Bat Guano/landuseorc/vb

[Dog House]

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Is this really what you believe?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

I'd like to hear if others on this forum share your opinion. Is there anybody else here who believes that the evidence shows that "all of the previous owners knowingly and willfully signed that document and then knowingly and willfully permitted the public to travel along what is now known as Barking Dog Trail" and that "expressed permission was granted by the previous owners"?

I more than share his opinion as stated in my previous posts.

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Is this conclusion a slam dunk or is it just one man's opinion?

The case certainly deserves it's day in court, which it has not had.

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Can I have a poll?

Why Mark you already have one. You must be aware of it every time you sit down 'cause it's crammed so far up there!

Have a nice day sir.

VB a modest donation will be forth coming. Thank you for fighting the good fight!

[Eric Ruhl]

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Is there anybody else here who believes that the evidence shows that "all of the previous owners knowingly and willfully signed that document and then knowingly and willfully permitted the public to travel along what is now known as Barking Dog Trail" and that "expressed permission was granted by the previous owners"?

I'm not alone, you (Mark Boslough) are on my side:

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

For as long as anyone can remember, there was a sign that gave permission by saying "Private property for the next 2.5 miles, stay on the trail".

That's right, as you stated Mark for as long as anyone can remember expressed permission was granted to the public to travel that road. That is until you (Mark Boslough) showed up of course...

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Does everyone here really think the 1953 Boulder County Road map is wrong?

I don't believe it's correct, I can walk that road with a GPS and the map doesn't match the road. Of course your contention is that the road represented on the map never existed, correct? And when I walk the only road that is nearby which doesn't appear on the map that means they screwed up the map twice, right? Or did the existing road appear after that map was created? Just restating the facts as you've presented them Mark. I already know that you don't consider maps proof of anything, after all you said this earlier:

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

I agree that cartography is not perfect

[Dog House]

for Eric, and for VB!!!

[Eric Ruhl]

Does everyone understand why Mark is even here? Logic dictates that this issue is not resolved, or he wouldn't be here stirring things up. Why, if he has already won his legal battles, does he continue to bring this issue back to the surface just when it has nearly faded from memory? If you look back over the history of this issue you'll see a distinct pattern. Mark only comes out of hiding before he has to face a legal venue. He's here specifically to "dig up dirt" and find any incriminating evidence he can to support closure of the road. He isn't necessarily looking for evidence that the road isn't public because that's a losing battle. What he is looking for is an aggressive stance by the offroading public. He is looking for evidence of vigilante action and aggression towards himself and his property. Thus, if he should ever have to face the letter of the law he has something in his back pocket. He will then argue that it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the road be closed to public travel. This avoids all potential for confrontation, and everyone can thus live happy seperate lives. He is not here for a gentlemanly discussion about BDT with the hopes of reaching a "peaceful resolution" and settle out of court. He is not here to feed his own ego and argue until everyone says he's right. He is here specifically to "dig up dirt" and bolster his fragile case. I suggest that everyone keep this in mind when responding to his baited commentary.

Mark Boslough is a proven character assassin (he publically accused Vernon of starting the Left Hand fire which was natural cause, and of downing over a hundred trees on NFS land which a land owner was later found guilty of the vandalism. He reported Vernon as a suspect to the sheriff for both incidents with zero evidence when Vernon was in fact innocent in all events) and a proven liar (he initially claimed that vandals downed trees and damaged the road only to later admit that he alone caused the destruction). No doubt his attorney instructed him to always use an alias and not explicitly identify himself. He is known on this forum and others as Knobby Bobby, Nederland, Bat Guano, etc. but "the man behind the mask" is Mark Boslough. In other words, Mark Boslough is not a nice guy and he is playing you. He's hoping you take the bait. That is all.

[1bgdog]

Originally Posted by Eric Ruhl

Does everyone understand why Mark is even here? Logic dictates that this issue is not resolved, or he wouldn't be here stirring things up. Why, if he has already won his legal battles, does he continue to bring this issue back to the surface just when it has nearly faded from memory? If you look back over the history of this issue you'll see a distinct pattern. Mark only comes out of hiding before he has to face a legal venue. He's here specifically to "dig up dirt" and find any incriminating evidence he can to support closure of the road. He isn't necessarily looking for evidence that the road isn't public because that's a losing battle. What he is looking for is an aggressive stance by the offroading public. He is looking for evidence of vigilante action and aggression towards himself and his property. Thus, if he should ever have to face the letter of the law he has something in his back pocket. He will then argue that it is in the best interest of all parties involved that the road be closed to public travel. This avoids all potential for confrontation, and everyone can thus live happy seperate lives. He is not here for a gentlemanly discussion about BDT with the hopes of reaching a "peaceful resolution" and settle out of court. He is not here to feed his own ego and argue until everyone says he's right. He is here specifically to "dig up dirt" and bolster his fragile case. I suggest that everyone keep this in mind when responding to his baited commentary.

Mark Boslough is a proven character assassin (he publically accused Vernon of starting the Left Hand fire which was natural cause, and of downing over a hundred trees on NFS land which a land owner was later found guilty of the vandalism. He reported Vernon as a suspect to the sheriff for both incidents with zero evidence when Vernon was in fact innocent in all events) and a proven liar (he initially claimed that vandals downed trees and damaged the road only to later admit that he alone caused the destruction). No doubt his attorney instructed him to always use an alias and not explicitly identify himself. He is known on this forum and others as Knobby Bobby, Nederland, Bat Guano, etc. but "the man behind the mask" is Mark Boslough. In other words, Mark Boslough is not a nice guy and he is playing you. He's hoping you take the bait. That is all.

+1 This is why I have donated. This effects the whole country. I have read both sides and have meet VB> I trust this man!!!!

[Bat Guano]

Originally Posted by Eric Ruhl

Mark Boslough is a proven character assassin (he publically accused Vernon of starting the Left Hand fire which was natural cause, and of downing over a hundred trees on NFS land which a land owner was later found guilty of the vandalism. He reported Vernon as a suspect to the sheriff for both incidents with zero evidence when Vernon was in fact innocent in all events) and a proven liar (he initially claimed that vandals downed trees and damaged the road only to later admit that he alone caused the destruction). No doubt his attorney instructed him to always use an alias and not explicitly identify himself. He is known on this forum and others as Knobby Bobby, Nederland, Bat Guano, etc. but "the man behind the mask" is Mark Boslough. In other words, Mark Boslough is not a nice guy and he is playing you. He's hoping you take the bait. That is all.

It is my understanding that Vernon and others had made vailed arson threats in the days preceeding the Overland Fire. I would consider it anyone's civic duty to report such threats to the authorities and let the investigators sort it out (as they properly did).

According the the sheriff's report, Vernon was not accused of downing any timber along Barking Dog Trail. He was accused of tearing out seedlings that were planted along the stream banks as part of a restoration project. I'm not sure what destruction you are referring to, unless you consider an approved forestry thinning project to be destruction.

[vb]

Approved By Who And Filed Where???

[Eric Ruhl]

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

It is my understanding that Vernon and others had made vailed arson threats in the days preceeding the Overland Fire. I would consider it anyone's civic duty to report such threats to the authorities and let the investigators sort it out (as they properly did).

Call it what you will, but with zero evidence on your side (and a known contempt for Vernon) it was an attempt at character assassination. The cause of the fire (wind) was announced within hours of the fire's discovery, but you still pointed the finger at Vernon. The heavy equipment tracks lead from the scene of NFS destruction directly to the home of the landowner (who was not Vernon) found guilty of the said destruction. This was also public knowledge yet you still posted a picture of the destruction on your website (a picture which btw you used without permission, illustrating your ironic disregard for private property rights) with a caption specifically accusing Vernon of causing it. Nice one Mark. I'm just presenting the facts.

According the the sheriff's report, Vernon was not accused of downing any timber along Barking Dog Trail. He was accused of tearing out seedlings that were planted along the stream banks as part of a restoration project. I'm not sure what destruction you are referring to, unless you consider an approved forestry thinning project to be destruction.

LOL surely you're referring to the "approved forestry thinning project" which was strategically limited to the trees straddling BDT. Initially Mark Boslough (aka Bat Guano) claimed that vandals had caused the destruction, only to later admit that he caused it as part of this "thinning project".

Thank you for helping me prove my point in my above post Mark. Have a nice day.

[Overbear]

Ok Ive spent the last 15 minutes skiming down all this, and I have one, stupid, small question for mark/bat guano/whatever.

Why do you care? So they drive along a road that happens to touch into land you claim is yours. Its not hurting anyone, its not affecting your way of life or your health. Why get up in arms over it. Why not insted step up and be a stand up guy. Back off, support it, and reap the benifits of haveing hundreds of friends who would come to your aid in a heartbeat because of such a gesture.

[Code3TJ]

Originally Posted by Bat Guano

Some people seem to think this is the last nail in the coffin:

So if this is in fact real, does anybody know the CO laws concerning public disclosure of law enforcement records?

[vb]

i would think that these reports are public knowledge but im not sure.

there are a great many things that mark does not point out. you will notice that office gregg (who btw is a honorable man) uses" " around some key words.

if you read this well. you will get a better understanding of what is being said. dont pay attention to what mark says , he cant understand.

i have not mis-represented any thing and after i talked with both of these men i did post up exactly what we agreed upon , right away.

nothing hidden.

[Code3TJ]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the laws are there. Here in CA, certain info from a report is available to the public, but not the entire thing except under certain circumstances and posting it on a website certainly wouldn't fly.

[vb]

i think that is the least of marks worrys. lieing under oath , now that would be some thing to worry about

[BlazerZR2]

I sent off an email. I will try to get a donation sent when I get paid.

I really hope this gets some public attention. Boulder County obviously wants nothing to do with this.

[darkcloud]

This is the proper thread for Mr. Brandt's theories about a county road through Highland Placer.

[vb]

theory is such a neat word.

sorta goes along with bosloughs theory of another road within a 1/4 mile of the one we are all talking of.

[darkcloud]

So, if Brandt is going to fizzle out - again - and not take Plez to court and avoid going under oath himself, we'll humor him here. Just let's all be clear he's trying to detract from his wimphood. It's tough to be a bully when you wimp out all the time. It must get frustrating. Anyway:

"Lets set it up right now. lets get to the bottom of : is there any other road besides the one that goes through the highland placer that is the county road? if not then we know that we are all talking of the same road and the road thrugh the highland placer is A PUBLIC ROAD.

can we agree on a time? whos coming?"


Your logic is wrong. If it is proven the road on the map does not exist where the map says it does, that's all it means. It doesn't mean an utterly different road is somehow public. It means the map is wrong about that particular road. Nothing more.

But since you feel this important, you talk to the Highland Placer owner about bringing people - and the media of course - to that land. Post time and date.

And while media and whoever attends is there, they can also go look at the Crescent Lode and the public roads that cross it. That permission should be easy to obtain, shouldn't it Mr. Brandt? And, hey, that can also serve as the day you open up your land to other jeepers! Boy, sometimes things just work out.

So.

1. When are you planning to take Plez to court, Mr. Brandt? Just tell us. After the harvest in the autumn? It's your threat.

2. Get permission from the Highland Placer owner and bring up the media - you'll handle that - for your triumph. On camera you can explain how this possible difference between paper and ground is important and aids you.

3. Then for compare and contrast purposes, we can putter over to your land and you can explain why these obvious public roads are closed.

Let us know.

[Dog House]

Wow DC, another extremely condescending and utterly irrelevant post! Do you not realize how little respect you and your holyer than thou diatribes command?

[darkcloud]

Here's the thread where Mr. Brandt will announce his suit against Plez PLUS the date and time of his Great Road Hunt. Surely be soon. Stay tuned.