Significant disturbance or paper claim California dreaming?

[Tuolumne]

How many claim owners in California actually have plans to do real mining w a plan of operation notice of intent or actually will put down a reclamation bond?

Seems like alot of gold club members getup triple claims and use small miners waiver to hold them but never do more than run a sluice?

If you have a bunch of claims who are you kidding? R u going to put a reclamation bond on each one or are you holding multiple claims until the price if gold goes up to move to more significant disturbance.

Are you waiting out till dredging gets re-regulated?

How many of the 440+ tuolumne county claim owners have real mining plans and drilling samples?

How many on t et with just 20 acres actually have done the next step up?

The paper claim owner next to me has multiple claims hundreds of miles away from his other claims and his home address?

Are most dreaming of bringing a front loader and moving tuns while sluicing 5 gallon buckets?

Anyone recently file a poo or NOI or bond a reclamation fund?

I've got one claim and want to dig it all up eventually, not paper claim and drop them when better panning prospects are found. Sluicing is not the end to the means for my goals.

Anyone else have plans besides paper claim dreams in California?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tuolumne]

wow I should sell paydirt too and take advantage of armchair prospectors just like you!, do you need special permit to do that? We can all be profitable if we chose to sell paydirt really, whats your price on that, is it concentrates? how many hours to make a bag?

we can all read the regs and rules but has anyone recently gone through this POO, NIO or reclamation bond process?

Im looking for something significant 1000 yards or more, anyone with a small claim do any thing significant that required above actions with POO, NIO or reclamation bond?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[okbasspro]

wow I should sell paydirt too and take advantage of armchair prospectors just like you!, do you need special permit to do that? We can all be profitable if we chose to sell paydirt really, whats your price on that, is it concentrates? how many hours to make a bag?

we can all read the regs and rules but has anyone recently gone through this POO, NIO or reclamation bond process?

Im looking for something significant 1000 yards or more, anyone with a small claim do any thing significant that required above actions with POO, NIO or reclamation bond?

The guys I know that move that much and more are to busy trying to cover the cost of their permits bonds and equipment to have time to get on TNET.

 

[Tuolumne]

The guys I know that move that much and more are to busy trying to cover the cost of their permits bonds and equipment to have time to get on TNET.

im guessing they are not selling Pay dirt Out of all the claim owners I have yet to meet a small claim owner go through this process, anyone else?

 

[Bejay]

A very good friend/mining partner (now deceased) of mine went through the Hoops on a Federal Mining claim (BLM land management agency). Clay and I have had numerous personal discussions about my old friend. He had been a small time miner but decided to go big....heavy equipment and all that. Unfortunately for him he NEVER took the time to learn all the mining law, regs, CFRs, etc before he made his move to BIG. Just for interest, when you watch the beginning of Gold Rush and they show Burnt River in the general area where Hoffman is; you will see what is left of his claim (not). The wide spot shot showing the valley with a wide spot and some excavation/tailings above the valley floor is what is left of his claim. This TV shot is right before the truck comes around the corner on the Burnt River Rd. Take note that there is nothing there...but there used to be 3 houses and some outbuildings as well as electrical power to the claim and houses (some very historic). NOW...there is nothing left;......as after BLM got done with him he was penniless and traded all the mining equipment for the reclamation. He lost his shirt to say the least. Almost all the BLM crud that was sent his way for him to oblige, was merely tactics by the BLM to make him disappear. Being an avid small time miner, with a number of valid claims, made me realize the importance of learning all the mining law/rules/regs I could....as I had some very good teachers/instructors.........who I now have a close relationship with. Lets just say there are some experts who attempt to inform/educate the miners today. Small time miners may decide to go big if they discover exceptional deposits. I guess I really don't need to use this forum to offer input: as moderator on the http://americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org/.... I have spent a considerable amount of time/involvement in such matters. Also my involvement lead me to another highly successful supporting role for Land Matters...which offers miners a never endless bounty of tools.

But the point is simply this: Don't go down the wrong path when you don't have to. And yes it takes a lot of forum talk to convey all the material necessary to avoid the wrong path we are led down, by the USFS and BLM...let alone States with political agendas. I would be the first to say the task required to correctly challenge the USFS and BLM regarding the NOI or POO Contract is complex...and sometimes the more one learns the more complex it gets. Knowledge is a great tool...and tools are excellent to get the job done if you use the tool for the right job/purpose.

Bejay

 

[delnorter]

Wow, it's fantastic you, Bejay and Clay, have come to know one another and are working together for your own as well as all of our better understanding of mining laws, rights and privileges. I have very little time on my hands right now, but maybe I can be of help in the future.

Thanks guys,
Mike

 

[Goldfleks]

I think it's going to be nearly impossible to turn anything profitable in the West Coast as a Small Scale Miner until all the nonsense about water quality and dredging gets solved. If you can't highbank or dredge you simply can't move enough material to turn a profit. All that digging I did on Monday wasn't even minimum wage after taxes, and that was 10 hours of hard labor. I could just work another shift and buy gold more gold than I'll probably find all year.

Going "medium scale" probably doesn't leave you with enough profit to pay the right people in government their cut so they don't regulate you out of business. You basically need to go big enough to pay the right people to look the other way because they are profiting too, or go home.

The other issue is that the fact that claims don't really need to be worked and can be just "paper" claimed really prevents a serious small scale miner from making a profit. I'm sure there are plenty of claims out there that could probably be turned into a profitable claim if invested in, but the claim holders have zero interest in anything other than sluicing a few buckets of dirt on the weekend while they kick back a 24 pack of Budlight. Not to say that there is anything wrong with that, it's their claim, they can use it how they see fit. But there really isn't much uncharted land you can go stake a claim on left these days. Sure you can go stake something that will turn up a few flakes for your labor, and that might be just fine for the weekend warrior, but anything thats of real quality is probably claimed already. And that goes back to having enough $$$ to then buy that claim (if they are even interested in selling) and then having enough $$$ to get through the beaurcracy.

Good luck! I'll stick to being a weekend warrior and my nugget dreams. You need deep pockets to get any return from this business these days.

 

[okbasspro]

Depending on the new administration I may or may not need these I am hoping not.

 

[Bejay]

I'll offer another fly to the pile on the "POO"

The NOI and POO demands per USFS and BLM always base their request on the term:
"Significant Disturbance"

The term "significant surface disturbance" was a way for the Secretary to try to get around the legal standard "unnecessary or undue degradation" found in the FLPMA. So miners should not be distressed by those three words. The following is the only legal definition on which the BLM or Forest Service can rely.
The Supreme Court wrote:


"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)

You can take that to the bank.....use it!

Bejay

 

[goldenIrishman]

As has been said in more than a few threads dealing with "Legal Issues" here in the past.... you MUST understand the legal wording of any law for it to be used effectively. Leagaleze often seems to say one thing but in truth is saying something else. A legal dictionary that was in use at the time of the passing of the law in question is a must have! Without it, all you're going to do is dig yourself a nice deep hole in which to bury yourself and your case.

 

[Bejay]

As has been said in more than a few threads dealing with "Legal Issues" here in the past.... you MUST understand the legal wording of any law for it to be used effectively. Leagaleze often seems to say one thing but in truth is saying something else. A legal dictionary that was in use at the time of the passing of the law in question is a must have! Without it, all you're going to do is dig yourself a nice deep hole in which to bury yourself and your case.

Use Bouvier's as a guide!

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Spending a tank of fuel to find enough gold to pay for a tank of fuel....

I bet there are many people that are finding large quantities of gold that feel like they are turning a profit, when in reality after all the costs are factored in, they are really breaking even or maybe even working at a loss. Most are probably happy to do so. That's just my suspicion.

CEQA/NEPA, bonds, insurance, regulations, equipment, fuel, maintenance, repairs, depreciation, OSHA/MSHA compliance, SWPPP permit/compliance, taxes, stockpiling/handling of material multiple times, ect. ect. all add up to a very high operating cost which is probably difficult to overcome on the typical small footprint mines found on along western gold bearing streams/rivers.

I know of a guy that placer mined for years before all of these regulations came into being and he guessed that once the good ground was average with the poor ground, (where he was mining) most river bar gravels paid about 1/2 oz per 1000 yards of gravel moved. Most small time miners probably encounter much better paying ground on a regular basis, but once you start filling an excavator bucket and pushing material with a dozer, the value goes down quickly.

 

[SunshineMiner]

The NOI and POO demands per USFS and BLM always base their request on the term:
"Significant Disturbance"

The Supreme Court wrote:


"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)

Bejay... I'm thinking of taking most of your posts in this thread alone and making a binder/notebook to all these legal references! That way, when a LEO comes up and say just what in darn tarnation do you think you're doin!?

I can whip this out and say, whatever i want to get my gold, sir!

 

[Jeff95531]

Wow, it's fantastic you, Bejay and Clay, have come to know one another and are working together for your own as well as all of our better understanding of mining laws, rights and privileges. I have very little time on my hands right now, but maybe I can be of help in the future.

Thanks guys,
Mike

I knew when you two showed up here that our future looked brighter. So far, that's all I was right about as I've had to readjust my support portfolio...with no complaints btw. Keep up the great work you do.

 

[Bejay]

To SunshineMiner

I believe having all these kinds of docs printed and ready in a file, while prospecting/mining, serves a prudent purpose. My past experience in dealing with the Dist Ranger and staff, when they sent me a letter and wanted to come meet me on my claims,..........was to have the docs/info necessary to disclose (either verbally or printed). No need to argue! They say one thing and you produce what you believe is more applicable. It leaves little wiggle room for them if your "tool" applies. Secondly, it shows the agents that you have knowledge of such matters. I never verbally argue......if I quit my actions or leave I resort to "written" communication supporting my position.

Often times the USFS/BLM will respond with written communication.....and I can tell you they really can dig themselves a hole that allows you to let themselves cover themselves with dirt....burying themselves. That process of getting buried can raise their attention as well. One must be careful as to how you proceed to ........if you threaten them they will immediately shut up; and you will have no communication with them at all. Let them talk and you respond with the correct use of their own CFR's and the Law.

It never hurts to organize your portfolio of mining stuff in such a manner: being ready to respond to any such misuse of their power. I like to title each doc as to what it particularly pertains to. The correct CFRs is a great tool; as there are different types of mining CFR's and the Gov gets their correct application wrong. You can't use leasable CFR's or other CFR's (sandstone, marble, etc) to those that apply only to locatable metallic....yet the USFS and BLM LEO's often get them all clumped together. This type of forum is not the best way to get all that you need. Go to the amercanminglawforum.com and start extracting info. Lots of stuff is there...ready to gather. Pay close attention to all that WOOF posts on that forum. He goes by many names and you may already be familiar with his expertise. Copy and print......study and organize. You betcha...miners today need all the tools to mine/prospect...and I am not just talking picks and shovels.

http://americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org/index.php?sid=218b308ab437c43f10ae232f201abd1e

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

Many Miners rely on 36 CFR in their determinations of applicability for a POO: But lets look at it closely:

The entire of 36 CFR Section 9 relates to National Parks regulations. Always read the scope section to understand where it applies. I gave you that and it's very clear that these regulations only apply to mining in the National Parks. Those regulations rely on 90 Stat. 1342 The Act of September 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1342, 16 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Just as it says in your post.

The Act of September 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1342, 16 U.S.C. 1901 wrote:
16 USC CHAPTER 39 - MINING ACTIVITY WITHIN NATIONAL PARK
* * * * * SYSTEM AREAS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
* *TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION
* *CHAPTER 39 - MINING ACTIVITY WITHIN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AREAS

-HEAD-
* * *CHAPTER 39 - MINING ACTIVITY WITHIN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AREAS *

-MISC1-
* *Sec. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *1901. * * * Congressional findings and declaration of policy. * *
* *1902. * * * Preservation and management of areas by Secretary of
* * * * * * * * the Interior; promulgation of regulations. * * * * *
* *1903 to 1906. Omitted. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *1907. * * * Recordation of mining claims; publication of notice. *
* *1908. * * * Damage to natural and historical landmarks; procedures
* * * * * * * * for determination and enforcement of abatement of
* * * * * * * * damaging activities. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *1909. * * * Severability. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *1910. * * * Civil actions for just compensation by mining claim
* * * * * * * * holders. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *1911. * * * Acquisition of land by Secretary. * * * * * * * * * *
* *1912. * * * Financial disclosure by officer or employee of
* * * * * * * * Secretary.
-SOURCE-
* *(Pub. L. 94-429, Sec. 1, Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1342.)


-MISC1-
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *SHORT TITLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *Pub. L. 94-429, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 123
* *and 450y-2 of this title, and repealed sections 350, 350a, 447, and
* *450z of this title, is popularly known as the "Mining in the Parks
* *Act".


You can read more HERE

Trying to apply National Park regulations to the laws of mining just won't fly in a court of law. The title does not have any meaning within the law ... as one would know if they understood the 1872 mining law! *

Feel free to do your own research. As I posted earlier there is no set definition of "significant surface disturbance". The Supreme Court and the district courts have variously ruled that it means:
1. No limit on the amount of desert scrubland.
2. Five acres or less in one year.
3. One acre per year.
4. Any amount of old growth steeply sloped forest.

None of these decisions apply to any claim but the one in the case being decided.

You might think it would be nice to have a set definition but you should remember that "significant surface disturbance" is not a phrase or concept written in any law. It was entirely made up by the Forest Service. Be careful what you wish for... you may not like what definition the Secretary makes up to go along with his made up phrase. *

Please learn to rely on the law for your mining rights. Relying on agency definitions to made up phrases has nothing to do with the law or your rights.

The standard under the law gives the Secretary the duty to prevent "undue and unnecessary degradation of the public lands"........ as it relates to mining.
Supreme Court wrote:
"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)


As I posted ealrier "That is the only law the Secretary can rely on". Calling that legal standard "significant surface disturbance" or "pink lollipops" doesn't change the legal standard or it's meaning.

One MUST Learn to rely on the law for your rights. No rights will ever be found or enforced through government regulations (the CFR).


Bejay

 

[goldenIrishman]

Also make darn sure that it's the edition that was in use at the time the law was written! You can download Bouvier's off the web for free in several different editions to fit the correct time period. I think I've got like4-5 different editions in PDF format.

 

[Bejay]

Easy to use and free.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/


!856 Legal Dictionary

Use when reading the original Mining Laws written in the latter part of the 1800s

Bouvier Law Dictionary

A free online source for the 1st and 2nd edition of the Black's Law Dictionary.

Black's Law Dictionary

Bejay

 

[HMiller]

I got a letter yesterday from the FS about an noi. I'll be reading this thread with a fine tooth comb when I get some more time. My gold is in a dry Creek.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Bejay]

You May find this of interest!

BE SURE TO ADD THE WHOLE LAW AND THE WHOLE US CODE AND CFR SCOPE
Where both the Forest Service and the BLM are required to adhere the congressional public land management man date of the Federal Land Management Policy Act, FLPMA, which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that, ". . . no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress" any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, impairing, obstructing or closing access against, or managing the surface of Locatable mineral deposit property on public domain in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort.
trust: Legal Deffinition
n. an entity created to hold assets for the benefit of certain persons or entities, with a trustee managing the trust (and often holding title on behalf of the trust). Most trusts are founded by the persons (called trustors, settlors and/or donors) who execute a written declaration of trust which establishes the trust and spells out the terms and conditions upon which it will be conducted. The declaration also names the original trustee or trustees, successor trustees or means to choose future trustees. The assets of the trust are usually given to the trust by the creators, although assets may be added by others. During the life of the trust, profits and, sometimes, a portion of the principal (called "corpus") may be distributed to the beneficiaries, and at some time in the future (such as the death of the last trustor or settlor) the remaining assets will be distributed to beneficiaries. A trust may take the place of a will and avoid probate (management of an estate with court supervision) by providing for distribution of all assets originally owned by the trustors or settlors upon their death. There are numerous types of trusts, including "revocable trusts" created to handle the trustors' assets (with the trustor acting as initial trustee), often called a "living trust" or "inter vivos trust" which only becomes irrevocable on the death of the first trustor; "irrevocable trust," which cannot be changed at any time; "charitable remainder unitrust," which provides for eventual guaranteed distribution of the corpus (assets) to charity, thus gaining a substantial tax benefit. There are also court-decreed "constructive" and "resulting" trusts over property held by someone for its owner. A "testamentary trust" can be created by a will to manage assets given to beneficiaries.
tort: Legal Deffinition
[/B][/B]n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well.

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

This is from my files.....I would request comment by Clay on this one!

When the USFS asks you such things as: to “Please work with their office”.
You could reply: "I cannot work with your office".
a) Pleas show where the USFS is not fraudulently asserting its' authority.
b) Please show how the USFS is not wrongfully attempting to deprive the me (claimant) of property and rights without due process, or consultation, or the right to do so.
c) Pleas show the CFR'(s) the USFS uses to show relevancy its' own policies, the codes, and the law..

It must be noted that: Most any of the commissions of the above are felonies under federal and state law. For instance, and not limited to, the USFS knows that when you violate a claimants expectation of the honest administration of government the USFS has committed a felony under federal law. When the USFS uses its' office to deprive a claimant of the use and enjoyment of Granted property, that's a felony extortion under state law. How is a claimant supposed to work with such an agency that acts in such a manner.

Regarding whether or not there is ever a time a claimant should work with a USFS office. The USFS often uses such terms which appear to imply some sort of continuing obligation on a claimants part to some undisclosed authority on their part,....... for instance:

Much correspondence with the USFS makes reference to: “As a reminder,”
The use of the word “reminder” supposes a prior authority that a miner was obligated to, the orders from which a miner was required to become subject to. The USFS should know there is no such obligation or requirement; as will be further discussed. and "reminded" has no justifyable meaning to anything.

The USFS will often say: “in order to work your mining claim”
While identifying it is in fact a claim, and not the government's or USFS's, The USFS makes a challenge that a claimant cannot work a mineral deposit claim. Where Congress has required that a claimant in fact MUST work his/her discovery and has the implied right to work a claim,..... How is such a USFS imposition not a taking, and not an infringement of the grant conveying possessory title evidencing that a claimant has exclusive enjoyment and use, including the entire surface within the limits of the claim, assert able even against the United States as even the Forest Service Manual so explains?
a) Show cause, How a mineral deposit location has not been restored to public domain, segregated from the forest reserve by operation of law, Act of 1897, and disposed to the miner and all claimants determinations, exclusively, by operation of law, the mineral disposal acts of 1872 to 1865 and that this grant does not provide a complete authorization other than any USFS approval to work a valid mineral deposit claim.
Further it should be noted:...... b)..Show cause how the USFS is not acting contrary to the congressional mandate upon it by the FLPMA that “no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act.” .....in fact creating a very important "savings clause" insulating the miner/claimant from USFS oversight/authority.

The USFS also often makes the following demand:
“Until you have an approved plan, any mining activities, associated equipment or occupancy,” “is prohibited”.
Where a claimant has often worked before without a plan of operations, any such demand here now for a plan of operations can appear to be a retaliatory threat for any previous mining activity.
The USFS often takes issue with occupancy. Occupancy was granted to the miner under the mining laws, not subject to USFS authority,...... per above. (I posted info for occupancy)
This other authorization in the form of a congressional grant is not a special use delegated to the USFS administrative management authority that the USFS has discretion over. Show cause that it does.

The USFS often uses the phrase/term: “is prohibited”
As the USFS knows; prohibition of a granted property is a facial takings of a miners granted property. It is also a fiduciary breach, a very serious crime. The USFS must show cause how its purported prohibition is
a) Lawful,
b) not a takings; and
c) not a fiduciary breach.
d) For the purposes of establishing jurisdiction between the district court and the United States Court of Claims, for unlawful takings, show cause further, how such possible USFS actions thus far would not be torts.

The USFS often presents the need for, “an approved plan of operations”. ["POO"}
a) Show cause in the Act of 1872, the grant terms of which a claimant is obligated to fulfill, where in that act is a Plan of Operations required?
b) Show cause how a claimants private mineral deposit claim is a major federal action subject to the NEPA.
c) By the most extreme odds that the USFS can show the NEPA applicable, produce the prerequisite Notice of Intent, and Environmental assessment the agency did from which any Plan would be based?
d) Given the USFS can show cause the lawful imposition of the NEPA upon my private property (claim), admit the USFS has placed the cart before the horse or show cause how you do not.

Regarding:..... “National Forest System lands”
The USFS will often fraudulently assert that a mineral deposit claim comprises “National Forest System lands” despite the removal of the segregated land by a valuable mineral discovery by operation of law. Where Congress has mandated a reservation of the minerals and land in the Organic Act of 1897, where it states, lands found valuable for minerals may be restored to the public domain and is by operation of law, and where the mining laws culminating in the Act of 1872, convey possessory title, including authority and jurisdiction, exclusively to the claimant of the public domain so removed from the forest reservation, maintainable against the government grantor's interest, including an agent or the USFS, show cause how the USFS hasn’t committed a fraud to declare my private in-holding (claim) under the mining law of 1872, and 1897, is “National Forest System lands”?

Until the USFS can show that a mineral deposit claim is other than the private in-holding within the forest reserve Congress granted, Any use of the word “prohibition” appears valid only upon land a claimant does not possess or intend to work. Thus the USFS would be required to show cause this is not the fact.

Because the USFS (letters) often implies an official threat of action, however unlawful, when presented the above information by a claimant it can be required that the USFS has 14 days to answer to the above identified frauds and any other actions to show cause how the USFS is not committing or has not/will not be committing any felony, tort, or taking, or acting or intending to act contrary to law as regards your such demands and that the USFS can definitively show contrary to any previous demands or takings allowing the USFS to lawfully proceed......... and have been doing so.

When notifying the USFS of the above mentioned information the claimant wants to put the USFS on notice that it is up to the USFS to make sure all get this notice. Everyone who the USFS communicates per this challenge of authority to, the USFS shall return a response disclaiming their part in any apparent criminal actions taken against a claimant by the USFS, [or any other agent] whether privately or officially, or be held to be aiding and abetting, or as accessories to all such felonies the USFS and or agents commit or the harm caused by any fraudulent statements made or the actions taken knowingly, willfully, and intending to extort from a claimant the exclusive use and enjoyment of the valuable mineral deposit property granted exclusively to me by Congress. There is no excuse. "Not Responding" to this communication provides proof that the USFS in fact acknowledges a claimants lawful position; And does not concur with any actions by the USFS or other agency and expressly denounce any USFS actions or omissions to act to adversely impact a claimants rights and property contrary to law will bring the USFS or an agent thereof into liability as an accessory, if not worse.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO READ: The Federal Register Vol. 73, Number 216, Nov.6, 2008


Bejay