open questions for knobby

[vb]

why would john ramey use a road in 1938 that you claim was not built by his life long friend til the 50's?
(btw who believes that a 40 plus year old caretaker would build a 20 foot wide "hikeing trail" through the side of a hard rock cliff for a mile all by himself and still maintain a one man business as a carpenter)?
and why would you use the name of a man that is now not here to tell his story?
are you really hopeing that all of these senior citizens will die before you have to stand before a judge for your actions?
why are you still this week trying to put off standing in front of a judge to decide the issue of whether the road is public or not?
you have been working on this since 98 why in the world cant you or your lawyer come up with a case in that period of time?
why on your web site do you claim that the road to the north is a hikeing trail and never a road and yet under oath you say that you know that vehicles have used the road for years?
why do you claim that i downed trees when under oath you say that you cut them in such a way as to block the road??
why do you claim to have been "thining" the forest when under oath you say that you left the trees there to block the road?
why did you start blocking the road before you even owned the property?
why do you always hide when you visit this or any other forum for descussion of the road issue?
why did you lie under oath when you claimed that there was a sign saying hikers only on the rock to the north intrance?
why are you makeing outrageous claims about john ramey that absolutly knowone believes?
btw did you know that you lost some more credability with the camera this week?
cant you see that evryone that as looked into this issue understands how blantantly wrong you are and how unbelieveable you are?
do you realy think that you can have an on going and ever changeing site with a heading that indicates that it was used at a date last pring for the edification of, and evidance to congress?
do you really think that all the misinformation that you have had published will amount to anything other then nails in the lid that seal your memory as nothing more then a lieing law breaker?


i see that you are pretty desperate, why dont you just stop now and lets fix the road and move on. your own testimony will be very damageing in the end. you have lied for so many years throughout your life that you are not able to keep up with it any longer.
dude,!!!!
there is a plane ready to crash into your head, its better to move outa the way instead of standing there sayin "there is no plane"

[Gunter]

vb,can you give a reader's digest version of where this case is at right now?i have only picked up bits of it on the posts here,does he have to go to court this week?er,next week?when he loses,i hope he has to do more than remove the obstacle and pay your lawyer(s).

[vb]

not my lawyer. i am still trying to figure how to get in the game. i need money.
john ramey (a private land owner up there) has a case workin. however at any time boslough can cave and try to make an agreement that might (more then likely) exclude the public
condensed version is that the clown is trying anything and everything to avoid the judge and hes about out of options and he is already into the rediculous.
they are giveing him all kinds of choices for dates in april or may of 2004 and he claims that none of them are conviniant for him (of course not he is wrong) and also that is lawyer is not able to be ready by then. he has been workin this since 98?????????


which is the reason for my largest question. if indeed boslough did his research BEFORE he blocked the road then he should have ALL he needs to stand before a judge and make his case.
after all that is exactly what i did BEFORE i went up to remove the illegal obstructions . and i HAVE been able to STAND AND WITHSTAND still to this day based on my research and boslough the clown and his lawyer still to this day have NOTHING to show that this is anything other then A PUBLIC ROAD

CUT THE CRAP MARK if the road is not public it is time to get down to it. all your lies in print will do NOTHING for you in the one place that it counts. show the world under oath whatcha got and beware, you have already hung yerself with your own words.

[vb]

btw , he can be fined for each and every day he blocks the road. ill do him a favour perty quick anyway and fix the obstructions for him.

[Gunter]

well sir,where do i contribute a few bucks?and what can he do if ppl get together and unblock it?i am sure ppl here have said that before,but i dont know the answer.i suppose if a person didnt mess up the land around the road,then clearing it he really might not be able to do much about it,can he?btw,just how did he block the ROW?

[Ingvae]

Click on the link in my sig to help VB out with this fight!

[Colo.TJ]

Is there any way to get the court affidavids and have them put on Colo4x4 for everyones viewing. Including mostly those who are coming here to check on what we are saying and up to?

[vb]

the file is really thick. what do you think would be interesting?

[Colo.TJ]

Maybe posting some of his testimony here and especially over on Dark Endeavors will show some light on who he really is. Making accusations is one thing but being able to back them up w/ documention can really hurt his credibility.

I'm sure everyone here believes you, myself inculded. But over on DK everyone thinks we/you are just a bunch of yahoos throwing lies around. Trying to discredit him.

[vb]

from what i see most of the folks postin on the land owners forum are birds of the same feather anyway,ie: they either don't know or dont care to know and those that know-missinform.
i do see from the clowns site that he is geting closer to actually sddressing an issue though. he has quoted me correctly for once with the information about the fact that the grant was self actualizeing and instant and that the patent was not (it took a certain period of time) . the fact then is that the intryman traveled a route to get to the area and that area being
public domain ,not otherwise reserved, thus the intryman created a 2477 row.
there is nothing that this clown can do in a court of law or through his site or the d e site that will change the law
he is now adressing the issue in the correct fashion he s supporting udalls crap. if we want to continue to recreate then we need to fight the same legislation. these people are trying to undo a law that has been part of our heritage for almost a hundred and fourty years. my though is if we are going to get rid of some lets undo it all. lets indeed take away all of the other grants given by those acts. in otherwords the mineing/agg claims that became private- lets also revert them. those createing more public land.
public row has a higher priority in law than does the individual land owner (by definition of what a row is)
i care nothing for the way others claim to view me. in thier hearts they know beyond a doubt that i am correct and if they can not recocnize well what boslough is they are incapable of correct thinkin.

[vb]

An old lawyers' adage admonishes: ?When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.?

[Eric]

Speaking of cool quotes, I saw this one the other day in the Colorado Daily:

"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth" H. L. Mencken

Mark's counting on that quote to hold true. Some other famous quotes come to mind:

"Half a truth is often a great lie." Benjamin Franklin

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear." Mohandas Gandhi


Mark's page is riddled with lies. The "trespassing" and copyright comments are good examples. As you mentioned Vernon he shows pictures and links to trip reports of the so-called "trespassing" incidents, but fails to explain why nobody was charged with trespassing. Why? The pictures are there, the documentation of the incident is there, but where are the criminal charges? The copyright comments just crack me up :D As I showed in a previous post (http://www.colorado4x4.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000087;p=4#000131), everything he says is wrong and easily confirmed by browsing a few copyright resources. Then there's the whole downed-trees scam. On one hand he links to an article bragging that he cut down trees specifically to block the trail (http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_2165019,00.html) (5th paragraph), while on the other hand he nails up a Wanted poster offering a reward for information about who did it. I've often wondered if I could collect on that reward if I tell him he did it presenting his own webpage as evidence :D Obviously Mark is banking on the comments of Mencken, Franklin, and Lenin. I'm rooting for Gandhi smile.gif

What I want to know is this. If he is actually in the right and is confident of the legality of the road closure, then why he is so proactive with his smear campaign? His webpage continues to attack MHJC, Backcountry Colorado, and CO4x4.org with false accusations. Why does he even bother making this stuff up? CR87 is currently shut down with a gate, so why doesn't he just kick back and enjoy the closed road? Instead he's continually fueling the fire of debate and fabricating justification for the closure. His actions only support the ever-growing consensus that he doesn't have a solid case for the closure.

I'm also curious why Mark even needs to be involved in this. CR87 was closed by Boulder County so shouldn't we (the public) be suing Boulder County?

[ November 03, 2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Eric ]

[OlBlueCJ7]

From Mr. Boslough's Web Page:

Ad Hominem Attacks

"You won't find the words "liar" or "idiot" here."

Well, I found different. His properties title of the MHJC pictures near the top of the page is 'trailidiots.jpg'.

Proof that, yet again, Mr. Boslough lies.

[Eric]

The first sentence Mark ever posted on CO4x4 had the word "idiot" in it. Not once, but twice in his first post.

Mark's introductory post to CO4x4.org (http://www.colorado4x4.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000030)

Thank goodness he's above all the smear tactics crap :rolleyes:

[Coloranger]

Vernon Sent PM

[Gunter]

i have a question here.why does every body refer to county road 87,if it is in(alledgedly)fact(?) NOT a county road?should it not be something like trail xyz on so-and so's property?the county commissioners (according to the link) called it CR 87,so it is a county road,eh?am i right to believe a ROW is like an easement for the power company?you get to mow the grass,and water it,but if they need to drive trucks on your lawn to make repairs,and they have the legal right to do so?how many years has it been referred to as CR87?Knobby,stop filtering your coffe through your dirty underwear,it is unsanitary. :rolleyes:

[Snotty]

It depends on who you talk to and what you are looking at. There is a Federal tax map that shows CR87 going all the way over to HWY7. But Boulder County says they never claimed it. I guess they just wanted the money.

The FS had it on record as FDR 297.1 but rmoved the designation from their maps when Boulder County closed the road.

The protion of the road that Boulder County claims is thiers is the last 500+ feet of the road beyond the gate. That is really all they have closed. But in doing so, they have closed off the south end or exit point of BDT.

They claim the rest is private property. The odd thing is, is that Boulder County is land happy and based on past actions one could assume that they would have taken the ROW. The only thing I can figure out is that they are also anti OHV in Boulder and could never close the ROW without taking a bundle of money to convert the ROW and then close it.

I think Boslough and Boulder County are up to no good, but figuring what that might be is going to end up waiting to see what they do.

[cleanbike]

Originally posted by Eric:
CR87 was closed by Boulder County so shouldn't we (the public) be suing Boulder County? The Board of Commissioners officially closed only 0.4 miles of the road. And, yes, this is something that should be challenged as well. They may have had some leg to stand on with Ward Road and the "water quality" of the Jamestown water supply (I guess the concept of a culvert-bridge is too much for them to grasp), but 87J closure was another case of the "locals" having undue influence over the decision making process, and that closure is most likely not legal either. JD

[vb]

all great replies!
eric you had me rolling on the floor!!
snotty the present fs map actually still shows it all the way through we just picked one up last week
where is mark?????
my guess is hes hideing. we will not see much of him. hes in really deep folks .

[vb]

btw jd good eye
lets touch base tword the end of the week. might have something that would be of interest to ya

[vb]

as for postin stuff from the ramey v boslough case

i am not a lawyer, what makes sense and law dont seem to coincide. the case is public knowledge and can be viewed by anyone. the case is also not mine. mr ramey and his lawyer have probably put alot of time and effert into their case. whatever end they arrive at is the one they have worked for

it takes just alittle while to read through the intire thing and the product of bosloughs is a riot. id say let those with strong interest go view the intire thing since more that likely no matter what is posted up it will not be enough or the right thing.

hey snotty whatever happend to the idea that the case was settled and where did that stuff go on the d e site. seems to have just droped.

[Gunter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vb:
[QB] as for postin stuff from the ramey v boslough case

i am not a lawyer, what makes sense and law dont seem to coincide.

i agree,the truth,the facts,and what really happened have no place in court.sad but true.

[JVS]

I am new to this issue and trying to learn what I can by reading posts here, at DE and the articles linked here. I am not versed enough to make any arguments on the issues but I can say that from my perspective I notice two things.

Boslough doesn't seem to be as interested in finding a resolution as fighting, name calling and vilifying the entire group of off road enthusiasts. He seems to have come at this as an antagonist from the begining and I also think he blocked the road in a fit of rage without doing his research. Had he done the home work this probably would not be so volatile.

Second, I am an avid mountain biker, and like mountain bikers I think that all off road enthusiasts will always start at a disadvantage in any conversation about trail use. People assume you are guilty no matter what. There is always a few people who create this image as destroyers of trails, rude, littering aholes and it only takes one instance and "they" will use that as an example as to why you are to be hated, and no matter how respectful most of us are those people will assume you are one of the renegades that they hate for destroying trails, scaring horses, tearing up streams etc.

I think that the counties, newspapers, etc want you to be wrong because they don't want to have to say you have a right because the pressure they feel from the groups to keep everyone out. In boulder especially.

I hope that makes sense and thanks for letting a newbie to the issue put some thoughts out there

[Snotty]

Originally posted by vb:


hey snotty whatever happend to the idea that the case was settled and where did that stuff go on the d e site. seems to have just droped. Knobby doesn't like me. Once I became involved over there he fell off the earth. I guess he doesn't like to be corrected and made to look like the ass that he is. He has no argument. Once he fell off the de earth, there has been no new information other then you. I think he might have been told to shut up unless it's in a media that he can't be contested. Like the daily camera...

[colorado phil]

Originally posted by JVS:
Second, I am an avid mountain biker, and like mountain bikers I think that all off road enthusiasts will always start at a disadvantage in any conversation about trail use. People assume you are guilty no matter what. You mountain bikers and hikers really tear the land up I'm sure!!!! I'm just kidding. I think it's interesting that people like Boslough started with 4X4s and now don't even want people riding bikes or hiking near their "personal" property. There was a time when hardcord mountain bikers and wheelers were at each other's throats over who could use the public lands. People like Boslough have caused us to form alliances that will make the people who use PUBLIC lands stronger. Their antics and lawsuits and name calling are only making a stronger group to fight against their selfishness and desire to close public lands. :cool: