Gate on Hughes Creek Road to remain closed for now

Frustrated over recent efforts to open a gate on Hughes Creek Road that has been closed to the public for almost 40 years, landowners along the road recently presented a petition for abandonment of the road that was denied by the Ravalli County Commissioners. Some of the landowners sued, challenging that decision, but the case was dismissed by District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton. The landowners appealed that District Court decision, but it was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court. 

In the meantime, the landowners filed another lawsuit asking for a Writ of Review of the commissioners’ decision by the court. This was a “potential” avenue of relief mentioned in the Supreme Court’s decision. It turns out, though, that this suit has also been dismissed in District Court. That decision is currently under appeal.

Deputy County Attorney Dan Browder told the Commissioners at a meeting last that there was even less chance of a reversal on appeal in this case than there was on the first case. He expressed confidence that the District Court ruling would be upheld.

Based on the court rulings to date, Browder told the commission, the law of the land is that Hughes Creek Road is a public county road from the intersection of Hughes Creek Road and the Highway for 11.5 miles which takes it beyond the gate in question. He also noted that, according to state law, any obstruction on a public road that prevents vehicular traffic shall be immediately removed by the county.

The County Commissioners had already sent out a letter of notice that landowners had until September 23 to remove or open the gate, or the county would do it and bill the landowner.

Michael Mikolaichik, owner of the property on which the gate sits, who was not a party in the lawsuit still under appeal, was at the September 21 meeting and, reading from a prepared statement said that he moved to Montana to get close to nature and get to know God personally.

“Sadly, my move to Montana has not been what I hoped for,” he said. He said what he found was a local government that “does not care for or respect the people but only special interest groups and their own lust for power.” He said what he was facing was a hostile takeover of his land by local government “by coercion of lies, dirty politics, lack of full disclosure, as well as other means,” and accused the commissioners of trampling on his constitutional and inalienable rights.

Speaking to members of the public who were there to support public access, he said, “Who do you think you are to believe that you have the right to assert the right you hold over me on my own land?” He called their opinion “meaningless” and declared that it “shall bear no validity in this matter.”

“I assure you if you hold to your selfish and corrupt position you will have your day of judgment. Remember, what goes around comes around,” he said. He accused the commissioners of “actually assaulting the elderly, the uneducated, the weak, the poor and the indefensible” in order to steal from the people.

“The county government is acting as a predator and a willing agent in helping special interest groups in establishing the policy and agenda of the New World Order and the One World Government,” he said.  

He listed ten “facts” that read more like a list of accusations about lying, making public information unavailable and holding “sham” hearings that were nothing but a “kangaroo court.”

Mikolaichik claims that a USGS map from 1900 shows that the Alta Post Office was not located where the commissioners say it was when the road was adopted. He claims the map shows the post office on the West Fork Road and not on Hughes Creek Road and starting from that point the 11.8-mile-long road would end before reaching the gate under consideration. He claims that is why the properties beyond the gate don’t show a road easement on their deeds like the properties below the gate do.

He also criticized the county for taking the position that he is not a human but a corporate trust. He said the name was misspelled on the documents and that this fact invalidates the documents.

“You must relinquish any claim to any link to any corporate trust that I may or may not be involved with or have, or that the government may have on my behalf,” he said. “I am a man. I am not a corporation and I demand that I be treated as such.”

“We would like to work things out, but we do have a contingency plan in the works. We plan to fight for our land, and our property and our rights,” he said. He said he was ready to file civil and criminal complaints against the county and against individuals. He also planned to campaign against the commissioners who were running for office. He mentioned some laws that he believed had been violated.

“We landowners are ready for a legal war,” he said. He told the commissioners they need to “do what is right morally, constitutionally and legally.” He demanded that the county drop its efforts to “force a road in” and issue a written apology saying they were wrong and that they would never pursue the matter ever again. He said this was a chance for a peaceful resolution. He said in return he would not pursue any prosecutions or damages. He warned the commissioners that they were liable as individuals.

“Do we have an understanding, commissioners?” he concluded.

Lola Grenfell said that she thought the whole issue was due to a personal vendetta because some Forest Service people were refused access.

“I’m almost dead,” she said, “and I will take every damn dime I’ve got to save my property,” she said. “I think the commissioners really need to think about how long they want to carry this on.”

Jay Bugli, another property owner, noted that the trailhead was not accessible from the road right-of-way, making it a “road to nowhere.”

Several people spoke in support of the landowners’ position. Jess Clarks, who owns property above the gate, said that it was not coming out until the commissioners showed some documentation of an easement on their property.

Several people also spoke in favor of the commission’s actions and supported the immediate removal of the gate, saying that the lawsuit was over and that public access had prevailed and the commissioners should move forward with opening the road as the law requires.

Bob Driggers, a member of Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association, said that from 15 to 25 sections of public land lay beyond the gate that the public had been shut out of for several years.

“My contention is, that’s our public land behind that gate that we’ve been excluded from for several years,” he said. He urged the commissioners to remove the gate immediately.

Jim Olson, also with Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association, said, “We all know it’s a public road and you can’t block public access.” He said it was the landowners who were robbing the public and urged the commissioners to open the gate.

Commissioner Doug Schallenberger said that he voted to abandon the road but that the decision went the other way due to the law which does not give the commissioners the authority to close a county road if it accesses public land. He said it was demonstrated that the road does touch public land and accesses public waters. He said the access was minimal, but it was there.

Commissioner Ray Hawk, who also voted for abandoning the road, said he would probably still vote that way. 

“But this thing has gone to the Supreme Court. That pretty much does it for us,” said Hawk. “I don’t think we are here to retry the case.” He said he felt like the gate should remain up until the landowners exhausted all their legal options.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott said “If there was a poll of the commissioners prior to the vote, it would probably show no chance in hell that they would vote to open the road.” He said the Board was a longtime advocate of private property rights, but the law in this case does not allow the commission to abandon the road.

“No one wanted to deny this petition to abandon,” said Chilcott, “but we are duty bound to follow the law…the bottom line is this was not a decision this board wanted to make.”

Commissioner Chris Hoffman said he didn’t think he would vote the way he did, but it was the law that tipped him on the issue. He took offense at being called a liar who doesn’t follow the constitution. He said he had followed the law and constitution all his life, “but it doesn’t always turn out the way you want it to,” he said. 

Commission Chair Jeff Burrows said he found it interesting that, when he first got into office, “I was this right wing radical extremist on property rights and it’s actually come full circle. Now I’m implementing Agenda 21 and the New World Order. That’s interesting that in six years you can come full circle. But it’s false. We are not influenced by outside money, in fact, we’ve called out this outside dark money.” He said it was interesting that the property rights activists and the environmentalists were both accusing the commission of being in bed with the other.

Burrows said no one was ignoring any evidence and said he had all the records and his notes of the meeting and that the deliberations were sincere.

“It seems like we walked in here thinking it was a slam dunk and that we were going to leave the gate alone and blow this thing off,” he said. He said he was shocked when the evidence was presented and the law pointed out. He said the trailhead may not be on public property but the road does touch public property and travels through public property at a few places. He said he had visited the site above the gate and seen those points of contact. He said he did not want Hughes Creek Road in the county’s inventory, “but we found that it was and we have to take that on.”

The discussion then turned to the danger of serious conflict if the road was opened with no preparation or signage. The landowners were asked if they would join in an effort to avoid confrontation and allow the commission to get beyond the gate to prepare the road so that everything was clear to the public when they traversed the private property.

“I’m not here to work something out with you,” said Mikeilievich, “I’m here to fight for my property rights.”

Burrows responded, saying, “If you are going to continue to say ‘over my dead body’ we are not going to get anywhere.” He said once again that the commission “got blind-sided by the law.” He said when they came in they were coming to abandon the road. He said, “It would be easy to let the access groups force us to do it.” He said the statute says that the encroachment shall be removed “immediately.”

Hoffman said that he couldn’t vote in favor of leaving the gate up unless there was a deadline to open it. But he also said opening it would put the sheriff in an “impossible position.” 

Attorney Browder clarified that the letter sent to the landowners gave them till the 23rd to open the gate themselves. If they don’t, he said, then the commission could decide to take the gate down itself, but there was no deadline stated for that action.

In answer to the question as to whether a member of the public could open the gate or take it down, Browder advised that the commissioners could not prevent the public from using the road, but said the public had no authority to remove the encroachment. He said that was the duty of the county commission.

Chilcott then began a search for some other law that would allow them to close the road above the gate temporarily while some solution was worked out.

Browder said that temporary closures were allowed by statute but had to be for an emergency or for maintenance and repairs.

Burrows said that would not work because that was not the reason they would be closing it.

In the end, the commissioners voted to continue the meeting to January 15 at 1 p.m. and leave the gate closed in the meantime. Burrows said that between now and the January meeting the county could offer to work out a plan for opening the road, working with the landowners if they would allow it. He said if they remain unwilling to cooperate, the county will have at least showed a good faith effort by then and could move to re-open the road at that time.