My December column for ORC on a subject many have talked about but few know much about.

http://www.off-road.com/land/four_corners/index.html

Barking Dog Road; Little Road, Big Dispute
by Brad Ullrich, Land Use Editor


Sometime during the summer of 1999 near the town of Lyons, CO, not far from Rocky Mountain National Park, a series of events started that has since become something of a legend among four wheelers concerned with land use issues. The events I am referring to concern a dispute surrounding a little known road known by locals as the Barking Dog Road or Trail. Much has been said and a little bit has been written over the intervening 3 ½ years during which this story has unfolded and it is my intention to finally set the full story, up to this point, down in an understandable format. Names of many of the people involved will be left out (including my main source of information) due to ongoing or upcoming legal actions, but a couple of the principles' names are known to everyone familiar with the story so they will be referred to by name.

Barking Dog Road, referred to on some maps as Boulder County Road 87 leaves the highway a short distance outside the town of Lyons. The road has been used for many years by locals as forest service access or as a mildly challenging trip for a couple hours away from town. After leaving the highway it crosses the St. Vrain River via a concrete bridge that was constructed back in the early 1960s. For as long as most people can remember, after crossing the creek there was a hand painted sign on the cliff above the road that said something to the effect of "Private Property Next 2.5 miles, please stay on the Road", something which everyone did anyway because the road is a shelf road for much of the way and there isn't anywhere else to drive. But, sometime during the summer of 1999 the old sign disappeared and a new one appeared saying "No Motorized Vehicles". This is where the story actually begins.

To fully understand what the dispute is all about it is necessary to know a little history of the Barking Dog Road. The road is shown on various Boulder County maps going back many years, and on many of the maps it is shown as County Road 87 to Jamestown. But the history of the road goes back much further than even the available maps show, it can be documented to 1870. The road exists because many years ago the area was heavily mined, and of course access was needed to the various claims in the area. Barking Dog Road runs through the Highland Placer claim, and for at least 40 years, according to the former caretaker of the claim, the road has been considered a public road because there has not been any active mining in the area. In fact, according to another local historian, the road can be documented for many years as running all the way to the old town of Ballarat, through the Highland Placer to the Smuggler mine as access to the mine's power plant. But, in 1999 the property on which the road begins, the old Highland Placer claim, was purchased by a man from New Mexico named Mark Boslough. Mr. Boslough is the current owner and is the one responsible for attempting to close the road.

Shortly after the "No Motorized Vehicles" sign was posted boulders began to appear in the middle of the road, effectively blocking access for most vehicles. Also, trees were felled along the road to block vehicles from driving. This activity has been attributed to Boslough, angering both local four wheelers and a local land owner who needs access along the road to some property he owns. In fact, sometime in late 1999 this landowner remarked that there was no way Boslough could close the road, and he has since initiated legal action. Early in 2000 the individual that I talked to concerning these events did some research at the Boulder County government offices. He discovered that under Title 43 of the Colorado Statutes it is illegal to close a public road that extends to public lands, and doing so punishable as a misdemeanor under 43-2-201.1. Furthermore it is legal for a citizen to remove such obstructions to regain access to the road.

Conversations with county officials ensued, and a lot of conflicting information and misinformation was to follow. Maps in the possession of officials of the Transportation Division of Boulder County, which oddly enough falls under the Parks and Open Spaces Department, show the road as County Road 87 going back many years. But, Boulder County has a history of abandoning roads and not following the law in doing so, according to the officials in the Transportation Division it is usual practice just to remove a road from the map if the county does not want to maintain it in the future! This research and exchange of information continued up until June 2000 at which point the county officials sent Boslough a letter stating that according to Colorado law he needed the approval of all adjacent landowners, including the U.S. Forest Service, to close the road. Oddly enough, this letter was later retracted and the county officials that had been so helpful up to this point were told not to get involved in this dispute any more, the County Attorney wrote a letter saying that the officials had "misunderstood" what was going on.

In the late spring or early summer of 2000 some of the people that desired to use the road for motorized recreation decided to reopen the road as they determined was their right under Colorado law. It was announced on the "About Public Lands" website that a work crew was being formed to clear the road, and in the summer of 2000 about a half dozen people showed up at the designated time to reopen the road. The road was cleared, in fact the land owner that has since initiated legal action against Boslough thanked the people involved for reopening the road. The Boulder County Sheriff was also informed that the road had been reopened, and he walked the road saying everything looked OK to him, it was good that the road had been reopened because he remembered using it back in the 1950s.

It was at this point that Boslough apparently became angry, accusing the four wheelers of tearing things up (even going so far as accusing them of driving in a wetland where one doesn't even exist!) and called a New Mexico Congresswoman who called local Boulder County officials to complain about what Boslough perceived as trespassing on his private property. Subsequent to the New Mexican politician's involvement cooperation from Boulder County officials in this matter became virtually nonexistent. Boulder County has a history, as mentioned previously, of circumventing the law when it comes to road closures anyway, at times going so far as to land lock property owners.

You may at this point wonder where I am going with this story about a road not many have heard of and doesn't even go any great distance. First of all, there are clear RS2477 implications here, the road can easily be shown as having existed as far back as 1870 as a public thoroughfare, far longer than the 20 years on public land and 18 years on private land that a road must be traveled under the law to be shown as an existing public road. There have been several actions of note under RS2477 in the past several years, but none of them address the issues involved here. What usually happens is a county or other local government sues the federal government to try to reopen a road the feds have closed, but in this instance it is a private property owner that closed the road and the county seemingly has no interest in seeing it reopened. Furthermore, the local USFS Ranger has stated that as far as he is concerned the road needs to remain open because it provides access to forest service land.

Keep your eye on this one. Legal action in the near future appears to be imminent, in fact money to help in the legal battle to reopen the road has been solicited this fall on a Colorado four wheeling website. If you would like to become involved in this land use battle contact us and we can make the necessary contacts and inquiries to get you involved if need be. And one last note addressed to Mr. Boslough personally. I have read much of what you have printed concerning your side of this story, and I am wondering on what you are basing the closing of the Barking Dog Road. From all appearances the public has a right to use this road if they stay on the road, which due to the nature of the terrain has never been an issue.

Originally posted by landuseorc
...And one last note addressed to Mr. Boslough personally. I have read much of what you have printed concerning your side of this story, and I am wondering on what you are basing the closing of the Barking Dog Road...

Would you happen to have his ramblings available to post, or link?
Thanks.

MJ

Originally posted by Maine Jeepah


Would you happen to have his ramblings available to post, or link?
Thanks.

MJ

Here's some recent BS from his wife and friends:
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

A lot of what I was referring to is from a couple years ago, some of it emails from Boslough wanting me to tell his side of the story. Those I don't have anymore.

Originally posted by landuseorc


Here's some recent BS from his wife and friends:
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp
From the link:
"4. From the photographs, most of the four wheelers could use the exercise of walking a bit more anyway. "



BAHAHAHAHAA! :flipoff2:

Those quotes form the county commisioner, the county attorney, and the district ranger, and the sherrif are all contradictory to what you wrote above. Have things changed since Jan of 2002 in this regard? Or is this a classic case of taking sides and you happen to quote your side and they quote theirs...and people in the same parts of government cannot agree?

Confusing..
MJ

Originally posted by Maine Jeepah


BAHAHAHAHAA! :flipoff2:

Those quotes form the county commisioner, the county attorney, and the district ranger, and the sherrif are all contradictory to what you wrote above. Have things changed since Jan of 2002 in this regard? Or is this a classic case of taking sides and you happen to quote your side and they quote theirs...and people in the same parts of government cannot agree?

Confusing..
MJ

Boulder County is reportedly very green. Also, like I mentioned in the article, a "gag" order of sorts was put on county officials by the county atty. My whole purpose for printing the article was the fact that Boslough's people have spread so much misinformation on places like Dark Endeavors that our side had to be told. And btw, just to show you how off base these people are, they are blaming Mile Hi Jeepers, and that club had absolutely nothing to do with the reopening of the road by the small work crew a couple years ago. It was done by Vernon Brandt and Harold Ogden who at the time had the About Public Lands website.

Originally posted by landuseorc


Boulder County is reportedly very green.

Boulder is often refered to as "The People's Republik of Boulder". Kind of an island in the middle of Colorado. :flipoff2:

Pete

Originally posted by pcorssmit


Boulder is often refered to as "The People's Republik of Boulder". Kind of an island in the middle of Colorado. :flipoff2:

Pete

Take it from me, I work with the public on natural resource issues on a daily basis and Boulder is not the island you may think it is. A much better way to break it down is rural vs. urban. There are an awful lot of touchy feely types all up and down the front range.
Oh well they keep my days interesting.:rolleyes:

Over on http://www.colorado4x4.org/ we have had heated discussions via that site with Mark, or his login name Bobby Knobby, or Knobby Bobby. There is a gentleman on CO4x4 that is raising money to get this trail reopened. He goes by vb over there. ANYTHING HELPS!!!

Thanks I will go back to lurking status......:beer:

Originally posted by 1bgdog
Over on http://www.colorado4x4.org/ we have had heated discussions via that site with Mark, or his login name Bobby Knobby, or Knobby Bobby. There is a gentleman on CO4x4 that is raising money to get this trail reopened. He goes by vb over there. ANYTHING HELPS!!!

Thanks I will go back to lurking status......:beer:

Yep. That's what I referred to when I mentioned money solicited on a website. And, I think its pretty obvious vb was my main source, spent a couple hours on the phone with him thurs. nite.:D Haven't communicated with Boslough for a couple years, I figure I'll be hearing from him again.;)

Brad,
Boslough will probably start lurking over here, inserting "his" view about the environmental damage to the "riparian" area. All because he wants to keep the land around the ROW closed illegally. It is sad to see someone so selfish twist laws for his own benefit. Help if you can everyone out there in POR land.

Wow two posts in one day, and no one has flamed me yet..... LOL

:beer:

Land Use Coalition (http://www.landusecoalition.org)

A lot of information of Boulder County Tactics here.

Originally posted by 1bgdog
Wow two posts in one day, and no one has flamed me yet..... LOL

:beer:

But they weren't your typical "newbie" posts. Your time will come. :)

Brad,

I'll assume you are a member of BRC, and I'll also assume you get their magazine. pickup your Sept 2002 issue and goto page 32.

no wait. let me post a link for those that don't have it.

http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=42&story=54

sounds like the same thing, but in a different state.

Hopefully it will have a similar outcome.

We had some simular BS happen at one of our local Roads.
The guy who owns SOUTHWIRE (feel free NOT to do buisness with them) bought a parcel of property ajacent to Anderson Creek ORV. Well there was a road that bisected his property. This road has been there forever and heavily used by hunters to access FS Property. Well the owner (whome we will refer to Jack Ass JA for short) decides to close the road. Puts up gates that were promptly knocked down. Ends up sending a bull dozer in all the way to the end of his property where it borders FS property and digs as 10 foot wide 8ft 30 ft long tank trap accross the road. Put hes gates back up and has a bunch of junior JA's running around on ATV's with guns intimidating anybody that showed up.

Well the FS says nothing about this because you need to remember that many FS people alingn themselves with GAG's so they didn't do their job by protecting public interest and public access to public property.

So the county is contacted because this was shown as a County rd up to the FS property. Well the county tap danced because of $MONEY$ because they didn't want to get into a lawsuit where they would be protecting PUBLIC interests and using PUBLIC money to do so. They wanted another group to come in and start the battle to share the finacial burden...See JA is quite wealthy.
So JA keeps up intimidating both those the come near the area as well as atmepting to intimidate the local CO government with threats of lawers and lawsuits.

Well the locals as well as the 4x4 groups finnaly persuaded the CO to step in and open the road. The CO ran a buldozer down the road taking out the gates and moutnings along the way and filled in the tank trap. Took over a year to reopen that road.

Now the FS is trying to close it on their end and make it all ATV trails. Seems they didn't know the existing trails could accomidate "Full width vehicles" Funny they have been for the last 50 years. My Full size blazer fits just fine down those trails. We are working on that and have made progress but the FS kind of likes to make decisions without full disclosure to the public.

Bottom line is the County will have to get involved but it's going to take take presure from residents as well as groups such as 4x4 associations and BRC to put the pressure on to get the county to stop this idiots attempts at shutting down the road.

Originally posted by Knobby
I got kicked off of another bulletin board for pissing off people with the facts. I hope you folks are o.k. with facts, but I will understand if you kick me off of this one, too, because the facts support the property owner in the Barking Dog case.

You might want to read the landowner's rebuttal to Vernon Brandt's (I mean Brad Ulrichs') editorial. The owner says that Barking Dog Road was never a county road, and shows and official map that proves it. So who are you gonna believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?

http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

So anyways, Vernon says he has a map that proves the County Road went all the way through. Maybe if this is really true, he will show us. I predict that he will not let us see it. And I think I know why.
Perhaps you should read RS2477.
I'll give you the high lights.
Any road or througfair that has been in continuous use for (I believe 20 years it may be 50) with out protest by the owner will become a public property. So basicly if the previous owners did not protest it in the last 100 years tough shit to the current owner.

Originally posted by Grim Reaper

Perhaps you should read RS2477.
I'll give you the high lights.
Any road or througfair that has been in continuous use for (I believe 20 years it may be 50) with out protest by the owner will become a public property. So basicly if the previous owners did not protest it in the last 100 years tough shit to the current owner.

That's the bottom line, you got it exactly right.;)

Originally posted by landuseorc


That's the bottom line, you got it exactly right.;)
I got my United public land owner manual and read it. ;)

Welcome to POR vb. Boslough can chase this thing all around the web and still not get anywhere.:D

ok i just changed my responce to this so i wont run off ol knobby, man i wanted to put a por b.s. down

Originally posted by Knobby


Dear Grim,

Thank you for your interpretation of RS2477.

This is the entire text of RS 2477: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not reserved for public purposes is hereby granted."

Would you mind letting the rest of us know where this thing about continuous use comes in? I didn't see any reference to 20 or 50 years. This is quite puzzling. Please explain.

Knob

PS I promise ot be polite on this forum, even if people are jerks to me.
Hehe I'll tell you what I found a nice web site that has all the rulings and stuff on it.

Here is one of the rulings.
The Wilkenson court explicitly recognized that "mere use" is sufficient to constitute "construction" under the terms of R.S. 2477. Id.

The standards articulated by the courts were reflected in the BLM Manual (Rel. 2-263, March 3, 1989), which defined construction as follows:

[A] physical act of readying the highway for use by the public according to the available or intended mode of transportation - foot, horse, vehicle, etc. Removing high vegetation, moving large rocks out of the way, or filling low spots, etc., may be sufficient as construction for a particular case. Road maintenance or the passage of vehicles by users over time may equal actual construction.

This site mostly applies to how RS2477 applies to BLM and FS lands but it has a huge amount of Documentation of cases where the law was used and interpeted and the decisions of the courts that also must be taken into concidertaion because they present precidence for any current battles. You can also find refference to to supporting laws that were invoked along with RS2477 as well as the laws that reafirm the basic pricipal of the law as well as the laws that replaced RS2477 in 76
http://www.rs2477roads.com/

Here are some more stuff that may pertain.



BLM Manual 2801.41B1b.

8. Congress granted a right-of-way, not a road. In fact, RS 2477 rights-of-way can host a number of things besides roads. The legal definition of "highway" in the law means not only the frequently-traveled, periodically-maintained roads commonly associated with it, but also other kinds of public ways, including carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, and even railroads, canals, ferries and navigable rivers. The essential element in defining "highway" is that whatever the means of transport, the public has the right to come and go at will.

9. The present physical condition of a road is totally irrelevant to whether a valid RS 2477 right-of-way exists. This should be obvious, but this is the point on which the anti-access folks are spreading the most misinformation. Whether a road is barely visible on the ground or even has been obliterated for any other reason, the legal status of the right-of-way is not affected. The grantee can legally re-establish the road even if it has totally disappeared. It follows, then, that it also is impossible to determine whether a valid right-of-way exists simply by looking at it. A right-of-way can only be relinquished or abandoned in accordance with state law.

10. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of vehicles. The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear: construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don't be mislead.





Here is one with a dating. Now understand that while it was repealed it was reratified by Nixon and any lands that can predate 1976 are still able to use the law.

R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., in 1976. Any R.S. 2477 right-of-way must have been perfected prior to the repeal of R.S. 2477. This means that only rights-of-way that have been in existence for over seventeen years can be valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way today. Most R.S. 2477 rights-of-way have been in existence much longer.

Here is something else.

2. Congress specifically and clearly reaffirmed the validity and intent of RS 2477 in 1976. Because RS 2477 became law in 1866, anti-access extremists argue that it is now somehow inconsistent with modern public land management policy. But just 22 years ago, when Congress repealed RS 2477 and replaced it and many other laws with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it specifically and explicitly reaffirmed all RS 2477 grants previously made.

The time line was defind in the new laws that replaced the original RS2477 ruling.
See most of the stuff your going to find on the net has to do with this law applied to public lands. It's intent was to protect the public from being blocked from normal and estabilished routes of travel. Now since your blocking a road traditionaly used access to public lands you are also in violation of the law.
The road can be proven to exist before you were born. You might tie this up in court for years but eventually a Judge will rule in favor of all those your blocking access to and may require you to pay all the associated costs and lawers fee's. Basicly you better have some damn deep pockets because if you don't and the court decides to hold you accountable for the costs then you man not have a pot to piss in after this.

Might check into this-> Federal Land Policy and Management Act and don't forget to look at the parts pertaining established routes of access to public lands as well as laws protecting those who land has to be accessed via that established route.

Originally posted by Knobby


Hello Brad. I forwarded your private message to the person to whom it was addressed. I am surprised that you agree with the previous person's interpretation of RS2477. You are a land use specialist, am I not mistaken? Is there an expert out there (maybe an attorney) who can explain RS2477 to all of us? I thought I understood it fairly well, but I had never heard that it had anything to do with prescriptive easments or adverse possession. Am I mistaken? Or is Brad right? Where in the law does it talk about continuous use. Or is RS2477 a red herring in the Barking Dog case?

Knobby the Newbie

Knobby, from my experience with RS2477 it seems that interpretation is on a case basis. Previous cases that I am aware of have gone in this direction.

Colorado has a provision that protects property owners from being land locked.

RS2477 does not apply if you can proive another route or point of access. Even if the access is out of the way.

VB and Knobby both have maps that show/don't show the road going all the way through.

VB and Knobby both have maps that show a large trail network in the area, with a one going all the way through.

The Roosevelt National Forest showed the trail going all the way through with the trail designation of 297. Starting at where the current Boulder County maps show CR87 terminating and continuing down to HWY 7.

The Forest Service built a bridge on the trail before the owners claimed it was private property.

Roosevelt National Forest took the trail off their maps in 1997.

The trail was taken off several other maps in 1999.

Boulder county closed CR87 in 2000 at the top of Balarat Hill at what they feel is the end of CR87. This closure is from the Jamestown side of the trail and closes an additional 4/10ths of a mile into 'Private Property'

In 1898 and 1904, the owners of the Smuggler Mine petioned Boulder County to make the trail a county road. This was turned down.

The Smuggler Mine switched from claim to Private Property in the very late 1890's. Knobby claims that the trail was there after that time frame. VB claims that the trail was there before that. Both say they have documentaion to support their claim.

There is public land that will be land locked should the trail be closed. Not much, about 4 acres I think.

Knobby was banned for 30 days from CO4x4 because he (They) continued to drill the Mile High Jeep club after being warned not too.

VB has staed who he is and has not hidden behind a cloak of deception. Knobby is a collective of people who will not come forward.

VB asks Knobby to prove his case without being hostile. Check out the posts on CO4x4 and you will see that these are not very friendly people while disguised as Knobby on the internet.

Knobby only uses vulgar tactics, name calling and telling everyone that VB is a liar and a thief. Has distorted the facts on several occasions.

VB, while he cannot spell and his grammer is bad, has asked to engage Knobby in constructive communication. To my knowledge, Knobby has not done this.

Who owns the trail (row) is in question and the outcome should be quite interesting.

From what I understand, a private landowner is taking the Bosloughs to court in April to establish a ROW easement across the property. The Bosloughs have closed off access to this property through theirs.

These are facts as I have gleaned from my research. Some of it may or may not be accurate depending on whom you talk too.

God bless you VB... :flipoff2:

Hello Knob-less.
I recognize your style, your tone, and your intentions.
This sort of manipulative, deceptive poison stinks to high heaven.
What makes you think that you can come on this board and expect people to be fooled by your obvious untruths?

The fact that you (or your "group") refuse to be recognized as individuals does nothing to lend credability to your messages.


Originally posted by Knobby


Dear Vernon,

Pleased to meet you. I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I can assure you--as I have done in the past--that Knobby is not actually a person. Knobby is an account that is shared by more than one individual. But this is rehashing old business.
. . .
Sincerely,

Knobster

Who exactly is in your "group"? What is the goal or shared purpose? When posting with this "account" I would suggest that the member of your group posting under the account identify themselves with something more than the account ID.

Your feigned concern about Vernon's alleged anger and your insincere naevete about people's humorous login names is clear testament to your skilled ability to twist anything and everything to your advantage.

People (excuse me, "groups") like you make me sick, but we here are not fooled by your little games, and I am confident you will find little shelter from the intollerance this board shows to people ("groups") who don't tell it like it is.

As a landowner myself, one of my greatest fears is that someone (a "group"?) like you might decide to make it thier mission to start playing games with my little peice of paradise.
The difference is, I accept my land under the conditions which I purchased it, you and your type seek to re-write the rules after you have gotten in to make things more to your liking.

In this case, the selfish goals of your little band of freaks seeks to deny access of citizens to public lands. You academics (college professor, right?) are commonly accused of being out of touch with the real world.
You people may think you are better than those that you would deny passage to via this road, that this rabble and thier little hobby of driving crazy gas guzzling trucks through the wilderness should probably be controlled, their sport outlawed. Certainly (you must believe) this has GOT to be bad for the planet, right?

Well, this is AMERICA, not some artificial hierarchy of tenured professors with treed jackets and little leather patches on their elbows, smoking pipes by the fire, sipping brandy and reading Byron.

We are AMERICANS! In the tradition of the people that carved this country from the wilderness.
AMERICANS, with the spirit to fight against tyrany like the people who kicked out the British and established a system of government that represents us all.

I personally do not beleive that the government should own as much of the land in the country as they do today, but by God, since they do, they damn sure better make sure that the land is in their stewardship FOR the people of this country to use and enjoy, and not protecting the land FROM the people who are the backbone of this nation.

Words can be powerful tools, or even weapons, and you are trained to use them well, but what you are creating or fighting for with your words is just plain wrong.

You and your elitist "group" should prepare for a long unpleasant seige.
Your kind is not welcome here.
Please do us all a favor and stop posting now.

<hey look! no profanity!>

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

I had the pleasure of meeting vb this past spring on a business trip to Colorado. He was one of the nicest guys I met and took me out on a few hour expedition to some of the local trails. I had a great time. Unlike Knobby, he does exist; he is not a figment of anybody's imagination as much as the group behind Knobby wish for.

Here's the map that vb had posted on the other site, I copied and pasted into a single pic that would fit in an acceptably sized picture. Take a gander.. that road doesn't lead to nowhere like the knobs would like us to believe.

Last I checked, at least in WA state. You can't legally land lock someone from their property.

Which is essentially what you are trying to do by closing that road.

I bet the laws are similar in Colorado State.


BTW - regarding the bridge? Why don't YOU prove VIA documents that the PREVIOUS owners of your property built the bridge. If you can, then you have a chance at saying the road is private. Last I checked the burdon of proof is on YOU!

I can almost guarantee you can't, who back then besides the feds could afford to build a 22 ton cement bridge?

knob... you are flat ass wrong... I don't need to read countless pages to know that. Your argument just doesn't hold water based on the bridge alone.

Never mind the fact if it is listed as a forest service road on ANY map prior to yours, that road is NOT private. Yes you CAN have a public road running through Private property.

Why don't you want people on that road anyway?

Originally posted by Knobby


Johnny J! Good job! You provided a map! It looks like County Road 87 went trough to Highway 7, just like VB has been saying all along! Did you notice that it doesn't go to Balarat? Did you notice that it is about a mile east of Barking Dog Trail? OOOOOPS!

Knobless

You mean to tell me the government moved the the mountains and river since 1953!? Holy cow! This is a conspiracy! :flipoff2:

I did compare the maps before posting it and from what I saw the 1953 version seemed to follow the same basic path with less resolution as the latest county map. I didn't depend on the grid lines or grid numbering, but instead used features that tend to move less over time: mountains and streams/rivers.

I also noted that they are both marked 87, which would also lead me to believe they are the same road. It would seem odd to me that the county would just decide to move the road name 87 from a road that connected two cities to a road that dead ended going nowhere...

Like I stated above, it looks like the 1953 map has less resolution. It doesn't follow every bend that the new computer generated map does. Big deal. From my experience, that is not uncommon.

I have had similar experiences with maps in my area. I started with a DNR map to gain access to some local trails. While there I ran my GPS to capture my path and then created a map based on the data taken. My map provides much greater resolution of the same trails that are shown on the DNR's map.

The same phenomena that Knobby is trying to use to discredit the map (doesn't all go throught the same boxes) occurs on my map. But if I wanted to follow the DNR's map to the dot then I would be plowing through trees and driving in one of the Great Lakes, so instead I followed the trail that has existed for years and let the GPS capture that path. The DNR agreed with my simple conclusion that the GPS has better resolution than most of their surveys done to capture roads and trails on maps; too bad Knobby is having such a hard time grasping the same concept. (makes me scared to think that he's a scientist for our govt and can't grasp such a basic idea)

Originally posted by Knobby


Jonny J,

That's quite an initerpretation you came up with there. Do you think a district judge will buy your theory about resolution? Let me get this sraight. Map makers in 1953 did not have computers, so they couldn't draw lines accurately enough to come within a half mile or so of where they intended them to be.?

JONNY'S LOW-RESOLUTION THEORY:
For now, I will call this "Jonny's Low-Resolution Map Theory". It goes like this. In the mid-20th century, cartographers were given very poor drafting equipment. They are able to draw solid lines (representing streams) very accuratly, but the technology had not yet been developed for accurately portraying dashed lines to represent unmaintained roads. Perhaps they hired young schoolchildren and who were too young to use pencil sharpeners, and had trouble coloring between the lines.

So when they drew in Balarat Creek, (where Barking Dog Trail is) they were able to draw it in the right squares. When they drew in the unmaintained road labeled "87" they could not follow the same path.

They also could not connect dots. The Balarat Mining Camp is in the middle of "square 1" The children who drew the 1953 maps had trouble stearing their unsharpened pencils into square 1, and therefore the map PROVES that county road 87 went to Balarat.

KNOBBY'S "DIFFERENT ROAD" THEORY

The map is of high enough resolution to clearly differentiate between between Balarat Creek and County Road 87. From 1953 to 1968, the county road followed something called "The Dunbar Road", which is a well-known road in the area that is about a half mile east of the present course of County Road 87. The Dunbar Road goes through "square 7" which is the property of Cal-Wood Environmental Education Center (sounds like a bunch of greenies). Maybe they wouldn't mind opening the historic County Road 87 to off-road recration.

Barking Dog Trail is not shown on this official map, because when the map was made, Barking Dog Trail had not yet been constructed by the owner of the property it crosses.

Of course we can speculate to our hearts' content. The question is: which theory will the judge believe? I think Jonny's got an uphill battle!

Knobby the Theoretical Guy
The maps being off happen all the time. My street has a simular problem. I can go on mapsonus.com and look up my street and it says it doesn't exist. It says I live on a street with a different name that is actuuly the street behind me. Most county maps show the same.
In the 50's they didn't have GPS at all now we do and the government crap is acturate down to about 3 ft most of the time.
Why not go and see if you can see the road from satalite photos.
http://www.terraserver.com/
Here is Lyons CO http://www.terraserver.com/v5image.asp?image_guid={21D09B2B-E02A-4E26-A64B-7A04F85DF488}&image_scale=15
Have fun....it you have GPS numbers you can pick it off real quick.
Ohh yeah these phots were also used to help redo a lot of maps to increase the acuracy and could very well be why there is a descrepency.

Originally posted by Knobby


Jonny J,

That's quite an initerpretation you came up with there. Do you think a district judge will buy your theory about resolution? Let me get this sraight. Map makers in 1953 did not have computers, so they couldn't draw lines accurately enough to come within a half mile or so of where they intended them to be.?

JONNY'S LOW-RESOLUTION THEORY:
For now, I will call this "Jonny's Low-Resolution Map Theory". It goes like this. In the mid-20th century, cartographers were given very poor drafting equipment. They are able to draw solid lines (representing streams) very accuratly, but the technology had not yet been developed for accurately portraying dashed lines to represent unmaintained roads. Perhaps they hired young schoolchildren and who were too young to use pencil sharpeners, and had trouble coloring between the lines.

So when they drew in Balarat Creek, (where Barking Dog Trail is) they were able to draw it in the right squares. When they drew in the unmaintained road labeled "87" they could not follow the same path.

They also could not connect dots. The Balarat Mining Camp is in the middle of "square 1" The children who drew the 1953 maps had trouble stearing their unsharpened pencils into square 1, and therefore the map PROVES that county road 87 went to Balarat.

KNOBBY'S "DIFFERENT ROAD" THEORY

The map is of high enough resolution to clearly differentiate between between Balarat Creek and County Road 87. From 1953 to 1968, the county road followed something called "The Dunbar Road", which is a well-known road in the area that is about a half mile east of the present course of County Road 87. The Dunbar Road goes through "square 7" which is the property of Cal-Wood Environmental Education Center (sounds like a bunch of greenies). Maybe they wouldn't mind opening the historic County Road 87 to off-road recration.

Barking Dog Trail is not shown on this official map, because when the map was made, Barking Dog Trail had not yet been constructed by the owner of the property it crosses.

Of course we can speculate to our hearts' content. The question is: which theory will the judge believe? I think Jonny's got an uphill battle!

Knobby the Theoretical Guy

Hey.. umm...

Ever consider that the road may have ben mapped out properly BUT BUT BUT the contractors that BUILT the road didn't follow the line exactly? That is not UNCOMMON AT ALL! Check your fence lines in suburban areas... they are almost ALL off. I could see the road builders going around some features to save time money, that deviated from the planners maps. And the planner never updates them. Thats not unusual at all.

BTW, listen fucker... before you start making accusations about other clubs hurting the environment and quoting sources... maybe you should have also mentioned this:

"*Note: the small hole (size of pen) was quickly plugged, and ANY oil lost was removed along with it's soil."

They DID their job and cleaned it up!

That was taken from their website that you linked us too.. Since when is a pen sized hole DUMPING oil, you make it sound like they were pouring 55 gal. drums of oil in to the stream!! Where in those low res pictures can you see an oil sheen. I certainly can't.

I hope the Mile-Hi Jeepers have a lawyer in their ranks. I think the slander alone a good lawyer could have a field day with you.

Originally posted by Knobby


Hi, Pinion (Is this Snotty?)

I beg to differ. Whilst Knobby might legitimately called a "smarty pants", he has never called anyone a "liar" or a "thief". Knobby does not use words like that lightly. Please cite a single example of Knobby's use of those words in describing VB. Knobby is being falsely accused of vulgarity.

On the other hand Knobby agrees that one could easily infer from VB's actions that he is a liar and a theif, but Knobby has never made this accusation.

VB, on the other hand has used the "L-word" on many occasions to describe the owner of the private road that he wants to make public. Knobby can cite examples.

VB's friends have also engaged in threats. They have (falsely) accused the land owner of posting messages to these bulletin boards from his place of work, and threatened to get him fired. They posted a picture of the landowner's wife and place of work. In a recent thread on Colorado 4x4, they are threatening to lynch the landowner. :eek:

Knobby assumes these threats are a joke, and intended to intimidate the property owners.

But the judge will probably take a dim view of this activity.

Knobby the Smarty Pants

Knobby IS a liar though... why can't you post with your REAL name! You sound like an environmentalist, an extremist at that. Knobby? Sounds a lot like those forest names they call eachother!

Maps, maps, more maps and surveyors...

I have been in the construction / Land Development for 10 years now. Maps are a hobby of mine I am always working with surveying companies. The last being Missman- Stanley and Associates based in Rock Island IL.

Anyway, the idea of the accuracy of any map can and is called into question on a regular basis. These maps aren’t drawn in the back of truck with a drafting board; they are drawn in an office. The drafter in question must read the notes provided to him by the surveyor.

In a perfect world, the surveyor has a solid reference points to start from. This is usually a pin set in the ground and known as a POB, or Point of Beginning. Then they are able to calculate the meets and bounds of the property. Now a days, we have computer equipment that helps us determine the distance and angles of the property. Yeah! Great! But… There always seems to be one of these. This ‘But’ is the reason that all property must be re-platted before any legal description can be applied to it. This is done every single time a property is to be modified for any reason.

What is the big ‘But’? The old equipment was man powered. Meaning that the human eye provided the distinction for the angles and distance. It works well, but was no where near perfect. I see this all the time. The second issue that we have here is the fact that the claims turned into private property were never mapped using a starting pin as a reference point. Some guy, in an old 50’s pick up went out and had to find what he was the reference point. They also never applied the full meets and bounds to property. Simply the angles and footages. That can and has provided a lot of confusion up in this and many other areas. So in fact, the maps while providing the gist of the message and convey the intended intent, are not perfect and never will be. I trust the validity of the map, not the accuracy.

We still see this today on property that is being developed in our time. From all the maps that I have seen, there is only one trail down to HWY7. I am sure I have not seen all of them. My guess is that this current map as provided by VB shows as near as they can the path of CR87 as intended by the County of Boulder. Is it the Barking Dog Trail? I don’t know. Does Knobby know? I would say no. Does VB, again, I would say no.

What I find humorous is this. Knobby says that Boulder County claims that there has never been a public road up there. Knobby has a letter and maps that state Boulder County never had a road up and never will. Knobby agrees with this because it suits his purpose. But wait, here we have an official map showing that Boulder County not only has a road up there, but knows of it. Again, Boulder County using its smoke and mirrors. It has been proven time and time again that Boulder County does not have anyone’s interest at heart. They have in fact lied about this as well. It has been documented that Boulder County won’t even research its own cases. But Knobby likes to use them when it suits his needs. Sort of like having a fighting pit bull. You don’t want it, but will use it when it suits your needs. Even though it can and will bite when the chance arises.

high_pinion is a collection of people that post here, or maybe a collection of all the voices in my head.

Implied intent is the same as using the words Knobby... You take a paragraph to call someone a liar, we just cut to the chase...

Originally posted by Knobby


Let me get this sraight. Map makers in 1953 did not have computers, so they couldn't draw lines accurately enough to come within a half mile or so of where they intended them to be.?



Whatever. I noticed that you were able to expand upon what I said and it turn it into a little story with false facts that would help your case. Quite the imagination you have, you seem very capable to take reality and twist it into whatever suites your needs, which I think is the issue at hand here. You bought some property that was pretty good except for a troublesome road crossing through it, so you have to find a way to get it shut down and block access to other people that require the road for their use. This is the reality that you've drug the rest of us into.

Here's some things that I find interesting that I feel backup my case:
- on both maps, 87 reaches its most eastern point just above Porphyry Mountain
- on both maps, 87 swings west to a point almost due North of Bald Mountain. The new map shows more of a swing than the old map, but the basic shape is similar. Both follow a similar path except that the new map shows the road going further East than previously drawn.

After that, the new map stops 87 so it is hard to make comparisons between the two roads.

i figured it out, knobby is james carvel, nuff said

come awn knobby don't puss out now. they are just starting to flog you.

Looks like the same road to me on the two maps. Nobody disputes that 94 is the same road and look at how different it is drawn on the 50's version compaired to how it is on the new one.
You can also see the outline on both maps down in 24 and if you look real close both road are shown making a "J" of 94 at what appears to be the same place. The new map shows that the road cut back into 13 before entering 12 but the roads would have crossed over each other a few times if it wasn't the SAME road.
Were looking at a 50's hand drawn map and a new computer rendered map. Unless somebody can provide another documented map that shows a second road coming off of CR87 I think that a judge is going to say its' the same road.

http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout/23.asp is a link to the page on the first map. something is wrong with the code and I cannot get just the map to link. here is the second and older map.
http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout/Vern1_files/image001.png

Here is Terra Server of the same area.
Terra Server (http://www.terraserver.com/v5image.asp?image_guid={318E39C8-707D-4A2C-9B79-2C86C03F5FF0}&image_scale=13)

Knobby,

Do you have anything else but that website for us to look over. Everyone has seen the maps, and we are all learning about ROW's and federal law. You have a website full of conspiracy's theories. I guess Muelder said it "The truth is out there" . I have had the pleasure of meeting vb and he is a great guy. You plus whoever else is out there hide behind a computer.

See you on the trail!!! :beer:

Originally posted by Knobby


O.K. One last thing before I go. A link to the latest information....

http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout.asp

Click on "Boslough, Brandt, and Barking Dog.

Looks like Boslough's got this under control and doesn't need Knobby for ya'll to kick around any more.

Bye Bye

Knobby the Pinata

Whatever... anyone that picks a fight hiding behind a screen name is a coward.

I asked WHY did he want the road closed? Yet.. no answer. Can I only assume that it is because we are talking about someone that is so pathetic they must make life harder on others to make themselves feel better? thats what this sounds like. A crotchety "old man" that hates everyone and wants his cabin in the woods all by himself and wants to shoot at everyone that even looks at it.

I'm still wondering about the OTHER question I asked you never answered.

There is a bridge on the road in question. a 22 ton concerete bridge. WHO back then had the money to build it, IF it wasn't the Federal government. If a private party DID build it where is the records showing the plans, materials bought, contract, etc?

In reality, the fed's or state BUILT that bridge. They wouldn't build a bridge on a private road, which means that road is PUBLIC.

The fact that you don't bother to respond to my simple questions tells me you don't have a leg to stand on and can't or more likely WONT answer the harder questions regarding your claim.

Which I am sure is also one of the reasons you say you are leaving. You can't handle the heat of people asking questions based on fact.

Originally posted by 1bgdog
Knobby,

Do you have anything else but that website for us to look over. Everyone has seen the maps, and we are all learning about ROW's and federal law. You have a website full of conspiracy's theories. I guess Muelder said it "The truth is out there" . I have had the pleasure of meeting vb and he is a great guy. You plus whoever else is out there hide behind a computer.

See you on the trail!!! :beer:


Thats the beauty of it. there isn't anyone else logging in as knobby. He just says there is to give the impression there are more people thinking like him. Just a load of BS.

I bet if Knobby thought he didn't feel the love on CO4x4, he sure as hell didn't feel it here...

:flipoff2:

Knobby,
Why do you always do this?!! You lash out and then everyone comes to the same conclusion. You are in the wrong. This time not on a "local" level but international!!! Oh by the way vb I will get more money to you!!! The Dog!!! PM over on CO4X4 same "stage name" :beer:

Originally posted by vb
hey brad!
what does the legend say that the dashed lines mean?

It's an unimproved road, but definitely a road.

http://www.topozone.com/images/legend/roads.gif

Originally posted by vb
guess again knobby
tha road can be driven by motorized rigs. we have stayed off of it in the interest of keeping the peace. wanna push it? the sherrif will not ticket users and you will need to take it to court to keep us off. wanna try? the only reason that folks have not driven that road is because they are respectin the peace. call me on this one?
i can get the equipment i need in less then a hour and i bet i could have a few bodies up there to help. that road is open and you have obstructed it.
as for usgs you dont know what you are talking about. where did you get that information . or is that another thing that just came to ya?
wanna call me on the road? im fine with upin the stakes. all i gotta do is make a phone call.

If you need any help with this please contact me. I would love to be there and help, etc...

Knobby,

Looks like you lose here. Give it up "Group". You will not win your case on a bulletin board or on a website.

I've looked at the maps and they certainly look to be close enough to be the same roads.

Good bye.

I don't think anybody should be going off half-cocked and running that road right now. Right or wrong, it is signed no motorized vehicles. I think the judge would hear of it and not be pleased.. not to mention any non-motorized users on the trail would be pissed as hell. Even though we would technically be OK to be there, they wouldn't know it and probably wouldn't listen.

Let's wait until the court victory to go up there.

Why does Knobby sound like Dobby in 'Harry Potter'? Knobby... Dobby... coincidence? I think not! Too bad Knobby won't start beating himself over the head with a bat.
Please leave this post in Gen 4X4. When they organize a Pirate BB run to Barking Dog road I want to know, 'cause I'm coming and I hope I'm bringing a caravan of Californians with me.
You self-indulgent eco-extremists really amaze me. When the maps (or lack thereof) support your position, you'll gladly use them as evidence. When they contradict your position, they're deemed inaccurate. You sound like a typical liberal - inconsistent. Hopefully this story can get some objective publicity and Americans will begin to see this guy for what he is - an example of the future of America if we continue to let these greenies run rampant over our rights.

TO EVERYONE

There is a big difference in the 24 members of the Pirates of the Rubicon 4 Wheel Drive Club (POR) and the 15K members of the www.pirate4x4.com Bulletin Board (PBB)! these terms (POR and PBB are NOT interchangable) LEARN IT OR LEAVE IT!


Knobby:

Originally posted by Knobby


I am not completely familiar with the protocal, but I would note that there are individuals who use the names "Maine Jeepah", "Slinky", and "beerisgood". I have a vague suspicion that these are not their Christian names, nor do these names appear on their driver's licenses or social security cards.

Knobster

Ok Knobby, I'm calling you out on the name thing...you knock others for not coming out with their "christian names" (as if the entire world is "christian", just another one af the many ignorant statements made by you that I've seen) and you keep hiding behind this "knobby" internet name...

So what's your legal name? or your group? or all the persons posting under this name?

If you have all the facts as you say, why then have you not gone to court? It would seem to me that either you're lying, you don't have all the facts, you're wrong and you know it, you don't have a leg to stand on in court, or you like letting your Lawyer milk you along (in which case it still costs you more money) - or it could be a combination of any of those... I'm guessing its that you know you're wrong and don't have a "legal" leg to stand on, and you know any judge will rule against you, so you're waiting for some other group to take you to court so you and your group can look victimized on the basis of fabricated claims and fallicies, or you're hoping to drag this along till the public runs out of money, (yes I said the public - because thats who you are attempting to remove from THEIR LAND, not just some 4x4 club, but the public of the ENTIRE COUNTRY - last time I checked there were only a hand full of people in the world with enough money for that, and you weren't one of them) which are both typical Anti-Access Group strategies to gain the support of the uniformed public.....

Originally posted by Knobby
{SNIP} Remember the stream? That's the one that the Mile-Hi Jeep Club dumped a load of oil into.{END SNIP}

in regards to your claims of the Mile-High Jeep club, you claim they dumped a load of oil into the stream -those are pretty strong accusations to make without proof, or do you have proof? where's the EPA and their Lawsuit? I'm calling BS and exageration on this one, another typical Anti-Access Group strategy to gain the support of the uniformed public...

a mechanical failure of a vehicle while traveling a pre-existing, designated route of travel resulting in the accicdental release of a couple quarts of oil into the stream hardly classifies as the willful "dumping" of a catostrophic amount oil into a streambed that you're hoping to get the sympathetic readers to believe - so where's the proof??


So I'm calling on you lay it out on the table, who you are, proof for you're accusations, and facts....so far everything I have availible to me says you are in the wrong here and that you have some other self-serving agenda....


:usa:

Originally posted by Knobby
The roads on USGS quads are not surveyed in. They are located on the basis of aerial photographs. It says that right on the map. I thought this was common knowledge amongst people who live the outdoors.

Not quite Knobber. Aerial photographs are taken and in those photographs there are clearly marked panels which surround markers which are located via a ground survey team. These markers are typically USGS section markers, USGS quarter section markers, and/or property pins which are known to be accurate. Panels are white, three legged markers which are either painted on hard surfaces like pavement or concrete, or fabric on loose surfaces like dirt/gravel. The center point in every panel in an aerial photo has a latitude/longitude and elevation which is determined by a survey crew. From these known points it is determined what the position of the road is on the aerial photograph along with any other landmarks/points of interest that show up in the aerial photos. The photos are used to determine relative locations of roads/landmarks to known points from a survey, not absolute positions of roads/landmarks. The point is without the ground based survey team there would be no accuracy in aerial photography. I was a instrument man for Drexel Barrell surveying (based in Boulder) for five years during college. I've been intimately involved in aerial mapping of Steamboat ski resort, Snowmass, and a 28 square mile annexation to the eastern edge of Colorado Springs among others so I know a couple things about how it works.

I'm sorry I did not read this sooner. I work for a large law firm that has a Colorado office that does thousands of ROW's for many Colorado companies. I really can't go into clients or details but they know what they are doing. ;) I know of few of my attorneys are near the Boulder/Denver/Broomfield area.

I can't offer free services but I can see what I can do. A few of them owe me a favor or 3. If you guys are in need of local counsel on this matter please contact me and I will make some calls.

VB - you got an address to send donations to? PM me and I'll donate. Can't send much - it's the wrong time of year - but this guy sounds like a real jackass and I'd like to help him lose - oops - I mean help you win.

Originally posted by Knobby


Are you a Boulder County District Court judge? If not, would you be kind enough to wait and see if such a judge agrees with you? Or do you not believe in our justice system?

Knobby

In the court of public opinion, here, on the bulletin board, you, Knobby, have lost your case.

As far as aerial photographs on USGS Topographical maps, the roads that are marked in purple are updated information from the photographic surveys. The roads in black are not based on aerial surveys. In Knobby's thinking an aerial survey is not accurate?

Oh well, I'd like to know who is Knobby, "The Group"? Seems as if they have to hide behind a "Handle", and don't want anyone to know who they are.

BTW Knobby, you can run a google search on my name, griz98tj, and see who I am. Hummm, doesn't work for identifying any "Group" called Knobby.

Good Bye.

Grizzly Medlock.

Originally posted by vb
matts
if you would not mind i can be reached at *** **** **** most anytime and if not voice mail comes on in 3 rings. leave a message and ill call ya back on my dime. i have a lawyer but do lots of the leg work . there are some legal cases that id like to find and research and if they'd be up for helping with that id be grateful.

I have contacted the managing partner and am waiting for his reply. If you wanted to talk to me that is fine but I just run their computers. ;) I will either have him call you or I will give you the number for the attorney he assigns the project to and you can discuss it with that person.

Good luck and Thank YOU for spending your time and $$$ to keep our trails open.

Damn!!!!! I knew someone was gonna beat me to this, but I'm posting it anyway, as it links all the USGS topo sections together, so :flipoff2: to Brad. :D And of course, the map speaks for itself... ;)

http://www.pirate4x4.com/scrap/barking.jpg

VB,

My attorney is interested in your case. :D He has your name and info and will be calling. He is leaving town this weekend for the Holidays but will be back in the office after that. He should be calling today or tomorrow. :)

It seems that the Knobby group might have just stepped into the wrong bar:eek:

Originally posted by Slinky
But Brad Ullrich deserves the credit for getting this issue out to the "world" through the PBB.

Agreed, credit is due, because many do not understand how common this BS slinging is in land access challenges. If this is what it takes to motivate the apathetic public (to learn their rights), then Brad deserves the motivator trophy (the whipcracker award).

For the readers of the PBB, many who have never encountered an entrenched property owner bent on selfish closure of public right of way, a review of the RS2477 statute from the Mining community will gain more information than searching for recreation based right of way battles. The folks on both sides of this conflict have much to consider, but it takes a legal challenge, or a motivated County to settle the conflict. This "Knobby" group or person wins (selfish possession of the public right of way) until the challenge to his closure is lodged and settled.

Colorado may be different than other states, but usually the County does not have to accept maintenance or construction of a road to establish a public right of way. Neither does the County need to own the land. These two points are frequently brought into the debate to persuade you to not lodge a legal challenge: "RS2477 is only valid on public lands" (B.S.), and that "the County must formally accept or recognize the route as a road to establish a RS2477 right of way" (B.S.).

The establishment of a public right of way does not demand the way to be on public property. RS2477 is not limited to public property (or only BLM or USFS reserves). The potential fact a portion of the right of way is on private land does not excuse the application of RS2477.

This was the basis for the RS 2477 provision in the Mining Act of 1866: to prevent a subsequent visitor from purchasing land adjacent to your claim and constructing physical (or legal) barriers that restrict access to your land. The adjacent land purchaser may own land adjacent to your property, including land under the right of way, but the public's right of way must be preserved.

"The right of way must be an improved road to follow RS2477" (B.S.). No proof of a bridge or mechanical improvement is required. There is no provision in RS2477 establishing the minimum criteria for recognition of a route, road, or right of way.

An example is a utility pipe establishing a right of way, even if a road does not exist. RS2477 includes rights to maintain the utility (pipeline, cable or other utility) including the need to construct a road for maintenance. Neighborly public utility companies avoid exercising alterations to an owners private property, because they can be due civil risk to repair the result, but the public right to maintain even subsurface features remains intact (even without a legal easement, as may be required for a private corporation).

I offer a caution that while RS2477 reinforces a legal easement, it is not an easement because an easement can be canceled in a court of law. A RS2477 right of way is a congressionally granted right (just like the first amendment right to free speech). Many closure advocates will throw out easement law, to distract and act as a detour, although it does not apply to RS2477 right of way. Only congress can revoke a RS2477 right of way (by Wilderness designation or other act of congress).

"The right of way must be the only route to the property, to apply RS2477" (B.S.). The only requirement is that it be an established route (not the only route). This is one of the oldest challenges to RS2477. It is also one of the earliest challenged (and lost) in court. The basic history is miners needed upstream and downstream access (water pipe upstream and market access downstream). RS2477 never acknowledged the criteria of only one access point as applicable.

"The right of way must follow the survey or line on a map to establish the public right granted under RS2477" (B.S.). Routes change, and can be changed, with agreement of the landowner and the public (or without agreement if established over time, or by an Act of God). RS2477 never acknowledged the criteria of survey or other legally recorded identification for application.

Be aware that a subsequent Act of Congress, the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), reserves and upholds all RS2477 rights, except it sets a distinct treatment date of 1976. Proof may be required that the right of way existed before 1976 in a legal challenge.

The anti-access folks will try to tell you that "FLPMA revokes RS2477", and this belief is more false misdirection (B.S.). FLPMA reinforces RS2477 by recognizing a formal criterion of legal recognition only applies to a right of way established after FLPMA (after October 1976). A right of way found to be acknowledged in documentation, in any way (even notes in a Prospector's diary) before 1976 is a legal basis to apply RS2477.

Remember these qualifiers do not limit establishment of the right of way, although they are always brought forward to sway public judgement (in an ignorant court of public opinion). Fortunately, for the public, Congressional Mining Law is well understood by most Judges (and seldom overturned on Appeal - unless, possibly, it is challenged in the Federal 9th Circuit Court ;) ).

The challenge to exercise the right of way can be civil action (lawsuit) or domain action by the local agency having jurisdiction over the public right of way.

Usually, the local County Transportation Department has jurisdiction, even for a right of way on private property (again they do not have to accept or recognize the right of way as a road to have jurisdiction to enforce the public's right of way). A citizen (or public corporation) risks a civil lawsuit for damages (something the County can avoid by procedure), up to the cost to restore the private land impacted by maintenance of the right of way. This is one reason why an individual should not take action without Court or County authority (and yes, the owner has to identify and sue the "citizen" or "legal entity" to collect damages).

The public (even a single citizen) can sue the property owner with the closure, and win a court order to remove the closure (and court fees). This still does not force the landowner to remove the closure; it only escalates the property owner's actions to a criminal offence (contempt of court) if he ignores the court order. The local Law Enforcement can be court ordered to participate in supervising the removal of the closure by the County (including removal of any construction preventing access), but a private citizen is at civil damage risk unless contracted (or formally volunteered/deputized) by the County to complete the work.

The public can also negotiate (apply political pressure) with the County to enforce the public right of way, and demand that Law Enforcement supervise opening the right of way. This is essentially what occurs when a closed right of way is reopened (by force) to fight a fire or other natural disaster. The Fire Chief (or Agency Incident Commander) requests enforcement of the right of way, to move needed emergency equipment over the right of way. Taking immediate action (and asking for forgiveness that you did not follow formalized procedure) is usually the result, but the action to legally traverse the right of way can be formalized if the situation demands (to oppose a potential lawsuit for damages).

I read that this avenue of working in good faith with the County has been explored, and resisted by the political leadership of the County.

The mining community has faced all of these challenges to RS2477, in the past, so there is considerable law to protect the public right of way. Formalizing the legal challenge to preserve a right of way is where the recreation community does not have the same experience as mining or land development corporations. It is good to read that local legal advice is being explored; now you only need the money to pay for the challenge (and lodge the challenge).

Happy Trails!

So Knobby, you gonna come out of the closet with your id's ??? or you gonna keep being deceptive, thereby ruining what extremely minimal credibility you have left??

PS - Hows the weather in New Mexico this time of year?


:usa:

Originally posted by Slinky
But Brad Ullrich deserves the credit for getting this issue out to the "world" through the PBB.

I've known about this since the beginning, and like I said in the article its been brewing or percolating for about 3 years now. Thanks to all you guys for taking an interest in something that vb and a couple others have been pretty much fighting on their own.:D
Thanks Ed, for providing a good explanation of an issue (as usual :D )
Let's keep the interest up, do things legally, and IMO vb and his lawyers are gonna win this one.;)

Originally posted by Knobby
It is the "unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it."


So you mean to tell me that I can do anything that I want with my personal property? That the city I live in had no right to force me to paint my garage or else be fined? Or that I can leave whatever I want on my property? That I can build whatever I want on it? That I can use for it anything that I want whether it be residental, commercial, or industrial use?

Hmm.. it does seem that the one sentence description does not fit those issues, nor does it fit within other issues such as those brought up by people on this board, most especially vb, Brad, and Ed. It's a nice start, but misses out on hundreds of years of laws and judgements that have shaped our government as we know it today.

Nice try with communist bunk, too. It was very laughable.

bgp01361025bgs.sandia01.nm.comcast.net :eek:

Originally posted by Lance
bgp01361025bgs.sandia01.nm.comcast.net :eek:

So his trained monkey is posting from his other home again I see. :rolleyes:

How much does it run to have a primate trained to type anyway?
And the real question: Does it cost more to have them misquote legal terms? :laughing: :laughing:

Knobby - so you're saying I could move in upstream from you and dam off the (hypothetical) stream running through both our properties, clear-cut it and build a strip mine simply because it's my land? We both know the answer is "NO", because laws were put in place to prevent these sort of activities from occurring. Again, you hypocritical environmental extremists only quote the laws when they help your cause - when they don't you declare that said laws are unconstitutional :rolleyes:
You want to talk about unconstitutional taking of land? How about the effective "taking" of the public and private lands that are now inaccessable due to your unlawful closure?
You can spout your worthless drivel on this board as much as you want. It's meaningless but entertaining diversion, and the debate can be interesting, but please try to make sense in the future. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and providing financial support for VB. I'll wave as I drive by next summer.

Originally posted by Shrock
Someone setup a PayPal account to donate to. I'm in!
Look on page 5. He listed an address and a PayPal account. I'm writing a check as we speak.

Originally posted by Knobby
Question: How do you piss off a true communist?

Answer: Quote the U.S. Constitution!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

:flipoff2:

in the last ten days you've been here hiding behind your amazingly clever name of knobby :rolleyes:, you've done nothing but spew worthless drivel, mis-quote/mis-interperate laws to suit your cause, make false accusations of people damaging your property and polluting the streams, and now you insult the patriotism of every American reading this thread:mad3:

I have now lost what respect I had for you. Yes even though you are a coward and hide behind other people and names, even though you are trying to twist the law to your favor when you know you are wrong, I had respect for you. Now you insult and question my patriotism? You sir are the communist. You whish to force your will upon others.... This has nothing to do with private property rights and the foundation of our country - This has to do with you trying to change the rules half way through the game and crying like a little bitch in the corner when it doesn't work....

As far as I'm concerned, you're no patriot - just another liberal communist looking for the spotlight and money....




:usa:

Originally posted by Lance
bgp01361025bgs.sandia01.nm.comcast.net :eek:

Get it Lance:laughing: :laughing:

Originally posted by Knobby
Knob does not mind personally insulting individuals who consider a quote from the constitution to be worthless drivel. I know the Fifth Amendment is inconvenient for groups like yours who want to sieze private property. It is telling that VB seems to think that the only way to do it is by force. If he thought that there was the basis for a lawsuit, he would have sued by now. This private road has been closed now for four years. How long does it take to file a lawsuit!?

Obviously VB knows deep down that a court of law will uphold the constitutution, and he doesn't have a chance. It is scary that two of you used the same term "worthless drivel" to describe Knobby's quote from the constitution. I guess that is why you all are more predisposed to forming vigilante shovel brigades than hiring lawyers and doing things within our nation's justice system.

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Knobby the Defender of American Values

Once again - twisting facts to suit your agenda. My "worthless drivel" comment was directed at your twisting of facts and selectively quoting laws as they suit your agenda. I have great respect for the Constitution. I have no respect for those who twist it and manipulate it to suit their own personal ambitions, especially at the expense of others.
I notice "you" (whoever you are today) conveniently failed to address the questions I posed regarding the use of private property or your effective taking of public and private lands that are now innaccessable. Probably because the answers might conflict with the actions you have taken.

Originally posted by Knobby
Last I heard, VB had amassed enough money to pay for about 10 hours of attorney time.

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Knobby, the Irony Observer
Watch the numbers climb now.

Withamc, Standing Up For The Rights Of The Public

Dr. Boslough is quite the wealthy, distinguished gentleman. His condescending tone and stance on issues affecting "the common folk" make a little more sense now.
He's a member of the Executive Board of Republicans for Evironmental Protection. REP America states that it is proud to be a member of several organizations reknowned for their efforts to close down motorized recreation opprtunities such as the Utah Wilderness Coalition. They also proudly hosted Dave Foreman, formerly of Earth First! and now Director of the Wildlands Project.
He's written numerous articles disparaging off-road motor vehicles, blaming them for all kinds of damage, destruction and death. See here - http://www.cmc.org/cmc/tnt/974/wcwildfire.htm and here - http://www.rep.org/opinions/letters/36.htm He even lies in this op-ed piece from the Albuquerque Journal - "Clubs don't Always Show Off-Road Wisdom
IT WOULD BE nice if irresponsible off-roading could be blamed primarily on uneducated renegades. Unfortunately, my experience as a landowner with four miles of boundary with the national forest tells me otherwise.
Many of the off-roaders who cut through my family's property are members of organized 4WD groups. This exacerbates the problem because they often post "trail reports" on their club' Web sites, which encourages others to drive in the same area. They document irresponsible behaviors that have led to everything from oil spills to rollover accidents.
In May of 1999, a group of 15 vehicles from the Mile-Hi Jeep Club ignored our signs and cut through more than a mile f riparian wetlands, emptying a crankcase full of oil into our stream along the way. One member of that club, ironically, was named the 1999 "Environmental Four-Wheeler of Year" by the United Four Wheel Drive Association, a national organization. Perusal of club literature suggests that it would be a mistake to depend on these organizations to educate their members.
For example, a board member for the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition recently wrote, "Do I ride in closed areas? ...If a sign explains why a road or trail is closed and it makes sense, I will always obey it." Otherwise, "...I have decided that civil disobedience is my right."
Clearly, self-policing is not the answer. Increased funding for enforcement, combined with a strict "closed unless marked open" policy is the only realistic solution.
M.B.E. Boslough
Albuquerque"
Clearly the guy has an anti-OHV agenda. But isn't it always the snobbish, wealthy folk who wish the common folk would just stay in their over-crowded urban dwellings and leave them to enjoy their expansive swaths of countryside? It reminds me of tales of medieval times when only the rich were allowed access to the forests - for a commoner to be caught there meant imprisonment or death. Doesn't sound too Constitutional to me.

So Vernon, is this a done deal now in our favor?

Which one of the group is "Mark"?

Originally posted by Knobby


Are you going to announce it to the owners and the newspapers this time? I would think that if you are sure this is the right thing to do you would be proud of it. Rightous causes deserve public recognition, and should be shared with the world. Or are you going to be sneaky about it again like last time? I put my money on sneaky.

Knobby, who wants to see it on TeeVee!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

sniff,sniff smells like ASS in here:rolleyes: good luck Vb get the ass will ya?

Vernon, you're my hero:D

Many thanks to the work Brad has put in here too:D :D

Originally posted by Knobby
Perhaps you have not noticed. All three branches of our government are now controlled by the extremely wealthy. Knobby is taking his tax cut and putting it to good use. How about you? What are you commoners doing with your tax cuts?

Oh? You didn't get one? Well Knobby got a very generous one. Enough to pay his dream-team of expensive attorneys for years to come. And since Knobby has friends in high places, Knobby knew when to cash his Enron stock. So Knobby can live the rest of his life in luxury without paying taxes, and hire people like you (at minimum wage) to clean his swimming pools, trim the hedges around his mansion, and scrape the barnicles off the bottom of his yacht.

Signed, Knobby
(the wealthy criminal who is using his enormous tax cut to keep commoners like you from driving your $60,000 jeeps across $25,000 parcels of private property).


:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Well I have spent the last half hour reading the posts here and I have a few things to say.

Knobby you are a focking asshole.
Seccond I would love to come down to NM and kick the shit out of you.

with that said, you are also an idiot. So basically you just bragged about insider trading which last time I checked was against the law. In california we have statutes that protect the public from assholes like you. If a private easmant is used for public acess for 5 years and the owner does not speak out against it, it then becomes public property. It sounds like the road in this discussion has been open for a bit longer than that. Now this is California law, not Colorado, but I am sure they have similar statutes pertaining to public acess on roads. Anyways I spoke to my father on the phone who has been a lawyer for about 27 years and he has some friends who work in Bolder. I will try to get you in contact with them vb if that would help.

knobby you little bitch, don't think that money will aways win. Yes it helps out, but it will not buy our court system (with the exception of OJ). Common guys don't have the money that rich yuppy pricks like yourself have. but we have strength in numbers, and we know how to fight together.

-Quinn

I'll find out more info for ya on monday.

Hey if a moderator reads this we commoners as that knobfock says need to start a fund. I don't have much cash, but I'll contribute to the cause. Just let me know how I can help.

Originally posted by CA_YJ
Hey if a moderator reads this we commoners as that knobfock says need to start a fund. I don't have much cash, but I'll contribute to the cause. Just let me know how I can help.

Here you go bud;)

the way that i have chosen to handle contributions to this point is to have folks send checks made out to
john henderson (he is the lawyer)
send those checks to
po box 97 windsor co. 80550
i have chosen this way so that i am able to hand carry the checks to john that way i keep track of the money heading his way. also since the checks are in his name there is no chance of me being acussed of misapropriation.
i also have a paypal account if folks would find that easier.
the account is brandtv@wwdb.org
thank you for the offer of help (we can use it for sure)

Originally posted by Knobby
Perhaps you have not noticed. All three branches of our government are now controlled by the extremely wealthy. Knobby is taking his tax cut and putting it to good use. How about you? What are you commoners doing with your tax cuts?

Oh? You didn't get one? Well Knobby got a very generous one. Enough to pay his dream-team of expensive attorneys for years to come. And since Knobby has friends in high places, Knobby knew when to cash his Enron stock. So Knobby can live the rest of his life in luxury without paying taxes, and hire people like you (at minimum wage) to clean his swimming pools, trim the hedges around his mansion, and scrape the barnicles off the bottom of his yacht.

Signed, Knobby
(the wealthy criminal who is using his enormous tax cut to keep commoners like you from driving your $60,000 jeeps across $25,000 parcels of private property).


:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:



so this is a game to you???? I hope this bite you in the ass... how's it feel to think you're above everyone? you're truly showing your colors now mark - or should we call you "king Boslough" :laughing:.....


I can't wait till someone knocks you off your high horse and smears your face (and name) around in the pig shit.....


:usa:

Originally posted by Knobby
Perhaps you have not noticed. All three branches of our government are now controlled by the extremely wealthy. Knobby is taking his tax cut and putting it to good use. How about you? What are you commoners doing with your tax cuts?

Oh? You didn't get one? Well Knobby got a very generous one. Enough to pay his dream-team of expensive attorneys for years to come. And since Knobby has friends in high places, Knobby knew when to cash his Enron stock. So Knobby can live the rest of his life in luxury without paying taxes, and hire people like you (at minimum wage) to clean his swimming pools, trim the hedges around his mansion, and scrape the barnicles off the bottom of his yacht.

Signed, Knobby
(the wealthy criminal who is using his enormous tax cut to keep commoners like you from driving your $60,000 jeeps across $25,000 parcels of private property).


:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

I deal with some extremely wealthy people all the time. They are actually a group a fairly nice people.

But you sir fall into a whole other category. Your the kind of person who has just enough $$ to THINK they are rich. Your NOT rich. Yachts are for people who think they are rich, ships that come complete with a crew are for the rich, if YOU are the captain your not RICH. If you are hiring minimum wage people to do your bidding your NOT rich. You don't even come across as someone who is educated. You have a sloppy back peddling manner of speaking that insults even a common man.

If you are really rich, next time you post try and act like it. So far your a pathetic excuse for a rich person.

Originally posted by MattS


I deal with some extremely wealthy people all the time. They are actually a group a fairly nice people.

But you sir fall into a whole other category. Your the kind of person who has just enough $$ to THINK they are rich. Your NOT rich. Yachts are for people who think they are rich, ships that come complete with a crew are for the rich, if YOU are the captain your not RICH. If you are hiring minimum wage people to do your bidding your NOT rich. You don't even come across as someone who is educated. You have a sloppy back peddling manner of speaking that insults even a common man.

If you are really rich, next time you post try and act like it. So far your a pathetic excuse for a rich person.

what a waste of money...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by vb
btw im holdin my breath hopin not to get flamed as a newbie. i seem to have missed it so far.


I'm pretty sure you're not getting flamed anytime soon...but start asking about chrome shocks and what size mud flaps you can fit on your stock jeep and you're on your own :flipoff2:


:usa:

Originally posted by YellowSub1962



I'm pretty sure you're not getting flamed anytime soon...but start asking about chrome shocks and what size mud flaps you can fit on your stock jeep and you're on your own :flipoff2:


:usa:

LOL

vb

monday should find a nice little donation in your pay pal account from an unnamed glitter manufacture. kick the shit out this a- hole in court for us would ya please.

humm- did Knobby just delete all of his(their) posts or were they deleted for him (them)? It would figure that a eco-extreemist as himself (themselves) wouldn't want his(their) words to stay around to be used against him (them)...

Do a search on Mark Boslough and you'll find all kinds of info on this guy. Pretty well reknowned scientist (I think his specialty is ass-teroids :laughing: ) My latest issue of Paragon Powerhouse lists REP America, of which he's an executive comittee member, as being closely involved with Dave Foreman and the CBD. So ya, I think he's pretty well funded plus has the legal resources of the CBD at his disposal.
Speaking of irony, which Knobstick brought up earlier, how hypocritical is it that a guy like this who's associated with groups that oppose timber operations is himself thinning 30 acres of his own land? Oh - wait a minute - that's OK for people who truly appreciate nature for what it is :rolleyes:
Bye bye, Mark.

Originally posted by injectedEB
humm- did Knobby just delete all of his(their) posts or were they deleted for him (them)? It would figure that a eco-extreemist as himself (themselves) wouldn't want his(their) words to stay around to be used against him (them)...

I'm sure Knobby deleted his own posts; he's done it on other bulletin boards when he has lost his cause with the people there.

He (they) do not want any record of trying to disrupt the (plaintiffs) court case to get the road opened.

hes not thinned anything the only trees "thinned" are those from right next to the road that were cut to fall on the road

it looks as tho he is ashamed of his words and im looking at it as an admission that his stance is as weak as he is. i can prove has stance is weak and he has takein care of proveing himself as weak. how would you like to be a highly paid gov scientist and be faced with the fact that you cannot do research. or did he and just figure to bluff his way thru this. mark boslough is a coward

btw did anyone happin to save this thread before he disapeared?????

Originally posted by injectedEB
humm- did Knobby just delete all of his(their) posts or were they deleted for him (them)? It would figure that a eco-extreemist as himself (themselves) wouldn't want his(their) words to stay around to be used against him (them)...
Something happened to this thread over night. It went from 8 pages to 4 pages.

Originally posted by vb
btw did anyone happin to save this thread before he disapeared?????
This is weird. Maybe knobjob deleted his posts, but my message to you vb saying I sent money and your "thank you" are gone as well. Knobjob hadn't posted enough to take up half of this thread, yet it dropped from 8 to 4 pages overnight. Somtin's rotten in Denmark.

knobby posted as much as all of us put together. spoze i should thank them for the compliment -but then i have known that we were sharper than they were. right does prevail in the real world. cant wait to see how it does in the legal world

Something else: this morning my computer didn't recognize this thread as one I had already visited. It should have. One cookie didn't selectively disappear on me...this thread has changed it's URL. Maybe a moderator saved the whole and put back a piece? This is weird.

did not catch that. wonder if i got sold out over night. like i said last night i bet he was burning up the phone

i sure hope so . i thought this might happen lsat night and did talk with a moderator

Shiat. All messages I have previously posted (before today) in this thread (not many, but a few) are gone!

I am certain that last night this thread had a little over 150 messages and around 3500 views when I shut down at about midnight central time. With this message it's probably gonna be 93 messages, but it's now over 4000 views.

URL changed, message count changed, but "views" held it's number?? Damn I hope this is because a moderator archived this thing.

geuss we'll have to sit tight and wait to find out the real story. be back later

Here's the old URL (I sent it to another forum):
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100522
Y'all see what you get.

Gawd I hope it's been archived.

Title of the thread changed too. Used to run 2 lines long on my screen, now it's just one.

Originally posted by vb
btw did anyone happin to save this thread before he disapeared?????

I saved it.
:bounce2:

Knobby

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Im not sure who (camo?) did it, but the original entire thread is saved in a safe place, don't you guys worry. ;)

Quetion for the moderator:

What was it that caused you to clean up this thread? The violent threats? Or the immature humour?

Curious Knobby



:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Originally posted by Lance
Im not sure who (camo?) did it, but the original entire thread is saved in a safe place, don't you guys worry. ;)

Good to hear :beer:

Originally posted by vb
hes not thinned anything the only trees "thinned" are those from right next to the road that were cut to fall on the road
VB - in one of the many web pages I found related to "Mark Boslough" he stated that his reason for closing the road was that one of his lawyers (and I'm paraphrasing here, Knobby, so don't get picky with me) told him that prior to thinning his 30 acres he should close the road.

Originally posted by Knobby
Quetion for the moderator:

What was it that caused you to clean up this thread? The violent threats? Or the immature humour?

Curious Knobby



:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:


you're addressing this to which other "knobby", since it wasn't any of the staff that did it? .....

maybe it was "I opened my mouth wide enough to fit both feet into it Knobby"

maybe it was "I realized that people are seeing right through my BullShit curtain Knobby"

maybe it was "I have no leg to stand on it court Knobby"

maybe it was "king Knobby"

maybe it was simply "I'm not as rich and as cool as I hoped people would think I was Knobby"

maybe it was "I'm too scared to tell people who I am Knobby"

maybe it was "I'll try to act stupid and play innocent so people won't know I deleted my own posts Knobby"

maybe it was "I'm better than everyone else because I think I'm rich Knobby"

I'm pretty sure it was "vb was right and my world is now getting smaller and I'm running around like a little bitch with my tail between my legs Knobby"

there are so many more Knobbys out there that could have deleted the posts, and seeing how none of them revealed their identities up front, I doubt any of them will tell us who did it.


:usa:

i have not altered a single word in this post. i do have the origanial saved however. it would be simple to see what the diffrences are and i am sure it would not be hard to see who changed what.

from page one in the original thread

:usa:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-09-2002 09:50 PM
I got kicked off of another bulletin board for pissing off people with the facts. I hope you folks are o.k. with facts, but I will understand if you kick me off of this one, too, because the facts support the property owner in the Barking Dog case.

You might want to read the landowner's rebuttal to Vernon Brandt's (I mean Brad Ulrichs') editorial. The owner says that Barking Dog Road was never a county road, and shows and official map that proves it. So who are you gonna believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?

http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

So anyways, Vernon says he has a map that proves the County Road went all the way through. Maybe if this is really true, he will show us. I predict that he will not let us see it. And I think I know why.

Originally posted by Knobby 12-09-2002 09:57 PM
I got kicked off of another bulletin board for pissing off people with the facts. I hope you folks are o.k. with facts, but I will understand if you kick me off of this one, too, because the facts support the property owner in the Barking Dog case.

You might want to read the landowner's rebuttal to Vernon Brandt's (I mean Brad Ulrichs') editorial. The owner says that Barking Dog Road was never a county road, and shows and official map that proves it. So who are you gonna believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?

http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

So anyways, Vernon says he has a map that proves the County Road went all the way through. Maybe if this is really true, he will show us. I predict that he will not let us see it. And I think I know why.

Originally posted by Knobby 12-09-2002 10:02 PM
Oops. Sorry for the double post. Now you will probably kick me off for being a stupid newbie. It's KNOBBY (not newbie).

Originally posted by Knobby 12-09-2002 10:42 PM
>Older maps show it as a road
A private road. Yes. Maps do show private roads.

>Current residents (not Boslaugh) say it is/was an all-the-way-through public road
No, they don't. Please find one who does. Find a quote and post it. Better yet, get them to write in. We both know that you won't be able to do this! :flipoff2:

>You say bikes and foot traffic still use it to get from point A to point B -- that makes it a public road
No, it does not. It is with permission. So that means sidewalks and bike paths are public roads? :rolleyes:

>The county referred to it as "CR 87" -- that makes it a public road
The county has never referred to Barking Dog Road as CR87. I challenge anyone to post a map where it did. Nobody will, because such a map does not exist, except in the fantasies of Vernon Brandt.

>Public money was used to build a bridge on the route -- that makes it a public road
No it didn't, and no, it doesn't. Post some documentation.

>Boslaugh is not the only land owner along the route; others (and Boslaugh) need the ROW (road) to access their property -- that makes it a public road.
No, they don't. And no, it doesn't.

[/list]
What makes you think anyone on this BB will be any more sympathetic to your twisted and usupported view of this issue? If you do nothing but stir up shit without any new FACTS, you'll get more of the same treatment on this BB. I figured you'd learned enough to avoid getting banned from the colorado4x4 BB. Were you really banned? I won't believe it 'less I get it straight from the moderator over there that banned you.
No need to use profanity.
The facts hurt, don't they? :flipoff2: :flipoff2:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-10-2002 08:45 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Grim Reaper

Perhaps you should read RS2477.
I'll give you the high lights.
Any road or througfair that has been in continuous use for (I believe 20 years it may be 50) with out protest by the owner will become a public property. So basicly if the previous owners did not protest it in the last 100 years tough shit to the current owner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dear Grim,

Thank you for your interpretation of RS2477.

This is the entire text of RS 2477: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not reserved for public purposes is hereby granted."

Would you mind letting the rest of us know where this thing about continuous use comes in? I didn't see any reference to 20 or 50 years. This is quite puzzling. Please explain.

Knob

PS I promise ot be polite on this forum, even if people are jerks to me.




Originally posted by Knobby 12-10-2002 08:52 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by landuseorc


That's the bottom line, you got it exactly right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hello Brad. I forwarded your private message to the person to whom it was addressed. I am surprised that you agree with the previous person's interpretation of RS2477. You are a land use specialist, am I not mistaken? Is there an expert out there (maybe an attorney) who can explain RS2477 to all of us? I thought I understood it fairly well, but I had never heard that it had anything to do with prescriptive easments or adverse possession. Am I mistaken? Or is Brad right? Where in the law does it talk about continuous use. Or is RS2477 a red herring in the Barking Dog case?

Knobby the Newbie


Originally posted by Knobby 12-10-2002 09:15 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb
well folks let me introduce myself. i am vernon brandt and for those that have never met him- knobby is mark boslough. dont let his post that refer to boslough fool you knobby is either mark or sometimes his wife.
so knobby that bridge on hiway 7 (concrete 22 ton, built in 63 during the federal hiway upgrade) does not exist?
you have been all over trying to find these maps. i told brad the same clue ive left you elsewhere and brad emailed me back in a day with its location.
for a scientist/college teacher (whether its mark or maya) you sure cant research very well.
im not looking for public verifacation. you are. im right you are not. i am not hideing -you are. each time we meet like this it ends up just the same. when the folks here do their research they will find-- heck lets just see what these folks come up with with no guidance.
i will offer the same thing i have every other site/ gimme a call 970 222 0065.
if i showed you county maps that showed the road as public and even county would you remove and or let us help you remove the obsticles and lets move on? or are you just lookin so that you can develope a spin .
the reason you got kicked off was not because of any of your "facts" it was your inability to abide by the rules of conduct on that board. i think your week is up. come on back
three owners that say it is public that are on record as such are
john ramey
glenn tallman
robert brooks
btw have you seen the latest police report? seems the officer ran into some others as well
that bridge is there for anyone to see today for documentation of its existance. as for the map. im haveing tooo much fun watching you squirm cause you and your lawyer dont have a clue. have your guy call rameys guy and see if he'll share. he has the map as well. i do know that your in such a panic that youve supenaed stuff from mike r. spoze the county is really going to help? remember the article on the land use site about nancy mine? btw the state and the feds also have copies of the same maps so im not worried if they disappear in fact i hope they do cause the case then goes to criminal and --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dear Vernon,

Pleased to meet you. I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I can assure you--as I have done in the past--that Knobby is not actually a person. Knobby is an account that is shared by more than one individual. But this is rehashing old business. You seem to imply that "Knobby" is an inappropriate moniker for this forum. I am not completely familiar with the protocal, but I would note that there are individuals who use the names "Maine Jeepah", "Slinky", and "beerisgood". I have a vague suspicion that these are not their Christian names, nor do these names appear on their driver's licenses or social security cards. It is certainly possible that their mothers have a well-developed sense of humour. Maybe they are all siblings.

I have no opinion about the alleged bridge. Who's property is it on?

As for the individuals you name, are you their representative? Can they not speak for themselves? Perhaps you can make them aware of the website that is a clearing house for information about this case:
www.darkendeavors.com
I would enjoy seeing what they have to say, if they are really interested in having Barking Dog Trail opened to recreational users. The fact that they have been silent might be the first clue that they do not.

I do not know what police report you are talking about, and I am not familiar with Nancy's mine. Who is Nancy?

Sincerely,

Knobster

Originally posted by Knobby 12-10-2002 09:25 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb
i will do it this way for you tho
the smuggler mine was one of the earlier mines. it predates the highland placer that you just bought in 99 (for those of you that arent fimiler the h p site is the site that you first come to from huway 7)
in the early years under mineing and homestead law the was a grant of r o w givin by congress to astablish roads across public domain . the row was givein to anyone for any reason. the is NO acceptance neccessary. the town of ballarat is further down the road from where there county now claims they have jurisdiction. the only way to that town at that time was from jamestown (the other end of the road from the h p ) if the county doesnt claim it knowone cares the road to the town is public by the grant of row by congress. also the road to the smuggler. it predates the forrest or the researve of public domain for national forest. and we have maps that show that and so do you. so the only real question is the hp site down to the river.
there was a person (entryman) that traveled a "route" to get to that site and he had to travel that route over a period of time in oder to "prove up" the claim in order to apply for a patent. that travel at that time was over public domain and under that grant it astablished a row.which is public. the patent made the claim private but the row is public. because that terrain is a cliff. there really is no other route available and it is the same route that was used by those from the smuggler to their power plant.
mark and maya
this is geting outa hand. and you mentioned to the susters just last week that you have done things out of anger etc. lets come to an agreement on this. the road is and has always been public. in fact if you go to the de site in mayas leter she says so. from at least 63 till 99 you saw the public use of that road increase. by you own admission the road was used by the public for longer that neccessary for it to be public. any way you wanna slice this thing you are in a corner. come on outa there and lets go on from here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Vernon,

It seems that you have a lot of anger. Have you considered filing a lawsuit against these people who are the source of so much of your rage and frustration? If you won a lawsuit, wouldn't that make you feel a lot better? I just think that when you get so exasperated that you resort to name-calling and vandalism it is not good for you, health-wise. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately? O.K. take some deep breaths. 1-2-3-4-5...

Who are the Susters? Are they related to Nancy? Nancy Suster? Never heard of her.

Concerned,

Knobby

Originally posted by Knobby 12-10-2002 10:47 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Slinky

For the record: take a look at my signature knobjob. My full name is there, and has been from day one of my POR logon. And the city I live in is over there to the left. So you could even come find me if you felt the urge. I ain't hiding. VB came here (welcome VB) and introduced himself with full name. I ain't been here long, but I'm pretty sure this place ain't like a gay-boy chat room where pree-verts dream up fake handles to hide behind. 'Cept for you and your "group."

Oh, btw, that "group" comment you let slip is a dead give-away (if true) that you're one of those extreme green groups that prefers to break the law to drive home their extreme points. Same sort of folks who've never had the word "compromise" in their vocabulary. I sorta tend to agree with VB though: you are Marc, or a close knob-buddy.

I will give ya this knobjob: Initially, your points (over there at colorado4x4) had just enough logic to them that it got me to reading. And reading. And reading. [Inquiring minds want to know!] I spent about 4 hours online Saturday night hitting links and soaking up information. Thank you knobjob for prompting this Texas boy to get edumucated on RS2477. I will be much more active with public land/rights issues than I ever was before because I can see now that this ain't no "he said she said" argument. The off road community has a solid leg to stand on when we are fighting for public rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thanks tex. Didn't notice the sig. Now I am wondering if Maine Jeepah and beerisgood will come forward with the Christian names. Glad to see you educating yourself tex. Doncha take nobody's word for nutten.

Knobjob

Page 2

:usa:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-11-2002 11:40 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb

looks like you had the day off or are you usein the national labs puter or the universities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's a demanding day job, but by good fortune they give me evenings off to be with my family or to surf the web. Please note that all Knobby's posts are on evenings and weekends. Good try though.

I did notice that you looked slim and fit on the photographs you posted on your website. My apologies.

I will look at www.darkendeavors.com now. Thank you.

Knob the Snob

Originally posted by Knobby 12-11-2002 11:50 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb
just to spell out the relationship of the nancy mine case and this one
besides others the first thing that comes to mind is the letter from mike r that you posted on the d e site says the county "never" claimed 87 all the way over (paraphrased). it is clear (or should be now) that they did. and as for you statement of it is "obvious" that the county "never" claimed the road by the map that you posted-- it aint clear at all. where did you get the map? whos is it ?and whats it used for? did you make it yourself?
point being the county aparantly did not look real well cause the map i posted is at the same offices that mike r sits in. and for the record. mikes a nice guy. i think he has pressure. could it be the congress woman that you had call and read the riot act. surely she should have checked further that just you for her "facts"
it SHOULD be obvious to all that you do not have "facts"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who is your message addressed to? I would point out that the road map on www.darkendeavors.com is available (for $3 I believe) from the Boulder County Transportation Department. They are on the web. Or your can go to the 2nd floor of the Boulder County Courthouse and buy one. Are you disputing this? Surely you must have found this map with all your research.

All the best,

His Knobs


Originally posted by Knobby 12-11-2002 11:57 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JohnnyJ
I had the pleasure of meeting vb this past spring on a business trip to Colorado. He was one of the nicest guys I met and took me out on a few hour expedition to some of the local trails. I had a great time. Unlike Knobby, he does exist; he is not a figment of anybody's imagination as much as the group behind Knobby wish for.

Here's the map that vb had posted on the other site, I copied and pasted into a single pic that would fit in an acceptably sized picture. Take a gander.. that road doesn't lead to nowhere like the knobs would like us to believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Johnny J! Good job! You provided a map! It looks like County Road 87 went trough to Highway 7, just like VB has been saying all along! Did you notice that it doesn't go to Balarat? Did you notice that it is about a mile east of Barking Dog Trail? OOOOOPS!

Knobless


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 12:11 AM
AlanSou,

Knobby assures you that he has never worn a treed jacket with elbow patches, nor has he ever smoked a pipe by the fire. He is a regular guy who drinks Coors and watches the Broncos lose. He does, however, have a large vocabulary, and he knows how to spell (but sometimes gets careless and misspells werds).

Thank you for your concern. Your anti-intellectualism is refreshing.

Regular Guy Knobby


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 12:32 AM
I checked the website at
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

The Boulder Lout noticed the same thing that Knobby did.! County road 87 goes through different numbered squares than Barking Dog Trail does! On all the maps I have seen, Barking Dog Trail follows the stream through box 12, into box 1, and then into the box that has the big circle with an 87 in it. Then it goes west and hits the highway next at the eastern edge of box 1 (where the little crossed hammer symbol is). This road is about a mile away from Barking Dog Trail, and does not even go into the creek. Remember the stream? That's the one that the Mile-Hi Jeep Club dumped a load of oil into. You can see from the pictures of the oil spill that they were driving in a stream bed.

Look at this where they are cleaning up their oil slick:

http://members.tripod.com/HoboJeepers/jun99.htm

Looks wet, too. I don't know if that makes it a Wet Land or not. Maybe somebody should ask a tweedy perfesser.

But the road on the map that VB posted is not in a stream.

I am wondering who owns the land that County Road 87 really goes through. Maybe VB can have another shovel brigade on the real road now that he knows where it is!


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 07:02 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JohnnyJ


You mean to tell me the government moved the the mountains and river since 1953!? Holy cow! This is a conspiracy!

I did compare the maps before posting it and from what I saw the 1953 version seemed to follow the same basic path with less resolution as the latest county map. I didn't depend on the grid lines or grid numbering, but instead used features that tend to move less over time: mountains and streams/rivers.

I also noted that they are both marked 87, which would also lead me to believe they are the same road. It would seem odd to me that the county would just decide to move the road name 87 from a road that connected two cities to a road that dead ended going nowhere...

Like I stated above, it looks like the 1953 map has less resolution. It doesn't follow every bend that the new computer generated map does. Big deal. From my experience, that is not uncommon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Jonny J,

That's quite an initerpretation you came up with there. Do you think a district judge will buy your theory about resolution? Let me get this sraight. Map makers in 1953 did not have computers, so they couldn't draw lines accurately enough to come within a half mile or so of where they intended them to be.?

JONNY'S LOW-RESOLUTION THEORY:
For now, I will call this "Jonny's Low-Resolution Map Theory". It goes like this. In the mid-20th century, cartographers were given very poor drafting equipment. They are able to draw solid lines (representing streams) very accuratly, but the technology had not yet been developed for accurately portraying dashed lines to represent unmaintained roads. Perhaps they hired young schoolchildren and who were too young to use pencil sharpeners, and had trouble coloring between the lines.

So when they drew in Balarat Creek, (where Barking Dog Trail is) they were able to draw it in the right squares. When they drew in the unmaintained road labeled "87" they could not follow the same path.

They also could not connect dots. The Balarat Mining Camp is in the middle of "square 1" The children who drew the 1953 maps had trouble stearing their unsharpened pencils into square 1, and therefore the map PROVES that county road 87 went to Balarat.

KNOBBY'S "DIFFERENT ROAD" THEORY

The map is of high enough resolution to clearly differentiate between between Balarat Creek and County Road 87. From 1953 to 1968, the county road followed something called "The Dunbar Road", which is a well-known road in the area that is about a half mile east of the present course of County Road 87. The Dunbar Road goes through "square 7" which is the property of Cal-Wood Environmental Education Center (sounds like a bunch of greenies). Maybe they wouldn't mind opening the historic County Road 87 to off-road recration.

Barking Dog Trail is not shown on this official map, because when the map was made, Barking Dog Trail had not yet been constructed by the owner of the property it crosses.

Of course we can speculate to our hearts' content. The question is: which theory will the judge believe? I think Jonny's got an uphill battle!

Knobby the Theoretical Guy


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 07:08 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Oldmule
AHHHHHHH, the ramblings of the word turds have arrived at POR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Old Mule,

Unfortunately for your club, it will be "word turds" (attorneys and judges) who decide the fate of this case. I'm sure they will take a dim view of your club's Shovel Brigade trying to open a road on private property that is a half mile away from where county maps say the historical route was.

But calling Knobby names, or accusing him of being a specific person from an IP search, will not deter him.

The truth is starting to come out.

Deal with it.

Sincerely,

Old Knobby.

Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 07:27 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by high_pinion


Knobby only uses vulgar tactics, name calling and telling everyone that VB is a liar and a thief. Has distorted the facts on several occasions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hi, Pinion (Is this Snotty?)

I beg to differ. Whilst Knobby might legitimately called a "smarty pants", he has never called anyone a "liar" or a "thief". Knobby does not use words like that lightly. Please cite a single example of Knobby's use of those words in describing VB. Knobby is being falsely accused of vulgarity.

On the other hand Knobby agrees that one could easily infer from VB's actions that he is a liar and a theif, but Knobby has never made this accusation.

VB, on the other hand has used the "L-word" on many occasions to describe the owner of the private road that he wants to make public. Knobby can cite examples.

VB's friends have also engaged in threats. They have (falsely) accused the land owner of posting messages to these bulletin boards from his place of work, and threatened to get him fired. They posted a picture of the landowner's wife and place of work. In a recent thread on Colorado 4x4, they are threatening to lynch the landowner. :eek:

Knobby assumes these threats are a joke, and intended to intimidate the property owners.

But the judge will probably take a dim view of this activity.

Knobby the Smarty Pants


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 09:17 AM
I rest my case.

Knobby


Originally posted by Knobby 12-12-2002 10:10 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gunracer1
come awn knobby don't puss out now. they are just starting to flog you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O.K. One last thing before I go. A link to the latest information....

http://www.darkendeavors.com/boulder_lout.asp

Click on "Boslough, Brandt, and Barking Dog.

Looks like Boslough's got this under control and doesn't need Knobby for ya'll to kick around any more.

Bye Bye

Knobby the Pinata

Page 3

:usa:

Originally posted by Knobby 12-15-2002 03:46 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Oldmule
Well I guess the "knob" group was a reality. That is one of the first truthful things I have seen from them. The other IP searches came up w/ Bosloughs work computer on one occasion, so I guess there really is a group posting under that name. I guess Boslough has his own commune.
I'm just waiting for the day when they go running off through the bushes w/ their tails between their legs. VB has so much data & testimonials on this that it is mind boggeling.
See you Thrusday Vernon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Say, Mule, some people already accused Boslough of posting messages from his work computer over on the Colorado 4x4 forum. They worked themselves up into a hysterical frenzy as frothed-up off-roaders conspired with glee to get Boslough fired. Then the Colorado 4x4 moderator came on and listed the domains from which Knobby had posted. Not one of them was from a government computer. Maybe the Pirate 4x4 moderator would be kind enough to do the same for inquiring minds on this forum.
By the way Brad, as I'm sure you know as a land use expert, USGS topos are based on aerial photographs. Some things are interpreted as roads. There are a lot of inferrences. There do not make a judgment as to whether roads are private or public. People who are familiar with these maps knows this.
Finally, as if anyone here should care, there is some new information at www.darkendeavors.com

Later,

Perfesser Knobby

P.S. The Broncos are winning! Oakland and San Diego lost!!!
Time to pop another Coors and sit next to the fire in my tweedy perfesser jacket with elbow patches!
:bounce2:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-15-2002 11:03 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by redrangie



OK. I tried to stay out of this. It took over colorado4x4 for awhile.
But this sh!t won't die. Take it to court Knobby, you will probably lose. You are giving Boulder county a bad name. I live in Denver, but I LIKE boulder. One statement is for sure: Almost EVERYONE in Boulder and Denver counties loves the outdoors and recognizes that the outdoors are for everyone.

Now, The above statement of yours really got me. Have you ever seen a usgs survey marker? Ever read one? Topo's based on aerial photos? WHAT? Are you saying that a photo is the PRIMARY basis for these maps? Jeeze. You ever HEARD of a survey team?
j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't understand why Knobby should taking anything to court. I think it is you all that need to take it to court. Barking Dog Trail is currently closed to motorized vehicles. The only way you are going to get it open is to get a judge to agree with your position. What are YOU afraid of? The roads on USGS quads are not surveyed in. They are located on the basis of aerial photographs. It says that right on the map. I thought this was common knowledge amongst people who live the outdoors.


Originally posted by Knobby 12-17-2002 07:44 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Griz98TJ
Knobby,

Looks like you lose here. Give it up "Group". You will not win your case on a bulletin board or on a website.

I've looked at the maps and they certainly look to be close enough to be the same roads.

Good bye.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you a Boulder County District Court judge? If not, would you be kind enough to wait and see if such a judge agrees with you? Or do you not believe in our justice system?

Knobby

Originally posted by camo
i have not altered a single word in this post. i do have the origanial saved however. it would be simple to see what the diffrences are and i am sure it would not be hard to see who changed what. So if someone (gee wonder who?) came in and deleted all their _OWN_ messages, how did mine (prior to today) disappear? At least one message from vb disappeared (his tahnsk to me for sending money). If all you (camo) did was save a copy in a safe place, then.... omg...hacked? An outsider got my password and logged in as me and deleted my stuff? And some of vb's stuff?

Originally posted by Slinky
................ omg...hacked? An outsider got my password and logged in as me and deleted my stuff? And some of vb's stuff?

it's not as hard as you think to do just that:eek: use a password generator program, with an ISP alt program and it is done wiothout anyone having a clue who did it either. I have seen many BB's hacked over the years....

Page 4


(I had to edit all the flag icons out so they appear as :usa or usa:, since you can only have 10 in a post and Knobby thinks he will have a bettter argument throwing the flag around, when it's perfectly clear he has NO IDEA what America is all about)


:usa:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 09:04 PM
According to Black's Law Dictionary, the term property "embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership." It is the "unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it."

History has taught painfully what hostility toward private property rights accomplishes. The social and economic travesty caused by over 70 years of Communist control of private property in the former Soviet Union is a lesson that should neither be forgotten nor repeated. But that lesson has not been heeded by those writing in this forum.

Respectfully,

Knobby the Constitutional Scholar


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 09:37 PM
Private property rights are included as civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment declares that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . . "That Amendment further states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Knobby the Patriotic American


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 09:46 PM
:usa :usa usa: usa: usa:

Is there some part of this that you don't understand?


"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

Knobby the defender of the American way of life


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 10:20 PM
All Talk No Action makes Knobby a bored boy.

:flipoff2:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 10:26 PM
Question: How do you piss off a true communist?

Answer: Quote the U.S. Constitution!

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

:flipoff2:


Originally posted by Knobby 12-19-2002 10:34 PM
The constitution seems to upset you. Why?


Originally posted by Knobby 12-20-2002 07:40 AM
Knob does not mind personally insulting individuals who consider a quote from the constitution to be worthless drivel. I know the Fifth Amendment is inconvenient for groups like yours who want to sieze private property. It is telling that VB seems to think that the only way to do it is by force. If he thought that there was the basis for a lawsuit, he would have sued by now. This private road has been closed now for four years. How long does it take to file a lawsuit!?

Obviously VB knows deep down that a court of law will uphold the constitutution, and he doesn't have a chance. It is scary that two of you used the same term "worthless drivel" to describe Knobby's quote from the constitution. I guess that is why you all are more predisposed to forming vigilante shovel brigades than hiring lawyers and doing things within our nation's justice system.

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

Knobby the Defender of American Values


Originally posted by Knobby 12-20-2002 08:05 AM
Don't you think it's pretty funny that VB is raffling off a $60,000 jeep to try to get the government to sieze a road on private property that sold for less than half that amount 3 years ago? Last I heard, VB had amassed enough money to pay for about 10 hours of attorney time.

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

Knobby, the Irony Observer


Originally posted by Knobby 12-20-2002 06:25 PM
Perhaps you have not noticed. All three branches of our government are now controlled by the extremely wealthy. Knobby is taking his tax cut and putting it to good use. How about you? What are you commoners doing with your tax cuts?

Oh? You didn't get one? Well Knobby got a very generous one. Enough to pay his dream-team of expensive attorneys for years to come. And since Knobby has friends in high places, Knobby knew when to cash his Enron stock. So Knobby can live the rest of his life in luxury without paying taxes, and hire people like you (at minimum wage) to clean his swimming pools, trim the hedges around his mansion, and scrape the barnicles off the bottom of his yacht.

Signed, Knobby
(the wealthy criminal who is using his enormous tax cut to keep commoners like you from driving your $60,000 jeeps across $25,000 parcels of private property).


:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa


Originally posted by Knobby 12-20-2002 06:32 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb
the man that built the road from the smuggler down to the saint vrain along long gulch is also on record under oath as it is a public road..
vernon brandt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Interesting. Brad Ullrich said that the road was built in 1870. This dude must be really old! When do I get to meet Methuselah?!

Knobby (who is smart enough to know that a dude who built a road in 1870 is probably dead by now).

Page 5

(flag edit again)


:usa:

Originally posted by Knobby 12-20-2002 06:43 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vb
i plan to remove the obstructions soon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you going to announce it to the owners and the newspapers this time? I would think that if you are sure this is the right thing to do you would be proud of it. Rightous causes deserve public recognition, and should be shared with the world. Or are you going to be sneaky about it again like last time? I put my money on sneaky.

Knobby, who wants to see it on TeeVee!

:usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa :usa

Originally posted by SeaBass44


it's not as hard as you think to do just that:eek: use a password generator program, with an ISP alt program and it is done wiothout anyone having a clue who did it either. I have seen many BB's hacked over the years....

Now that's low (and illegal, right?). How come those boasting the loudest of being "right" always seem to be quick to break the law, claim "civil disobedience" as their justification, and then gain sympathy with the public and courts with twisted half-truths or flat-out lies?

If it was a hacker, s/he got in as a moderator (must have) and restored an altered thread with a new URL and title while keeping a high "view" count. Lance can look and see what happened maybe.

Originally posted by Slinky


Now that's low (and illegal, right?). How come those boasting the loudest of being "right" always seem to be quick to break the law, claim "civil disobedience" as their justification, and then gain sympathy with the public and courts with twisted half-truths or flat-out lies?

If it was a hacker, s/he got in as a moderator (must have) and restored an altered thread with a new URL and title while keeping a high "view" count. Lance can look and see what happened maybe.

the org thread was moved to the "moderator section" if your post was deleted then a hacker either used your name/password or that of a moderator for this fourm....illeagal? I don't know, getting into a pay site without paying I would think is, but this site is not a pay thing, it's wrong though:(

I dunno, guys, it happened to all my posts in this thread too? ohh well as long as camo or one of the other moderators has the original in case vb can use it in court.

my puter was actin funny last night when i tried to identify with macaffe who was tryin to get in. i think they did
hey knob glad yer back to act like you did nothing. you are so childish.
since you are still stopin by tell us
by what means and whos authority was this road ever closed?


as far as i can find out it is open to all encludeing vehicles . just alittle trash in the way.

Originally posted by vb

as far as i can find out it is open to all encludeing vehicles . just alittle trash in the way.

be sure to bill him for the trash removal, and maybe file some charges for illegal dumping while you're at it


:usa:

:usa:

http://www.darkendeavors.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=6&posts=17#23
dark cloud at dark endevers has set up a forum also. bosloughs "gal thats gonna tell us its wetlands" stoped by to "help " him out. thought you folks might like to see what she had to say. oddly shes with wild something org. seems like a green group. so
so far the sierra club this republican whatchamacallit group boslough is proud of and this wild? and colorada wild something groups are watching this battle. shapein up to where they arent talking public vs private now. they will say about anything and just keep getin shut out.
see what you guys think and let me know would ya?

Are there any recent updates to this issue:confused:

whats the latest vb??

:usa:

last update (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103700&highlight=Barking+dog)

Just wanted to bump this back up!!! Met with vb last night and it is still going strong. If you can donate do it!!! This trail may not be near you , but it could have profound effects down the road for opening or KEEPING trails open. We all donated for the new server let's see that generosity here!!!! Thanks. Matt

Originally posted by 1bgdog
Just wanted to bump this back up!!! Met with vb last night and it is still going strong. If you can donate do it!!! This trail may not be near you , but it could have profound effects down the road for opening or KEEPING trails open. We all donated for the new server let's see that generosity here!!!! Thanks. Matt

Yep. I got an email from him earlier in the week, seems there is something up, Boslough's lawyer is stepping it up. If vb wants the details of what is going on right now I best let him do it, but something is definitely up.

so i got a chance to meet mark and his brother. and after a day with them i have come to know that they have absolutly NOTHING to show that this road has ever been anything but public. seems their direction is to devert from the facts of that to anything else to keep from facein up to the truth.
it is tough to be in my spot beein so right and not haveing the funds to do a darn thing about it

Originally posted by vb
so i got a chance to meet mark and his brother. and after a day with them i have come to know that they have absolutly NOTHING to show that this road has ever been anything but public. seems their direction is to devert from the facts of that to anything else to keep from facein up to the truth.
it is tough to be in my spot beein so right and not haveing the funds to do a darn thing about it

But rightious is GOOD;) Damn ^&*$$$$$$$$$$$$$, no way I would sell my rig for a trail though. That's HardCore!

in the end i dont think im going to raffle the thing . between lack of support from the user group and the legal stuff involved to do something that large.and the time frame needed. im behind on all counts. heck i think the so west guys were disapointed in their raffle turn out werent they?

Originally posted by vb
......heck i think the so west guys were disapointed in their raffle turn out werent they?
SDorry I don't know what you are refering too:) But I do think your post about barkin dog are some of the most intelligently writtin stuff I have ever read on the net! you come off as a very good guy, smart, rightious and generally a model american!:usa: :usa: :usa:

thanks
swfwda had a tj all decked out and raffled it. 100/ticket i think 500 tickets total. last i heard they werent to half that. the raffle is for legal battles in nm. good cause too!

This popped in to my head today for some reason.

Anyone know what came of it?