06-14-2013, 04:51 AM
Another thing that might floor you is the way the judge came to his conclusion.His definition of navigability is that it has to be navigable in its original form dating back to the date of statehood. Since it was a gravel quarry at the time of statehood and therefore obviously not navigable because it wasn't even there,he claims it fails the navigability test yet other Idaho laws and especially federal laws contradict this. How this conclusion was made is beyond me but in my opinion Beck had some serious help to make this happen. I am very certain if brought to supreme court it would be ruled the other way. Federal government has stated there has been a lot of trouble in the lower courts in these river disputes because of the laws the state makes and said most cases go in favor of the public in supreme court.Federal governments opinion is the only one that matters.They are the ones that actually own the rivers. Another reason it was ruled that way is 90 percent of the argumental facts never even got to be heard by the judge. It was completely unfair cause the opposing side never got to call any witnesses nor get to say one single word to defend it. Interesting story in itself how that played out
[signature]
[signature]