Status of climbing on the Murray property from the RRGCC.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:12 pm

Perhaps the BW myth was started by moonshiners?

I met a kid on an outward bound trip in Utah. He told me about a place in PA where there are rumors of devil worshippers in the woods. I told him that in reality it was probably people growing marijuana who started the rumors, that they were far more dangerous than any devil worshipper would be, and to stay away.

Post by **rhunt** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:37 pm

SikMonkey, I don't know what to say, you honestly think the oil workers are gonna set 'booby' traps to protect their oil? That might make climbing there really exciting!!

I didn't realize that people from Columbus weren't allowed to have an opinion here

..what was I thinking, only people from SE KY know what the hell they are talking about.

Post by **jeffers_mz** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:49 pm

Sandy wrote:...so is the official RRGCC stance that only RRGCC members are free to go ahead and climb on Murray property? Even now that the gates have been put up? What if the mineral rights owners actually do have a legal basis for restricting access and climbers are fined? Will the RRGCC provide legal council to these climbers if they need it?

Sandy, I'd never presume to speak for Shannon, but I know she has a lot going on, so maybe this excerpt from her original post will answer your questions:

"The Murray family, as the current surface right owners, has granted expressed permission to
enter and enjoy access to their property, to all persons who are members of the RRGCC.
Membership is not mandatory; it is not required. "

{Note: I interpret this to mean that membership is not required, BUT...)

The issue is, if Charmane Oil were to
unfortunately press charges against a climber, RRGCC membership, the Murray’s grant of
permission to RRGGC members, and the RRGCC option to purchase would offer the best legal
defense to criminal and civil trespassing charges.

(...BUT, the RRGCC is not guaranteeing immunity from prosecution, since they aren't in any legal position to do so, HOWEVER...}

The RRGCC intent is to provide this
information to all climbers to help protect them to the best of their ability.

(...HOWEVER, if you do choose to climb there and are fined or summoned, your best defense is going to be to present three pieces of evidence in your defense: One, the fact that the Murrays have granted permission to RRGCC members to climb there; Two, proof of your membership in the RRGCC; and Three, the RRGCC's option to purchase the property.)

Soooo...in my opinion, which is based on what's been said before, anyone can climb there in the eyes of the RRGCC, but, if Charmane decides to tighten the screws, you have a stronger position if you belong to the RRGCC than you do if you aren't a member.

I also infer (read between the lines, this isn't explicitly stated) that the RRGCC probably will not be able to assist you legally, both because they don't actually own the property yet, giving them the status of an interested bystander with few if any legal rights, and because there probably just isn't enough money laying around to handle such a contingency if it arises.

I think it's also important to note that it MAY be that Shannon (and the official RRGCC et al) may well be legally bound to refrain from saying certain things in the process of all that is going on, which might make it hard to explicitly answer every question at any given time. Even if this is not so, the potentially adversarial future stance of Charmane may also place constraints on what should be said in public at this time. Adding the two up, and throwing in the daily grind of moving the project forward increases the effort required to get a point across.

Christian, thanks for the compliment, but it's something most anyone can do. Just put yourself in the oil company's shoes, and decide what you would do after a long period of having your operations impeded by climber's parked cars. Once you can place youself in the bad guy's position, subject to the same stresses and pressures he is, then the range of options open to him might become clearer and less of a surprise.

The logic tree used to arrive at my opinion is as follows:

1. The oil company is either a tiny hole in the wall operation that is mostly on paper, leases and subcontracting the actual work, or else they employ a lot more lawyers than the RRGCC does. That they have the gates up ($$$ spent, and man hours invested), that they are obviously upset over the parking situation, leads me to believe the second possibility.

2. Therefore, I believe that they either know that the gates are illegal, or else they know that they can prove enough damages to their operations in court to get a judge to allow the gates, or even perhaps to allow them to be awarded a judgement for those damages.

3. We know they are stonewalling, so we have to try and figure out why. Is it because they know that the gates are illegal, but the fact that the property is in transition also lets them know they can get away with it until the property changes hands?

Are they preparing future action and do not want their hands tied or strategy exposed at this time?

Are they afraid of the property changing hands, from an somewhat "hands-off" type ownership to a much more "hands on" organization?

If so, why? Because they think we will be more interested in environmental issues, the bane of energy companies worldwide? Because we will probably result in an increase in the number of people using the property, and potentially interfering further with their operations? Are they just trying to sour the deal so we won't buy the property?

I'm far from being sure about any of these possibilities, but the history and trend lends the most credibility to the idea that they are fed up with the problems and have decided to pursue a more adversarial approach, for now, and possibly after the property changes hands.

Since I'm not 100% sure though, it seems to me to be most expediant to attempt to pursue a friendly approach until that proves to be impossible, (which from all signs I've seen, is precisely the RRGCC's position to date), while at the same time, preparing contingency plans in the event that we also must pursue an adversarial stance so we aren't surprised if that scenario comes to pass.

To me the parking issue seems easiest to solve, IF we can convince them that the solution will actually prevent their operations from being interrupted.

People park in the wrong spot because 1. they want to climb, 2. because it seems ok to do so, 3. because they really don't know what to do if the spots they want are already full, and 4. because some people are jerks.

Since the sale of the property will not change reason 1, then signs explaining the parking options will resolve number 2, procedures for overflow parking will satisfy issue 3, and some form of enforcement may be necessary to deal with the people described in reason 4.

Moving dirt around isn't a big deal. A dozer and backhoe/front loader combination can make a real big parking lot in less than a day. It's possible that the oil company even has idle equipment we could use, if they think it will solve their problems. If not, I've rented both types of equipment for around $200 a day which really isn't that much considering the total cost of the project. That's not true commercial rates, but if somebody somewhere isn't willing to cut us a deal, then even standard rates, say $750 a day including delivery and pick-up, still isn't an insurmountable amount of money. I love moving dirt with big toys if no-one else is available to do it.

Once the basic needs are satisfied, the residual offenders might simply find their cars towed, with signs indicating where to get their cars, and, more effective, how much it's going to cost to get them back.

If the oil company refuses all future attempts to work things out to mutual satisfaction, then the options are still numerous, although I'm not sure that discussing them in public is the best approach. Nobody is bulletproof, and vulnerabilites are best discovered by putting yourself in the opposition's place, and further potentially much more effective when presented as a surprise. That gives them less time to develop a counter, and increases the chance they will be herded into the box we want them in, and right out the door we provide on the other side.

If you do it right, they might even think it's their idea.

Post by **Spragwa** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:55 pm

Sandy: This is what Shannon has said.

There is no language, that all the attorneys that have looked at it, can see that justifies their actions. Nor is there any known legal theory that seems to justify their action. But Charmane has not offered any explanation either. So, we can only speculate.

So, with the information we have now and the research various people have done, that is the answer. This is not wishy washy language. It's fairly explicit. There are no guarantees in life. Being legally correct does not PREVENT a lawsuit or improper action.

Post by **SikMonkey** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:06 pm

Rhunt,
there is a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion. You could very well be right and I am being paranoid, but knowing how good-ol-boy law works I will leave it to you to investigate. Hopefully I am wrong and you can come back and do the whole "I told you so...blah blah blah" thing.

Mj

Post by **Gretchen** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:07 pm

Looks like someone put some thought into it Jeffers.

Post by **Spragwa** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:08 pm

Yeah I like doing that! Anyhoo, when are we having lunch? I bail then you bail? This is a dumb game.

Post by **rhunt** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:09 pm

SikMonkey, nope no need. I don't plan on climbing in the southern region(exc. the motherlode) till this situation is resolved.

There are so many other places to climb!

Post by **SikMonkey** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:16 pm

You are 100% correct sir. I foresee the Lode and Global in my future this weekend. Hopefully the weather will hold up.

Mj

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:35 pm

Spragwa wrote:Sandy: This is what Shannon has said.

There is no language, that all the attorneys that have looked at it, can see that justifies their actions. Nor is there any known legal theory that seems to justify their action. But Charmane has not offered any explanation either. So, we can only speculate.

So, with the information we have now and the research various people have done, that is the answer. This is not wishy washy language. It's fairly explicit. There are no guarantees in life. Being legally correct does not PREVENT a lawsuit or improper action.

Hey Spragwa, I don't mean to badger you or anyone, but Shannon's quote in bold,above, refers to the contracts, not Kentucky law, and the rest is actually not explicit as I read it - but I'm no lawyer and so I hope you'll be patient with me. I've already proven myself to be somewhat slow when grasping the written word...

I posted specific questions about mineral rights vs. surface rights when access to mineral extraction has been blocked by the surface owner (guests), as they have been. I don't expect an immediate answer, or any answer at all other than "we are definitely looking into that possibility," unless of course this issue has been thoroughly researched and there is no possible legal justification for them to restrict access. I'm still not hearing anything specific. The last update I heard, from Shannon, was that the RRGCC did not believe the signs were legal. To me that implies there is still the possibility that they may be.

I would be very shocked, once again, if Charmane has not done their homework here. Naturally I realize the RRGCC cannot comment on pending or potential future litigation, however it would be reassuring to know that the RRGCC is certain that the signs are illegal - IF they know this, which you are implying. I also realize that knowing Charmane has acted illegally will not prevent future legal action by Charmane, but it sure would make me feel better about potentially climbing there (even though I probably will not be until this matter is resolved).

Jeffers, thanks so for taking the time to add your thoughts on this matter. I really appreciate it. What I was getting at with my questions about members vs. non-member climbing on the Murray Property is this: If the RRGCC isn't absolutely certain no legal action can be brought up against climbers for trespassing, should they be advising climbers that it is okay to climb there at all - even if they are members?

Perhaps I'm dense, but how about we let my questions sit until someone who knows the answers with absolute certainty can answer them.