The wording on this is all wrong.
They refused his payments; he tried to pay the state so they could hold the money until things cleared up, but the state didn’t want to be part of the process; he then just stopped paying, because they refused the payments.
“he tried to pay the state so they could hold the money until things cleared up, but the state didn’t want to be part of the process; he then just stopped paying, because they refused the payments.”
So let me get this logic straight....
I lease something from Party A but I unilaterally decide that I am going to pay Party B instead.
Party B refuses to accept my payments because they are not the rightful owners and therefore not entitled to lease payments.
Party A has been trying to get satisfaction on this lease for 20 years including successful court decisions but I still insist I will only pay Party B even though they won’t accept payment.
I don’t even bother to put money in escrow to cover my a** in a show of good faith intention to eventually pay someone nor do I bother ever going to court to get a judgment against Party A for their supposed refusal to maintain roads or arbitrary changes to the lease agreement.
Since Party B won’t accept payments for something Party A owns, I am ok just using it for free and then crying foul when after almost 20 years of illegally using what isn’t mine, someone finally says “enough” ?
Wow that is a great deal....imagine what life would be like if everybody tried doing that with their rent, mortgages, car payments etc. (sarc)
Seriously though both sides on this issue are being stupid and reckless. The rancher sounds like someone who feels he is entitled to free “for profit” use of taxpayer owned land and the government is grossly overreacting with their current tactics and policies. This is a convoluted case and I don’t have sympathy for either side.