Rexton Lotus Justice Vincent Fusca, one of the disguises believed to be concealing the true identity of John F. Kennedy Jr, was seen cheering with the crowd behind President Trump holding a red “Peaceful Protestor” Rally on 9, 22, 2020.
Click to view video:
I once told my dad that America was going to have a Holocaust in the future and that all the Jews would be kicked out just like what happened in Germany and throughout the world multiple times. I said they are all gonna end up back in the land of Israel 🇮🇱 for the final battle of Armageddon. You may I ask how I know this. Basically because it’s a biblical prophecy and I read it and know about the dark planning of the Illuminati Banksters future planning for the future of the world. While You sport’s fans are watching the Netflix and television sports series I’m getting Enlightenment from watching reading and listening to people like William Morgan, Bill Cooper, Ron Paul, Jordan Maxwell, David Ike, Reading books like the creature from Jekyll island. Listening to speeches from John F Kennedy And Ronald Reagan I’m Interested in Learning survival skills for the Coming collapse of society. There’s a reason my friends call me Doomsday Dan.
You are just beginning to see persecution of faith Soon you’ll see round ups of political dissidents and Religious persecution openly. “City officials gave out 62 fines totaling $150,000 for violations of COVID-19 rules in hot spots in Brooklyn and Queens over the weekend, the city government said Sunday.”
Hey if you can afford stay home and not go to work good for you your blessed. But in the real world where people live paycheck to paycheck we don’t work we go homeless! So you can take your self righteous virtuous attitude and stick it up your ass￼ because I am not gonna let your fake planned crisis make me shut down my business or quit my job and go homelessness! All because of some power hungry satanic global Banksters wanted to not let a good crisis go to waist and make everyone get Bill Gates killer vaccines with Tracking systems! I literally warned all of you before you even knew what hit you that this was gonna happen! But guess what I will not give up my constitutional rights to make you feel a false sense of security! DanielJLeachjr.com
You can mark my words!
The Chairman of Overstock.com
56 yr old bachelor Patrick Byrne just resigned 😲 and just came clean on Martha Macullum on FOX News.
He was a level one security operative for the FBI. He had an affair with a Russian agent and was involved in a Spying operation ….. All under the Obama Administration SPYING ….
He says in the interview…. “put a camera in front of Stzrok or James Comey and ask them if the know Patrick Bryne… they will crap their pants” …. 😲😲😲. He also gave his whole story to US Attorney John Durham who’s investigating the investigators…. he says AG Barr has everything 😎👍🍿
He says there was “political espionage” against Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.
He got orders from Peter Strzok to have an affair with Russian spy, Maria Butina, which came from 3 officials he calls “X, Y, and Z”.
He got emotional and felt compelled to come forward after seeing people getting gunned down in a mall.
He said was offered a billion dollar bribe to keep quiet.
TICTQC YOU TREASONOUS M-FER’S !!🍿🍿🍿🍿
If I was President of the United States I would send the Political radical Muslims and Communistic minded people out of the country. All radical Socialists communist groups would be deemed domestic Terrorist organizations and those activists who supports them would be deported and thier citizenship tripped for life, wouldn’t matter if you were born in America or Not. If you’re working to destroy the constitutional republic you do not belong in this free land. danieljleachjr.com
13.9091.01000 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee September 2011 REGULATION OF DRIVERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES – BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM Section 1 of 2011 House Bill No. 1442 (attached as an appendix) directs the Legislative Management to study the regulations of drivers and of motor vehicles in the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) for consistency, clarity, and substance. As introduced, House Bill No. 1442 would have required an inspection certificate from the Department of Transportation or the Highway Patrol for all modifications to a motor vehicle’s suspension, steering, or braking systems. The bill would have prohibited the use of air or hydraulic suspension systems used to change body height while the vehicle is in motion. The bill would have prohibited a part of the motor vehicle from extending below the lowest part of the wheel rim, except for tires and electric grounding devices. In addition, the bill would have required wheels and tires to be equipped with fenders that cover the entire width of the tread. The bill would have removed the weight threshold of 7,000 pounds or less to which modification requirements applied. The legislative history reveals the impetus for the bill came from a Minot law enforcement officer’s concern with a pickup that slightly exceeded 7,000 pounds and had a raised body that raised the bumper to exceed the maximum allowable bumper height of 27 inches. The bill was amended in the House, and one of the amendments would have raised the threshold to 16,000 pounds. The main opposition to the bill came from car clubs and street rod groups. The opponents said the changes in the law would affect the operation of the modified vehicles that car club and street rod group members operate. Testimony reveals that prohibitions against special motor vehicles contained in North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Section 37-12-02-01 could not be enforced against the particular pickup in question if adopted as a municipal ordinance. On the state level, it was explained that the special motor vehicle rules were for use when the Highway Patrol inspects a vehicle and are not for application against a vehicle that is in operation. In short, the interplay of administrative rules and statutory provisions created uncertainty in the application of the law. As a result, the Senate amended the bill to provide for this study. PREVIOUS STUDIES In general, the study is of NDCC Title 39 with some exceptions. In the last 10 years, interim committees have studied a number of areas relating to Title 39. During the 2001-02 interim, the Judiciary B Committee conducted two relevant studies. The committee studied the fees and point demerits for traffic offenses and studied the feasibility and desirability of a centralized process for administering noncriminal traffic violations. In the fees and points study, the committee focused on speeding and recommended bill drafts relating to speed limits and the fee for violation of a speed limit. As to the study of the centralized process for administering noncriminal traffic violations, the committee studied the process at the city and county level before information is transmitted to the Department of Transportation. The committee focused on the complicated procedures contained in NDCC Sections 39-06.1-02, 39-06.1-03, and 39-06.1-04. During the 2003-04 interim, the Transportation Committee conducted three relevant studies. First, the committee studied motor vehicle insurance. As part of that study, the committee reviewed NDCC Chapter 39-16.1. Although Chapter 39-16 was not reviewed in much detail, Chapters 39-16.1 and 39-16 work in concert. The purpose of these two chapters is to protect innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents from financial disaster. Both chapters apply to a motor vehicle owner who has had an accident or has been convicted of certain traffic offenses. Sanctions imposed by Chapter 39-16 are intended to guarantee financial responsibility for a first accident. In contrast, the sanctions imposed by Chapter 39-16.1 are designed to establish proof of financial responsibility for future accidents. Second, the 2003-04 interim committee studied the alternative methods for recording and discharging a lien on a motor vehicle. The committee reviewed and rewrote portions of NDCC Chapter 39-05 as part of the creation of an electronic lien notification procedure. Third, the 2003-04 interim committee studied the requirements for the registration and licensing of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles and the licensing of motorcycle and low-speed vehicle dealers. Although the committee made no recommendation regarding the study, the committee did review the provisions of law relating to these types of vehicles. During the 2005-06 interim, the Transportation Committee studied the effectiveness of financial responsibility requirements imposed on individuals convicted of driving without liability insurance. The committee reviewed the provisions of NDCC Chapters 39-16.1 and 39-16. During the 2007-08 interim, the Transportation Committee studied exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. As part of this study, the committee reviewed NDCC Chapter 39-06.2– Commercial Driver’s Licenses–which is intended to implement federal law. In addition, under Section 39-21-46 the superintendent of the Highway Patrol must adopt rules duplicate to or consistent with current Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The committee reviewed the allowable exceptions from these regulations. During the 2009-10 interim, the Public Safety and Transportation Committee studied highway construction funding and focused on overweight 13.9091.01000 2 September 2011 vehicles. The committee recommended two bills relating to overweight vehicles–House Bill No. 1042 and Senate Bill No. 2044. House Bill No. 1042, which did not pass, would have allocated extraordinary road use fee collections for deposit in the general fund of the county where the overweight vehicle violation occurred if the violation did not occur on a state or federal highway. The bill would have provided that extraordinary road use fee collections for a violation occurring on a state or federal highway would continue to be deposited in the state highway fund. Senate Bill No. 2044, as introduced, would have provided that a violation of an overweight vehicle permit issued under a county home rule ordinance is considered a violation of state law. As passed, the bill clarified that overweight permit fees for permits issued by local authorities go to the local authority, and the citation fees for a violation of a permit issued by a local authority are for a violation of state law. As part of this study, the committee reviewed select portions of NDCC Chapter 39-12. These previous studies show areas of NDCC Title 39 which have been recently studied. If an area has been recently studied and changes have been made or not been made after careful review, this committee may wish not to study the same areas. To the contrary, if the area has been studied and consistency, clarity, and substance have not been improved, this committee may wish to study the area again. NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE TITLE 39 A review of NDCC Title 39 may be useful to focus the study. In particular, chapters that do not directly relate to motor vehicles or drivers of motor vehicles may be disregarded as not relating to the study. These chapters include: 39-03 Highway Patrol 39-03.1 Highway Patrolmen’s Retirement System 39-04.2 Public Transportation 39-10.1 Bicycles 39-13 Traffic Signs 39-16.2 Gas Transporter Financial Responsibility 39-18 Mobile Home Dealer Regulation 39-19 Reciprocity Agreements, Arrangements, or Declarations 39-22 Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing 39-22.1 Trailer Dealer’s Licensing and Bonding 39-22.3 Motor-Powered Recreational Vehicle Dealers 39-25 Regulation Commercial Driver Training 39-26 Abandoned Motor Vehicles 39-28 Motorcycle Safety Education 39-30 Motor Vehicle Chop Shops 39-31 Common Household Goods Carriers 39-33 Driver and Motor Vehicle Record Privacy There are other chapters that relate to motor vehicles and drivers but may be of lesser importance because of a number of reasons. These reasons include that the chapter has a more remote relation to the act of driving a motor vehicle than other chapters; that the chapter or a portion of the chapter has been thoroughly studied recently by an interim committee and may be in less need of review; or that there are chapters that are insular and, as such, do not interrelate with other chapters usually because of federal requirements. These chapters are listed below and the reason for placement on the list follows the statutory reference: 39-05 Title Registration A portion of this chapter has been recently studied in detail. 39-06.1 Disposition of Traffic Offenses This chapter has been recently studied in detail. 39-06.2 Commercial Driver’s Licenses This chapter stands alone because it parallels federal law. 39-16 Financial Responsibility of Owners and Operators This chapter relates to liability for automobile collisions and has been studied. 39-16.1 Proof of Financial Responsibility for the Future This chapter relates to insurance and has been recently studied in detail. 39-32 Intrastate Commercial Driver Hours of Service This chapter stands alone because it adopts exceptions allowed by federal law. There are also chapters that relate to vehicles other than automobiles. Other than motorcycles, these vehicles are subject to special provisions and are exempt from major portions of NDCC Title 39. Most of these vehicles have been studied in the past. These special vehicles are listed with a description of the chapter as follows: 39-10.2 Motorcycles Generally, motorcycles are treated the same as automobiles except for certain required equipment. 39-10.3 Experimental Vehicles Experimental vehicles have special registration and limited use provisions. 39-24 Regulation and Registration of Snowmobiles Snowmobiles have special registration and limited use provisions (studied during the 2003-04 interim). 39-27 Motorcycle Equipment Motorcycles have special equipment requirements. 39-29 Off-Highway Vehicles Off-highway vehicles have special registration, equipment, and limited use provisions (studied during the 2003-04 interim). 39-29.1 Low-Speed Vehicles Low-speed vehicles have special registration, equipment, and limited use provisions. 39-29.2 Unconventional Vehicles Unconventional vehicles have special registration and limited use provisions. This leaves a number of chapters that are squarely within the parameters of the study. All of these chapters have been divided into the subject headings of motor vehicles or drivers. Under each heading, the chapters are arranged by subject matter and the chapters that relate to that subject matter. Following each chapter is a list of any NDAC sections that relate to the listed chapters. In reviewing a chapter, related rules may be reviewed to promote the goal of the study of consistency, clarity, and of all of the substance. In addition, if applicable, any previous study is listed under the subject matter and chapter line. 13.9091.01000 3 September 2011 Motor vehicles Registration (NDCC Chapters 39-02 and 39-04) Special Motor Vehicles (NDAC Chapter 37-12-02) Title (NDCC Chapter 39-05) Application and Requirements of Disclosure (NDAC Chapter 37-09-01) Obtaining Certificate of Title for Untitled Vehicles (NDAC Chapter 37-12-04) Inspection of Salvage Vehicles (NDAC Chapter 37-12-05) During the 2003-04 interim, the Transportation Committee studied an alternative for motor vehicle lien filing and focused on the title registration process. This resulted in a rewrite of NDCC Sections 39-05-05, 39-05-16.1, 39-05-17, and 39-05-33. Vehicle restrictions Size, Width, and Height Restrictions (NDCC Chapter 39-12) Multiple vehicle combinations administrative provisions Implements of Husbandry (NDAC Chapter 37-06-02) Combinations of Two, Three, or Four Vehicles – Seventy-Five Feet or Less (NDAC Chapter 37-06-03) Combinations of Two, Three, or Four Vehicles – Over Seventy-Five Feet (NDAC Chapter 37-06-04) Movement of oversize or overweight vehicles administrative provisions Adoption of Regulations (NDAC Chapter 38-06-02) Permit Fees (NDAC Chapter 38-06-03) Liability of Permit Applicant and Permit Conditions – (NDAC Chapter 38-06-04) During the 2009-10 interim, the Public Safety and Transportation Committee studied highway construction funding. The committee focused on overweight vehicles permit, violation, and use fees. Equipment of Vehicles (NDCC Chapter 39-21) Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem (NDAC Article 37-02) Hazardous Materials (NDAC Article 38-03) Hazardous Materials – Agricultural Operations (NDAC Chapter 38-03-02) Hazardous Materials – Petroleum Products (NDAC Chapter 38-03-03) Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (NDAC Chapter 38-04-01) Flags and lights for vehicles exempt from width limitations Standards Marking Vehicles and Loads (NDAC Chapter 38-05-02) Lighting Requirements (NDAC Chapter 38-05-03) During the 2007-08 interim, the Transportation Committee studied Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and exemptions for interstate and intrastate transportation. The study focused on NDCC Section 39-21-46. Drivers Licenses Operators’ Licenses (NDCC Chapter 39-06) General Requirements of Licensing (NDAC Chapters 37-03-01) Inimical Operators (NDAC Chapters 37-03-02) Suspension, Revocation, and Restoration of Driver’s Licenses (NDAC Chapters 37-03-03) Administrative Hearing and Appeal Procedures for Driver’s License Suspension or Revocation (NDAC Chapter 37-03.1-01) Visual Requirements (NDAC Chapter 37-08-01) Traffic offenses Regulations Governing Operators (NDCC Chapter 39-08) This chapter mainly relates to crimes. Speed Restrictions (NDCC Chapter 39-09) This chapter includes care required and careless driving. General Rules of the Road (NDCC Chapter 39-10) This chapter is mainly on driving prohibitions. Traffic offense procedure Disposition of Traffic Offenses (NDCC Chapter 39-06.1) This chapter includes points and fees. Hearing procedure, alcohol treatment procedure, and restricted licenses for minors (NDAC Chapters 37-03-03 and 37-03-04) During the 2001-02 interim, the Judiciary B Committee studied the fees and demerits for traffic offenses with a focus on speed limits and speeding. During the 2001-02 interim, the Judiciary B Committee studied the feasibility and desirability of a centralized process for administering noncriminal traffic violations. The study focused on the noncriminal procedure in NDCC Sections 39-06.1-02, 39-06.1-03, and 39-06.1-04. General Regulations Governing Traffic (NDCC Chapter 39-07) This chapter includes law enforcement procedure. During the 2001-02 interim, the Judiciary B Committee studied the feasibility and desirability of a centralized process for administering noncriminal traffic violations. The study focused on the noncriminal procedure in NDCC Section 39-07-07. Chemical Test for Intoxication, Implied Consent (NDCC Chapter 39-20) This chapter contains administrative procedures and penalties for driving while under the influence. Temporary operator’s permit and notice of intention to revoke, suspend, or deny license by officer (NDAC Chapter 37-03-03) Both motor vehicles and drivers Definitions and General Provisions (NDCC Chapter 39-01) 13.9091.01000 4 September 2011 SUGGESTED STUDY APPROACH Rewriting NDCC Title 39 by the committee would be a very ambitious undertaking. The committee may wish to prioritize chapters within Title 39. The committee could prioritize based on a member’s recollection as to bills during the last or last few legislative sessions that were difficult to understand due to the subject matter. For example, equipment issues were the subject matter of the introduced version of the bill that created this study. Other areas that appear to create confusion are overweight vehicles and the particular vehicles that may be operated with a Class D license under different circumstances. The committee may desire to receive testimony from representatives of the Department of Transportation and the Highway Patrol for recommendations of areas to be reviewed. Once the committee has prioritized an area, the committee may have committee counsel redraft the area for consistency and clarity and present the changes as a bill draft. As part of the presentation, committee counsel could raise major substantive issues for the committee’s consideration. Then, the committee may wish to receive testimony from interested parties and make substantive recommendations. ATTACH:1
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-F-02 Date issued: January 6, 2000 Requested by: Terence Devine, Nelson County State’s Attorney – QUESTIONS PRESENTED – I. Whether the public may travel any place within the statutory section line right of way regardless of how the land is used by the landowner. II. Whether a person is subject to criminal prosecution if, while traveling on an unimproved section line right of way over property which the person does not own, that person tramples, plows, or cultivates crops lawfully planted by the landowner beyond what is necessary to travel the section line. – ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINIONS – I. It is my opinion that the public’s right to travel a section line right of way coexists with the property rights of landowners holding title to the right of way, and that the public’s right to travel on an unimproved section line does not include the right to damage the property belonging to the landowners except as reasonably necessary to travel the section line. II. It is my opinion that the right to travel on an unimproved section line right of way does not include a traveler’s taking actions other than traveling, and a traveler who willfully damages the tangible property of another by plowing, cultivating, or unnecessarily trampling crops planted by the landowner may be charged with criminal mischief under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-05. It is my further opinion that an injunction to abate a nuisance may be pursued under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02, and that this may be a more appropriate approach than a criminal action under certain circumstances. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-02 January 6, 2000 Page 2 – ANALYSES – I. The United States offered easements for travel on section lines to the Dakota Territory in 1866, an offer which was accepted and has not been surrendered. See Ames v. Rose Township Bd. of Township Supervisors, 502 N.W.2d 845, 847 (N.D. 1993), Lalim v. Williams County, 105 N.W.2d 339, 344 (N.D. 1960). The congressional section lines are public roads in all townships of this state outside the limits of incorporated cities and outside platted and duly recorded townsites, additions, or subdivisions, and are open for travel to the width of 33 feet on each side of the section line. N.D.C.C. § 24-07-03. Congressional section lines outside the limits imposed by N.D.C.C. § 24-07-03, unless closed by proceedings permitted by statute, are open for public travel without the necessity of any prior action by a governmental agency, even if the easement has not been improved or surfaced. See Small v. Burleigh County, 225 N.W.2d 295, 300 (N.D. 1974). However, there are competing interests regarding use of land within section line easements. “A landowner abutting an open section line retains ownership of the property within the easement, subject to the public’s right to travel.” Water Resource Dist. v. Burleigh County, 510 N.W.2d 624, 628 (N.D. 1994), citing Small, 225 N.W.2d at 297. See also Hjeloe v. J. C. Snyder & Sons, 133 N.W.2d 625, 629 (N.D. 1965) (adjacent landowner retains ownership within highway easement), Lalim, 105 N.W.2d at 344 (same). “The public’s easement is limited to the right to travel . . . .” Water Resource Dist., 510 N.W.2d at 628. As an example, a landowner has statutory permission to plow and cultivate within the section line easement, but the landowner must expect some crop damage in the path of usual travel and must be careful not to plant a crop which would grow to such size that it would impede the usual travel on a section line. State v. Brossart, 565 N.W.2d 752, 758 n.3 (N.D. 1997). In Water Resource Dist., the Supreme Court held that a county commission had authority to approve placement of a permanent obstruction within a section line easement, specifically a home which was later discovered to extend 7 feet into the public right-of-way on an open section line. The Court stated: The public’s easement is limited to the right to travel, and does not include an absolute right to an object-free zone for the complete length and width of the section line. In Hjelle [v. J.C. Snyder & Sons, 133 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1965)], we held that highway right-of-way is not ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-02 January 6, 2000 Page 3 “obstructed” when a placement did not impede the public’s right of passage. 133 N.W.2d at 630. We recently held that cattle guards or gateways do not have to be sixty-six feet wide to comply with NDCC 24-07-03, when approved by the board. Ames v. Rose Township Board of Township Supervisors, 502 N.W.2d 845, 850 (N.D. 1993). Only when an obstruction effectively deprives the public of the ability to travel on an open section line is their right to travel violated. Water Resource Dist., 510 N.W.2d at 628. It may be inferred that when the law or a governmental body lawfully authorizes an obstruction of a highway, including a section line easement, then travelers on the section line easement may not interfere with the permitted activity or obstruction. The right of the public to travel on a section line easement does not appear to be different than the right of the public to travel upon any highway or public road in this state. In determining that the state may lawfully condition driving a motor vehicle on the highways by requiring such drivers to obtain a license from the state, the court held: The use of the public highways is not an absolute right which everyone has, and of which a person cannot be deprived; it is instead a privilege which a person enjoys subject to the control of the State in its valid exercise of its police power. State v. Kouba, 319 N.W.2d 161, 163 (N.D. 1982). Therefore, the regulation of a person’s activities while traveling on public ways is permissible under the police power of the state. “Persons using a highway must exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to the owners of abutting property, but are not liable for injuries caused to such owners as the consequence of a lawful and non-negligent use of the way.” 39 Am. Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, and Bridges § 213 (1999). There is no cause of action against an individual using a public way for travel in conformance with the rules governing its use. Id. In some instances, the Legislature has regulated the competing balance between landowners and travelers who would use the section line easements. For example, landowners may construct fences across section lines if the landowner also constructs a cattle guard and gateway at the section line which meets the approval and specifications of the board of county commissioners or board of township supervisors having jurisdiction over the section line involved. N.D.C.C. §§ 24-06-28 and 24-10-02. A traveler who ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-02 January 6, 2000 Page 4 damages any fence or who opens and fails to close any gate constructed in the fence along the section line is guilty of an infraction. N.D.C.C. § 24-06-28(3). A case interpreting the statutes governing cattle guards and gateways on section lines helps to demonstrate what the right to travel on unimproved section lines means under the law. Cattle guards and gateways are required at every point where a fence crosses a section line in order to permit the free movement of vehicles over cattle guards and permitting bypass of the cattle guard for livestock or equipment movement through the gateway. Ames v. Rose Tp. Bd. of Tp. Supervisors, 502 N.W.2d 845, 850 (N.D. 1993). The Legislature left the size of the gateways and cattle guards to be determined by the appropriate board in the exercise of its discretion. Id. at 851. The cattle guards are to be constructed to permit motor vehicles to pass, such as automobiles and pick up trucks. Id. at 850-851. The gateways must be able to be opened and closed easily by the public, but their specific width is within the board’s discretion. Id. 851. In so holding, the Supreme Court specifically rejected an argument requiring free and unrestricted access across the entire 66 feet of the easement because the easement is 66 feet wide. Id. at 850. Therefore, it is my opinion that the public’s right to travel a section line right of way coexists with the property rights of landowners holding title to the right of way, and that the public’s right to travel on an unimproved section line does not include the right to damage the property belonging to the landowners, except as is reasonably necessary to travel the section line. II. Damaging a farmer’s crops by driving a vehicle over them may constitute the crime of criminal mischief. State v. Erdman, 422 N.W.2d 808, 812-813 (N.D. 1988). A person is guilty of committing criminal mischief if that person willfully tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property, or if that person willfully damages tangible property of another. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-05(1). Although the matter ultimately would be a question of fact for a jury, plowing or cultivating crops belonging to another without the owner’s permission could reasonably be found to be damaging to those crops just as driving an automobile through a crop field was found to be damaging to crops. Erdman, 422 N.W.2d at 812. A landowner has ownership of the land within a section line easement, and has statutory authority to plow and cultivate within that easement with the expectation that some crop damage may occur in the path of usual travel. See State v. Brossart, 565 N.W.2d 752, 757, ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-02 January 6, 2000 Page 5 758 n.3 (N.D. 1997). While a traveler necessarily may have to trample the landowner’s crops in order to travel, the traveler has a duty to exercise ordinary care when traveling the section line. See DeLair v. LaMoure County, 326 N.W.2d 55, 62 (N.D. 1982) (driver must exercise ordinary care). A traveler who willfully damages crops beyond the damage necessary to travel the section line may be committing criminal mischief. As an example, an individual who willfully drives the length and breadth of a lawfully cultivated section line easement in order to spite the landowner by destroying the crops and not simply to pass through the area may be charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-05. However, care must be taken when pursuing a criminal action to determine whether a civil action may be more appropriate. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a conviction for obstructing a public road where there was a legitimate dispute whether the necessary requirements were met to create the public road by prescription. State v. Meyer, 361 N.W.2d 221, 222 (N.D. 1985). Similarly, a criminal conviction for theft of crops was reversed where there was a legitimate dispute over ownership of the crops. State v. Brakke, 474 N.W.2d 878, 882 (N.D. 1991). If, after investigation, the facts do not demonstrate that a traveler willfully destroyed a landowner’s crops beyond that necessarily entailed by traveling an unimproved section line while exercising ordinary care, no criminal action may be warranted. However, a civil action to enjoin a public nuisance under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02 may be pursued if the facts and circumstances warrant such action. This approach would clearly delineate the scope of permitted travel and is enforceable through contempt proceedings. N.D.C.C. § 42-02-10. Therefore, it is my opinion that the right to travel on an unimproved section line right of way does not permit a traveler to take actions other than travelling across the section line right of way, and if the traveler willfully damages tangible property of another by plowing, cultivating, or unnecessarily trampling crops planted by the landowner, the traveler may be charged with criminal mischief under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-05. It is my further opinion that an injunction to abate a nuisance may be pursued under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02, and that this may be a more appropriate approach than a criminal action under certain circumstances. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION 2000-02 January 6, 2000 Page 6 – EFFECT – This opinion is issued pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 54-12-01. It governs the actions of public officials until such time as the questions presented are decided by the courts. Heidi Heitkamp Attorney General Assisted by: Edward E. Erickson Assistant Attorney General vkk
- in Prepping