peasants and we certainly don’t deserve access to public land.
In my opinion they are probably looking at the extra money they can make by locking the public out of these public lands likely to be able to sell guided hunts. They can sell these hunts on the basis of the fact that essentially these public lands are part of a private guided hunt because the public cannot access that land. They simply want to shut the public out.
I know there is also a fight going on about a huge parcel of BLM land that is in the middle of a private parcel of land. The only way that this land can be accessed is by plane. If these private landowners get their way that piece of prime elk hunting land will be shut off as well and will be essentially part of their private land.
I mean what other reason would these rich land owners have to shut the public out of private land than greed? They already have huge parcels of land that most of us can only dream of owning. But that isn’t enough for them is it? It seems to me that they think they own the whole wide world. And to argue they own the airspace above their land will open up another huge can of worms. I mean how high does our ownership of the airspace go? Would they be able to charge private airlines to fly over there land? They would probably most certainly try to stop small private planes like cessna’s that fly at low altitude from flying over there private land.
To me it’s a sad state of affairs. I grew up when most of that land was still held by generational families who had owned the land from way back. I grew up on a smaller ranch in Southeast Idaho so we knew a lot of people. But even the ones that you didn’t know honestly many times you could gain access to their land by simply asking politely and not leaving any junk behind on their land. We were all friendly. But we were all generational landowners. We had deep ties to the land. We understood how others had deep ties to their land. And for the most part people were happy to work together and to be friendly and honestly allow access to their land.
And let’s be honest these rich people that own this land and the rich people that pay for guided hunts on this land are simply there to trophy hunt. They want a huge elk head to put on their wall so that they can feel special I suppose. They are not hunting for the same reasons that most of us hunt. Because we have been a part of the land our whole lives. Most of us hunt to put meat on the table. However I wouldn’t be above shooting a trophy buck or bull. But that’s not the main reason that we hunt.
For me it’s just a sad state of affairs when someone is so greedy that they would try and sue some hunters for millions of dollars for crossing from one space of public land to another. It boggles my mind that he was even able to bring a case to court suing these people for millions of dollars. I forget the exact amount but I know it was millions of dollars. And they did this legally because they didn’t step foot on his land. Apparently he thinks he owns the entire world including the airspace above his land.
Of course this goes way back to the willy-nilly unorganized way that the government handed out land grants to the railroads etc. The government created this problem.
But rich people should not be able to to lock down public ground from the public. It just shouldn’t be allowed. No matter how bad it irritates Rich landowners we need laws to guarantee access to public land. And these Richland owners can cry all they want but they don’t own the entire world.
I’ve also noticed that there’s a huge problem selling ranches that earlier had been sold to rich people celebrities etc who had seen one too many episodes of Bonanza and bought a huge ranch. They have built so many huge houses and barns and I read about one where they had installed the nine hole golf course. These ranches can never be run simply as cattle ranches anymore because of the property tax liability. And there are only a handful of people in the world that could even afford one of these ranches.
Sadly America seems to be going the way of Europe The vast majority of people are locked out of the land and only rich people are allowed to hunt and fish. It just sickens me that we can’t come to some sort of agreements as to how the public can access public land in these situations.
It just breaks my heart that these generational ranches are being sold off mostly because kids don’t want to stay on the land and work it anymore. And it’s all been possible for someone who wants to be a serious rancher to buy any of this land. It breaks my heart to see families selling off the land that they have worked for generations.
Here in Idaho it’s breaking my heart to see ranches being sold off to become neighborhoods filled with stucco McMansions. I know the day that my grandpa’s ranche sold off for housing I will certainly weep. That land is a place where I put in blood sweat and tears.
Unfortunately these super rich people who I believe bought the land just for the hell of it because they have the money in it seemed like fun or something Will likely find a way to shut the public out. It’s just a sad state of affairs that we can’t come to sensible agreements.
I strongly agree with your stand on the issue. Very good summation.
sensible agreement would be it is public land owned by the taxpayers the citizens of the United States . and they must have access to this land . flying above ranches and landing on this land is not trespassing on anyone’s private property . do you suggest money hungry landowners who want to utilize that land for their own use
Always about the money. These folks want the public land all to themselves. Full use and don’t pay the taxes.
It’s “PUBLIC” land and they are disingenuous of their motives.
It is so wrong for these wealthy ranch owners to keep public land locked us tax payers deserve to be able to use that public land even if the land owners are forced to leave a easement for access. And if they’re doing it to profit from doing guided hunts. It’s our lasd to!!! The corner crossers did NOTHING WRONG!!
I have a small livestock ranch in Idaho that includes an allotment on public land. While I would prefer to not share the use with the public, it belongs to them and I pay a fee to graze it.
I also belong to our local land trust; one of our core goals is keeping access open to public lands. Too many land purchasers today want to buy property adjacent to public land then allow access only to family and friends.
So, the landowners are claiming that the public lands should be off limits to the public, unless they have permission from the landowner to access that land. I think this would be a no-brainer if the landowners didn’t have the funds necessary to persuade (bribe) the officials involved. I mean, how high do property rights extend? Do we need to zig-zag across the country in airplanes as to not cross private property?
Good Afternoon, Corner Crossing Are Not Trespassing. If Two Parcels Of Public Property Touch Each Other On A Corner And You Go From One To The Other, You Are Not Trespassing. I”M Glad To See That Some One Is Finally Standing Up For Are Rights. Hunters , Fisherman, Conservationist , Hikers, Birdwatchers,ETC. Have The Right To Free Passage On Land, Rivers, On Are Land In The USA. GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
So a bunch of weathly landowners and absentee ranchers started a group to oppose the rights of the American public. Got it. They also don’t like a functional natural ecosystem (free roaming bison herds) or people to fish and recreate on public water ways. Just check their website, it basically says they want the public resources for themselves to make a profit. Up there with the most disgraceful and misleading “non-profit” groups I have seen.
Public land with no public access is not public land. It’s time to put a stop to rich landowners claiming land that they do not own. We all own it. Let’s keep it simple and force the elimination of checkerboards. Consolidate and eliminate.
The rich autocrats of the west want to keep the public land as their own. It nothing but a land grab.
The landowners in these areas are profiting from these public grounds by outfitting hunters on public land and denying access to others. A good example of this. A couple guys in Montana rented a helicopter to fly them into a public piece of property. It was about 3,000 acres of BLM completely landlocked by private. Chopper flew them in, dropped them off and came back to get them a few days later. The landowner tried to have them arrested. Both killed nice bulls. That landowner said they ruined the hunting for his paying clients. That right there tells the story.
Nailed it.
The first thing I want to say is that I absolutely agree that the Public Lands should be accessible to the public and NOT remain exclusively accessible to only those folks who own private land around them. BUT….I wish to point out that it is ILLEGAL for private aircraft to land on BLM or U.S. Forest Service lands!!!!
so let the BLM do something about them landing on their land if they did . wait a second it’s the people of the United States who own their land not BLM
exactly they utilize their land and then expand on it with public land locking in the game to make a better hunting area . so they believe screw the citizens who pay taxes in an actuality own public lands . so they could make a profit and also have an advantage over . those who want to hunt on public land . imagine they guide people in and on public land Our Land . they bag a 10 or $12,000 elk . and do not share the money with the state
This is Ethan Call from Rawlins, Wyoming. You know, if we do nothing to uphold the laws of the United States, those who have constantly wanted it another way will shred to pieces the laws of the United States. When the Montana group put their brief out there that stated that Wyoming has a no trespassing law that applies to corner crossing to access public land, they and all land owners that think like them are just ignoring the true fact in law that states that NO STATE SHALL MAKE A LAW THAT CONTRADICTS AN ALREADY EXISTING FEDERAL LAW. That federal law is the law of 1885. If we the people do nothing and do not stand up in following the federal law, we will and have been getting what we deserve. The Wyoming law is illegal because of the federal law. We should band together our resources to sue the federal government so they will come down on the states and tell the states to cease and desist in their illegal act. The federal government is obligated to comply. THAT IS ALSO THE LAW.
I’m a firm believer that the public should have access to all public land. I’m not sure why landowners aren’t legally obligated to provide some sort of easement to public land. On the other hand if these landowners want to land lock these sections and get compensation for access, why doesn’t the state and federal government start receiving property taxes from these landowners. If a handful of guys corner crossing devalues your ranch in a state that you don’t live in by 7 million dollars, then it turns into your land. Your guides are hunting it like it your private property so pay taxes. I’m not sure why public access to public land has turned into this, provide an access point, patrol your property, use your property, or pay for the damn property your claiming as your own.
The issue is public access to public lands. How would landowners who understand the issue recommend a fair and legal solution to public land access? Provide a right away for which they are compensated? Eliminate checkerboards and agree to land swaps? Other possible solutions?
What’s about the right of ingress and egress?
The Montana group told you in exact words what their issue with corner crossing is, corner crossing “deprives landowners of “the right to receive compensation for providing public access,” the brief states.” If the public has free access to public lands how are rich absentee landowners supposed to maintain their high dollar private hunting reserves?
I have followed this issue intently. And I believe that it is time to explore the idea of a constitutional initiative in Montana to increase public access by legalizing corner crossing. I think that the opposition will be huge… but any political figures in opposition will be setting themselves up for retribution at the voting polls.
Precisely! It is well past time to “upset the settled expectations” of these landowners, one being the receipt of compensation for access to land THEY DO NOT OWN and NOT, as their brief states, by “corner crossing of PRIVATE land” but actually PUBLIC land.
The “Montanans” who support this group are basically uber-wealthy Texans etc. who want to keep the public from using public lands they have unlawfully been denying access to.
100%
Once again the land owners want to keep the cake and eat it too. Eshelman, and the like, of couse want to keep the satus quo on land they don’t pay taxes on a grazing the get for next to nothing.
e
A) Public lands are just that, you know it is there when you by the property.
Non-resident Montana landowners have no standing. Period. The heydays of absentee landowners land locking vast stretches of public land, my land , are coming to an end. That’s why the prevailing law is titled ” UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES LAW”. This law has been the law of the land for 138 years! No more publicly funded private hunting/fishing preserves ! NO MAS. Ironically, this is another glaring example of denying public access to public land, not unlike the current BLM’s attempt to deny public access to millions of acres of public land in the Red Desert. Public land=public access is my upcoming bumper sticker!
All three of your state representatives are against public lands. Barrasso and Lummus are supporting legislation that would allow housing to be constructed on public lands. They’re teamed up with Utah’s Mike Lee. I hope you remember when it’s time to vote.
Leave it to “show-me” state, Missourian, to think of ladders! I don’t blame them. I can’t fathom how private land owners are allowed to keep the public from using public lands. The government should be mandated to build corner crossing ladders.
Just think of the jobs and recreational opportunities this could make.
Good luck to the hunters
Hmmmmmmmm, could these individuals within this “non-profit” be the “perfect” distraction especially in the wilderness parts of the country, these United States of America so that PRIVATE PROPERTY TAXES can be doubled as there’s Legislation being introduced now?
Is this the precedence that “We the people” really DO NOT have a voice because “We the people” CAN NOT forget that it has been in front of a “jury trial” of their peers and found “NOT GUILTY” is the B.A.R. of the impression or belief that they rule over “We the people” and now apparently over the Judges of the courts as well? What really is the message being presented here? What direction is the B.A.R. attempting to take “We the people”?
Is this an attempt to lure “We the people” into an “arbitration situation” AND dilute the effectiveness of the US CONSTITUTION? I would hope not then what do have left? It’s been taken to a jury of the people by the people for the people for JUSTICE, peace and the pursuit of happiness of “We the people” and if not at the pleasantries then maybe possibly the next step is to decide and examine if this attempt to disregard “We the people” is a form of “dissension” or TACTICAL treason against “We the people” of these United States of America, Semper Fi!
You have your mind on straight. See Ethan Calls post.
Corner crossing is needed in states like Wyoming and Montana to allow for public access to BLM and USFS land for legal purposes like hunting and geologic mapping. Land owners should post phone numbers on their gates and corner posts so members of the public can ask or inform land owner of need to cross their land for a legitimate purpose
If l just want to take a walk, that IS a legitimate purpose. Geologist or not, l am an explorer. Same purpose -to explore public land. You are mistaken to possibly think your reason is better than mine. That is why landowners want to deny access, it is because when we think we have to ask, they think they can say no. Their ability to say no has already been taken out of their hands BY the federal law of 1885.
The fact that ranchers consider the public land they lease as their private property that runs with their deeded land is the root of this problem. Lax government oversight and deliberate local blindness to existing law have solidified this fantasy. The Missouri hunters are correct in their assessment of the law. Wealthy landowners must not be allowed to privatize public land no matter how expensive the lawyers they hire.
Public land is public land. Who pays the land taxes on it?
WAH! Yes, let’s let the federal courts settle this non-sense once and for all. It’s time for public lands to be public again. If they don’t want the public to use public lands, then the landowners that are blocking it need to do a land swap or pay for all the public land that they are blocking.
To call these groups acting on behalf of rick landowners and their corporations “non-profit” is a stretch. The odds are that this group, like the billionaire who wants to keep the public off public land in Wyoming, has money and profit in mind at the public expense. Judge Skavdahl is a calm, mature, intelligent jurist. You can count on him to get it right!