View Full Version : what is 2477

October 3rd, 2003, 12:44 PM
this is a small list of some judges ruleings with respect to 2477 row's
there is alot more info to be had and a person can go to google and do a search 2477

October 3rd, 2003, 01:17 PM
Although RS 2477 routes were not specifically reserved in the original patent documents issued by federal or state governments, all patents are conveyed subject to valid, existing rights. RS 2477 rights-of-way comprise valid, existing rights. Lawsuits will likely occur between individuals who disagree over the actual location of an unsurveyed RS 2477 easement. This is another reason that DNR has advocated surveying RS 2477 routes before recording them. Surveys would ensure each ........

from this site

are you reading this mark and mr robinson esq.?

the fact that the road does not show up on the patient means nothing and the fact that it does not show on the deed (created by the patient document)just means that it was over looked by the title folks. but then mark you already know this as evidanced by the fact that you purchased a special warrenty deed when you bought the highland placer property and which you now have claimed that the ins folks are paying your bills.
you bought property with a PUBLIC ROAD in it and you knew it and there is nothing else to this
THE ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD and you have blocked it illegally and knowingly and all the rest of your talk and writeing are smoke screen.

October 3rd, 2003, 01:30 PM
What about the landowner's rights?
Many Alaskan landowners, such as Native corporations and private citizens, want assurance that RS 2477 identification and recording will not damage their rights and interests. Federal, state, and local governments must recognize the legitimate concerns of landowners and land managers and the people they may represent. However, RS 2477 routes existed before the property was segregated as a homestead or other private parcel. They represent the "valid existing rights" to which all patents and deeds are subject.

what this means is that a row was created in the proccess of establishing a claim. and the row predates the homestead or the patient which means

October 3rd, 2003, 03:09 PM
R.S 2477 grew out of mining law. However, while an unpatented mining claim is a property right, it is not a fully vested right. Mining claim owners like homesteaders by law had to meet conditions or requirements for retention of their claims. Unpatented mines are possessory interests which are subject to conditions such as the presence of a valid discovery of minerals Page 3.

and retention depends on compliance with the provisions of the mining law. New requirement can be placed on unpatented claim because the federal government continues to own the fee to claims until they are patented or fully vested. Once a claim is fully vest, the government cannot impose additional conditions or stipulations on mining claims subsequent to the time a complete mineral application is filed. This is very similar to how homesteads were perfected. Extensive case law on R.S. 2477 right-of-ways, on the other hand, indicates that the easement for a highways was perfected (or vested) when the road was created according to state law. Federal law contained no provisions for further patenting to perfect the right-of-way. If the federal government were to impose additional registration or notification requirements on the continued existence of already created R.S. 2477 right-of ways, these requirements would run serious risk of being found unlawful or unconstitutional by the courts. Case law would make it very difficult for the federal government to declare a R.S. 2477 right-of-way abandoned. In Ball v. Stephens (1945) and McRose v. Bottyer (1889), the courts held that abandonment of these right-of-ways is determined by state law only. In Hodel v. Irving (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a statute that prohibited the fractional interests in Native American allotment claims (which are also full fee simple property) from being inherited without a will being in place an unconstitutional taking. If the federal government tried to take back R.S. 2477 right-of-ways, it is likely that the courts would rule that the states as owner of these right-of-ways were unconstitutionally deprived of their property interests.


again the row was created before the patent
youd think that boslough or his lawyer could figure this stuff out without my help.
i have on more then one ocation given this answer and this answer was given to my by a fellow in the blm that fights this battle for the blm

just by vertue of the fact that an intryman had to travel a route to get the the land being claimed.
this is why his lawyer is trying every means possable to avoid court.
he has no evidance what so ever that the road is private.not one shread
and mark does everything he can to change the issue. the real issue is:
is the road public or not?

October 3rd, 2003, 03:12 PM
and as i have stated before all of the 2477 stuff is secondary to the fact that there are a whole bunch of liveing breathing folks that are compatant to give tesimony that will show that they personally have used this road for more then 20 years
again all that is neede for a public road

there is nothing more to this issue

October 3rd, 2003, 05:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by vb:
again the row was created before the patent
i keep thinkin how can you prove that to the judge? if it don't show up on the suvayor generals map and the claim does? of course the map could be fake or doctored up like the other crap on his website.

October 3rd, 2003, 05:32 PM
hairy i know you get this. but ill do it any way.
the mere fact that there is a claim that was patented means that there was at least one person that traveled a route long enough to aquire a patent. the patent is the proof that the row was esablished
not only that but prescriptive easment proofs that the road is a public road. like i say 2477 is just a plus. priscriptive is way easy to prove and boslough knows it

October 3rd, 2003, 05:37 PM
another misleading point made by mark is that we are trying to sieze control of his private property.
we have no desire for anything to do with his property. the right to the road is just as much property to the public as his land is to him. we want to use our property (the road) and we have that right. it was granted by congress to us and was perfected by the person that established the claim that now is bosloughs property which boarders the road which is the property of the public. mark has siezed public property which is against the law and he has destroyed and damaged it as well

October 3rd, 2003, 05:39 PM
ahhh....light bulb goes on. So every claim has to have a row to it or obviously no one could have been there to stake the claim. I'm a little slow on occasion.

October 3rd, 2003, 05:52 PM
yup more then likely the old miner had to move rocks and brush etc to get to his claim which more then satisfies the contruction of a road. and the row for the road is instint were the patent is over time. the row would always predate the patent
check mate
if you have a mine prior to the public domain being otherwise reserved which would be prior to 1906/07 then you have a clear cut 2477 row. by bosloughs on statement this property predates the forest service so

game over. plus a huge list of floks that have used this road for more then 20 years that are credable witnesses each. priscriptive easment= public road

all of his other spew is just spew

October 4th, 2003, 06:01 AM
btw this is the exact point i made a year ago when knobby showed up. the fact that there is a patented mineing claim by definition of what it takes to patent means that the row is established and the idiot and his lawyer have never quite understood as evadenced by the fact that the lawyer tryed with the patent survey to show that there was no road and that boslough to this day has tye same survey on his site saying that since there is no road on the survey that the road must not have been there. yet reason says that some how the miner had to get to his property. the purpose of the patent survey is not to show roads etc but the boundries of the mines.

now what mark!!!!!!!


Willie G
October 5th, 2003, 04:30 AM
Generally, a Right-of-Way (ROW) creates a superior, or higher ranking, property right in another person, or group, other than the owner. The legal terminology is that the ROW is the dominant estate and the property becomes the subservient estate. Because a property owner is generally regarded as owning his property free and clear of all of the rest of the world, the creation of a right in another person is required to be on paper and recorded in the same place as all other property transaction so that everyone is put on notice that the right (ROW, in this case) exists.

The fact that this is the method for all legal land transactions explains why folks like MB are able to mount a challenge to RS 2477 in court: the Judges don't realize what an exception RS 2477 was or why Congress did it.

When RS 2477 was enacted, the West was literally an uncharted wilderness. Many places were settled only sparsely and some places would never have been settled at all, but for the discovery of huge quantities of minerals that were economically useful. In addition, surveyors were in short supply out West. As the owner of millions of square miles of territory, the Goverment decided that it would honor any road built for the purpose of mineral exploration. No survey needed. No recorded easment. No paperwork at all - just build the road if you need to, it's OK. That's what RS 2477 was - a blanket grant of permission from the Government to it's citizens to create roads in the wilderness. And so it happened.

Fast forward to today. Mr. Greenhorn visits Colorado and loves the natural beauty. He has money and wants to own a piece of that beauty so he buys some property in the mountains. As part of the purchase process, a title search and lien search are done. Mr. Seller appears to own the property outright, so all is well and Mr. Greenhorn pays his money. He thinks he owns the whole enchilada, and he does - except for two little things someone forgot to tell him:
1) Mr. Greenhorn cannot buy from Mr. Seller more rights in the property than Mr. Seller owns. This makes perfect sense. If Mr. Seller only owns one-half of the property, then that's all he can sell - his half. And if Mr. Seller owns the property subject to an RS 2477 ROW, then that ROW continues through the transaction to Mr. Greenhorn.
2) Every buyer of property takes his title to that property subject to any defects or encumbrances that a visual inspection of the property would disclose. Mr. Greenhorn is legally charged with the knowledge of having inspected his property before he bought it. If such an inspection would have shown the defect, he can't say later that he did not know about it. It's nobody's fault but his that he didn't look before he bought.

This is how we wind up with a situation like Barking Dog. The new owner wants the court to bail him out of a mistake on his part - he didn't inspect the property before he bought, he didn't ask the right questions, or maybe he just figured he could whine and moan enough that he'd get his way. In any event, he's wrong. By now he probably realizes it, if for no other reason than his lawyer has told him. Does that make him stop? Not necessarily. He probably figures that he can outlast Vernon, or outspend him, and he'll win that way.

That's why it's so important that we help Vernon in this fight. And what Vernon needs most is not just our moral support, but our MONEY.

Sorry for the long post. I really did try to keep it short.


Willie G
October 5th, 2003, 11:30 AM
A clarification to my earlier post - The ROW granted under the terms of RS 2477 are held by the State and Counties. Only they can extinguish the road. Otherwise, the road is held in trust for the public and maintained (or not!) by the County.


October 5th, 2003, 12:09 PM
where the grealin that bats its eyes like a woman????? eric!!!!!!

you are my hero willie!!
the only point id like to add to this is that boslough went into this knowing full well what he was doing
he discussed it with other land owners previous to the purchase of the highland placer and he took out a special warrenty deed to bilk the insurance dudes

October 6th, 2003, 07:56 AM
Has anyone told the insurance man about this? If you can get a "neighbor" to concur we can get the insurance co's lawyers on is back. Besides, it's guys like this that make our insurance premiums go up, and that pisses me off almost as much as moving trees that he knocked down to block me from OUR road!

October 6th, 2003, 12:11 PM
as i said this is third hand.
boslough told this guy and he told me. if you go back to the first rule
rule #1 = mark boslough lies
then i have know idea. and i dont know what ins company. but im with you id like to find out. however im not sure it would make a differance cause the ins co should have been smarter. just cause they played into his plan might not help a thing

Free Thinker
October 6th, 2003, 01:10 PM
VB wrote:

you are my hero willie!!
the only point id like to add to this is that boslough went into this knowing full well what he was doing
he discussed it with other land owners previous to the purchase of the highland placer and he took out a special warrenty deed to bilk the insurance dudes

October 6th, 2003, 01:20 PM
willie is my hero
according to the other owners this was their discussion. i never know what to believe from mark since he lies. so id need to here from the ins folks to confirm that they are now paying the bill.
the special warranty sure set the ins folks up for it (i have a copy of it from the county)
and the conversation previous to the purchase as to control of the road is record from the feller in the conversation.
that seems like a setup (bilk) to me!!!!

Free Thinker
October 6th, 2003, 01:21 PM
VB wrote:

you are my hero willie!!
the only point id like to add to this is that boslough went into this knowing full well what he was doing
he discussed it with other land owners previous to the purchase of the highland placer and he took out a special warrenty deed to bilk the insurance dudes

Sorry about the previous post of VB's quote without a reply, but obviously I am new to this forum and still learning it.

VB, I wonder if you really understand what a Special Warranty Deed is vs. let's say a General Warranty Deed? What type of deed do you think it would be that Mark would have otherwise received?

Also, I think you may be a bit confused on a Prescriptive Easement. Which is to say that first of all, the time period required by State Statute is not 20 years, it is in fact only 18 years. Secondly, this use MUST BE OPEN AND ADVERSE, continuous and uninterrupted for the prescribed period.

Can you honestly say without reservation that Mark's property qualifies under all of these requirements? Did the owner prior to Mark allow access to the property, or were they even aware of it?

I think that you better do some more research....or higher better attorneys and get a lot more money from your brethern!!!

October 6th, 2003, 02:00 PM
actually the special warrenty deed has confused me some, i found it in the counties info on the properties that mark and his wifes clan owns. if i remember correctly the highland placer was the only one that had this. but id have to recheck. the claim of the ins. company paying came from mark and was relayed to me by the person that he made the claim to. so if hes tellin the truth then his setup worked .it just adds up for me (if there arent any other types of deeds i would not know, and if any warr. on any deed would still get the outcome for mark then why do they call iy "special"?) but yup youd be right , im not a title company.the ins thing is a sideline in my mind. i just see that he laid the thing out from the get go (he knew what he was doing going in,which is my point)
prescriptive easement is indeed 18 years for private property and 20 for public. if i can show more than 20 years then its covered either way ,right. good lawyer and yup im real confident, and so is mark . which is why he'll do all he can to stay away from a judge.
my reseach is good fer sure.
as mark said glenn tallman was the care taker for forty years for the previous owner and i think that the best sentence from him to address this was that mr cornish would be turning over in his grave .he had always held that the road was public. plus, the sign on the rock had always read private property next 2.5 miles please stay on road. if the road were not used by the public why would this be posted? for the land owner to remember to stay on his road? course not. even in mrs bosloughs rants from last year she herself said that the road was being used by rigs as far back as 63 and that the use had increased.i have cases that outline what the use requirements are and -yup i have no reservations about standing in front of a judge to make this case.in fact marks lawyer has the list of users.
by the way most of the cases that i have seen involve only one person asserting the easement, and my understanding is that the easement is if 1 person has done the travel for that time period. in other words it cant be just a bunch of differant users over that period. so each of the people on my list have personally used that road for more than 20years each...

October 6th, 2003, 02:07 PM
on rereading your post
i dont know if the owner alowed access to the property. i do know that the road was used and of course the road is not part of that property. 2 differant things. the previous owner knew this and posted the sign to let others know that he owned the property on either side of the public road for the next 2.5 miles
i would have to say that they would be aware of it since that road has been there since before the turn of the century

Willie G
October 6th, 2003, 04:58 PM
Just so everyone can agree on definitions:

special warranty deed
A deed in which the grantor conveys title to the grantee and agrees to protect the grantee against title defects or claims asserted by the grantor and those persons whose right to assert a claim against the title arose during the period the grantor held title to the property. In a special warranty deed the grantor guarantees to the grantee that he has done nothing during the time he held title to the property which has, or which might in the future, impair the grantees title.

general warranty deed
A deed which conveys not only all the grantors interests in and title to the property to the grantee, but also warrants that if the title is defective or has a "cloud" on it (such as mortgage claims, tax liens, title claims, judgments, or mechanics liens against it) the grantee may hold the grantor liable

quitclaim deed
A deed that transfers without warranty whatever interest or title a grantor may have at the time the conveyance is made.

One other thing - if Barking Dog road is an RS 2477 road then the question of prescriptive easement is moot - it doesn't matter. If VB has alleged that the public has acquired a prescriptive easement, that represents a "Plan B" argument for keeping the road open.

Now, back to the fight...


October 7th, 2003, 11:09 AM
actually my thinking has been that prescriptive is the easier to prove since there are liveing ,breathing witnesses,
thanks for takeing up the slack on this willie g!!
so how does the claim that some insurance company is footing the bill fall into the special warr???

Willie G
October 7th, 2003, 02:42 PM
What I found interesting about MB having only a Special WD is that it is like a big red flag to most attorneys - the seller is saying "This property has legal problems that are not my fault. If you want to buy this, it's your problem, not mine." The seller in this case knew about the RS 2477 road being there, knew that it wouldn't show up in a title search, and covered his own butt when he sold it. Otherwise MB would be suing him as well.

All of this is just another way of saying that MB either knew of the RS 2477 or should have known of it if he had asked the right questions or walked over the property.

The only smart thing he did was to buy a title insurance policy. The title insurance company will pay his legal bills because they didn't find the RS 2477 on the title search. Someday their lawyer will read a few cases and decide that since the RS 2477 ROW wasn't recorded and didn't have to be, they (the title Co.) aren't responsible under the terms of the policy. A little checking into who handled the closing of the sale should point to the insurance policy and the company that issued it.


October 8th, 2003, 05:16 PM
dude!!, thats so what i been tryin to say.
big read flag.
so the title insurance folks are who we are lookin fer???? hummm
thanks so much bill
i wanna grow up to be alot like you!!!!