Is this guy serious?
What ever attorney gave this guy advice, is a very poor one, i doubt any attorney was involved. amid many funny flaws, I love how he aknowledges that it was apart of the mining act of 1866 and notes it states the construction of highways and then in his rs 2477 fact sheet (fact?) he states,... "Congress granted a right-of-way for the construction of highways. When it used the word "highway", Congress meant "highway", not a mere road or trail. RS 2477 rights-of-way can only host a constructed highway, by definition. The legal definition of "highway" is the same as it's common sense definition. A highway is a major thoroughfare connecting major destinations. RS 2477does not apply to other kinds of public ways, such as carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, railroads, canals, ferries or navigable rivers. Congress did not use those words. If our lawmakers had wanted their law to apply to these entities, it would have said so. In an era of common sense, Congress meant exactly what it said when it used the word "highway". yeah, in 1866 they were thinking of I-15...uh, or not, and why would congress even think to protect the rights of miners and minning claim access by inculding trails, wagon roads, and any of the other exclusions he lists.Im sure they were mainly thinking of the old miner and he f-350. give me a break! you can tell whoever wrote this is gutless due to the lack of contact info. If this logic is common sense I must be crazy. Good laughs, thanks for posting.
