Here is a post I emailed myself. Looks like the SCC is keeping from us. Now I present to you. The biggest mistake made by the Coalition they want kept secret. Shortly after I saved this, the thread was deleted by the Admins. I agree with Vance freedom of speach is a right. So all should be kept in the loop.

Gus,
Response to your email is below, this has also been placed on the SEC’s public forum due to your organization’s members are asking what is going on and no one is giving them “our” side of the story and what your organization is telling us back. I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it. I know you are simply trying to do your job to make this matter simply “disappear” but as one of your SEC posters said too, we feel you just did not do the needed proper up-front research on this property before you bought it. I greatly feel for all the folks who contributed to buying this land but I ask that they put themselves in our shoes where NO ONE asked us beforehand for permission to climb this wall and no one told us any party was buying this bottom land for climbing purposes. We have been very patient on this issue for quite awhile but this last round of emails today basically trying to dead-end this (which is indeed a good lawyers’ job) makes me realize that we need to take further action to resolve this. This email is just a first step. UNTIL this is resolved she requests that there be no trespassing on this land. You continually tell the SEC folks it is fine to climb this wall but our direction to cease all climbing on this land is still fully in effect.
Gus, to answer your question, “I am going to plainly state what has been nagging at everyone, what do you want? No one is coming on to your land, land where no one resides in the first instance.” Our answer is: She wants NO Trespassing; we firmly believe that any legal entity/law enforcement agency will agree with what we found regarding vertical property rights. You continually ignore our findings on this issue and even the Access Fund folks agree with the vertical property rights findings. Our deeds clearly state where the horizontal property line is. If this was a perfect 90 degree wall (which it is not), making surface contact with the wall boundary would be considered trespassing. From inspection, more of this wall from the top edge property line is underhang than overhang so MOST of this wall is indeed OUR LAND which you continually assert it is NOT. Also, what difference does it make that no one resides on the land? My parents’ intent was to have this as a place of undisturbed peace, quiet, and tranquility. Whether someone occupies this land makes NO legal difference.
If you knew my mom (like Roy Simmons and I do), you would CLEARLY understand her situation, your statement " not sure how climbing is distressing to anyone other than the individual climbing" is offensive. For over 30 years, anyone who has climbed this wall has had to obtain permission from us to. You failed to obtain ANY permission from my family to climb this wall. You "quietly" (it was called Crag X I see for a long time on this forum) bought the bottom land and now you have “egg on your face” (as a previous SEC Crag poster hinted) for not doing the proper research that indicates now that you indeed do NOT own a majority of the face of the wall and are trespassing. Why is this lack of research on your part my family’s fault?? What do we need to take all these actions?? If it is your land prove it! I do not think you can because it is not…..
How interesting that you want US to go through the steps you mentioned below to prove we own this land, the Access Fund clearly states this is YOUR job. Why should WE pay for YOUR mistake. From what my lawyer says this has NOTHING to do with mineral rights, just merely vertical property rights which are COMMON KNOWLEDGE. I think your SEC posters will agree that with you NEVER asking us permission (as the Access Fund guidelines say YOU SHOULD), it should be your ante to prove ownership. I know these requests below are a ploy for us to hopefully “go away”, but we are fully committed to following this to our desired goal. These requests from you involve “mineral rights” investigation which have NOTHING to do with the vertical land ownership involved here and they simply look like a distraction. Trespassing is trespassing. Horizontal or vertical. Your reply of “I would kindly request you produce a 1) subsurface survey of the area you maintain is subject to mineral rights, produced by a third party surveyor, 2) produce some evidence of interference with active mineral rights, and 3) produce evidence of ownership of mineral rights. To date I have seen nothing but emails from you mainting such exist.” is confusing due to this is not a minerals rights issue, No one is ’mining” here. I think the honorable thing for you to do here is for us to jointly agree on a third party surveyor to assess this and clearly determine what routes are off limits due to the trespass issue.
From reading these posts I think the SEC folks are fair minded common-sense folks who want to hear what is REALLY going on with this so that is why I have posted here even though I have been asked not to, thanks to all, Vance George

Basically you're throwing a hissy fit about some people doing something on or near the borders to your land, where you will never see them, hear from them, or be affected by them except to have the knowledge that someone may be there, now and then, and you want sympathy in this forum?

Get a life.

I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it.

Being respectful, listening openly to what the other party has to say, realizing that you may actually be wrong, and trying to come to a solution both parties agree on is what will solve problems.

I feel that the SCC has a responsibility to all its various donors to ensure that climbing access is in fact granted where they said it would be when donations were made. If that means investigating the issue of vertical property rights and having to buy a few yards of land at the top of the cliff, so be it. If that simply means investigating, discovering they did everything right in the first place, and just putting up with a little hassle to do so, great.

That sure beats the hell out of hiding information, refusing to address legitimate concerns, promoting access at an area illegally, and ultimately causing closure at a place people want to climb.

Wouldn't it be great to settle this by simple communication and compromise?

Basically you're throwing a hissy fit about some people doing something on or near the borders to your land, where you will never see them, hear from them, or be affected by them except to have the knowledge that someone may be there, now and then, and you want sympathy in this forum?

Get a life.

Umm, no. The First Amendment says that the government shall not infringe freedom of speech (despite evidence to the contrary, such as McCain-Feingold, but I digress). You do not have a right to express yourself in a private forum if they don't want you to. You can of course go outside and shout it to your heart's content, or until the neighbors beat you up.

It would help this country a lot if citizens were required to gain a basic understanding of civics instead of purchasing medical insurance. I mean, as long as we're requiring 'free' citizens to do things simply because some segment thinks it's a good idea.


And the Kumbaya crowd is heard from.

a) What makes you think that buying a strip at the top is an option? Wishful thinking? Having seen a lot of the discourse on the SCC website I'd have to say it isn't.

b) It's my understanding that they have listened respectfully, have put up with a great deal of hassle, and addressed legitimate concerns. It is my understanding that The SCC's lawyers feel strongly that climbers are not trespassing. Knowing the people who run the SCC, I believe that if they felt there was any legitimacy to the other owner's argument, they would tell people to stay away until it was resolved. Fortunately, they are not the kind of people to try and hide something just because it might make them look bad.Evidently, the owner above the cliff and, he says, his lawyers feel differently. If so, settling this 'by simple communication and compromise' isn't likely to happen, no matter how hard we tap our heels together and wish it were so.

c) How do you know that the SCC hasn't communicated with the donors?

I can assure you that letting this pissing match go on the website simply for the edification of a lot of people who may not have a dog in the fight (other than wanting to climb there) is a recipe for engendering further ill will and hardening positions.

You don't be any chance work for the Obama State Dept. do you?

Not me or my mother Bill. If you read the SCC has bought a tract of land. Now the Property lines run to the cliff, You following me. If VKGeorge's family owns the land to the cliff from the top and the sec owns the land to the cliff on the bottom. Then the person whom owns the land at the top has a vertical property line to the bottom. So as far as I can see VK George has every right to be pissed. Eighty percent of the wall is undercut so that would be his property. Read carefully the SCC has erased all threads concerning the matter. HIDING SOMETHING ARE WE? Why not tell the people whats happening?

meh, i cant visualize this. i need pictures, topos, something to help me grasp what the beef is.

Access has and always will be a problem in the South. But luckily, thanks to the SCC, we climbers are constantly having crags opened for us and by us.

Sometimes landowners are siked on having us! We will clean-up your land for free! We can pay all your bills! We will buy your land and keep it open to all, not destroy it and build on it!!
But someitmes we get land owners that sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNiR5ZTb_MA&feature=related