Draft responding to criminal Mineral Estate trespass
- Thread starter M.E.G.
- Start date
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
-
Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
There is a lot there MEG. How did that work for you (whoever)? There are so many points that the USFS would have to respond to it would be very rewarding to know how the USFS did respond or "NOT Respond".
I can see the method by which the issue was approached per the letter. But could not referencing the CFRs and Applicable Federal Laws with the savings clauses held within them not have been an alternative method of response?
But I am curious as to the response on the letter you posted...tks for info.
Bejay
I can see the method by which the issue was approached per the letter. But could not referencing the CFRs and Applicable Federal Laws with the savings clauses held within them not have been an alternative method of response?
But I am curious as to the response on the letter you posted...tks for info.
Bejay
goldenIrishman
Silver Member
- Feb 28, 2013
- 3,465
- 6,152
- Detector(s) used
- Fisher / Gold Bug AND the MK-VII eyeballs
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Well it WAS a long read M.E.G. and most people would loose interest before they made it half way through it. I thought it brought up a lot of good points but even I had a hard time maintaining interest in it due to the length and I'm one of those sickos that enjoys deciphering legal documents. Maybe next time you should include a brief of the contents and if someone wants more details they can look it up in the main body.
OP
OP
M.E.G.
Sr. Member
- Apr 25, 2014
- 498
- 875
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #5
I post this reply to another forum member's post addressing the same topic.
Quote: Real49er at 19:30:27 Wed Feb 22 2017
I would say it was overly long, as well as a bit disjointed, chaotic, repetitive and not really well written, but I did read it, and appreciated doing so!
Real49er,
It appeared to be disjointed, chaotic because it was responding to prior letters and false claims of authority from the agency as they were discussed.
It is repetitive because the agency violates the same laws usually for the same reasons which must be straightened up in the record.
The length was dictated by what record that letter was required to make before the lawsuit. In other words, what you don't see is the claims this letter responds to which the district ranger made or tried to continue in the record to show his actions where lawful. The letter fixes those false statements as they came up in the letter.
A lawsuit was filed against the district ranger, and accomplices, for blocking access to our claim by locking a gate while attempting to extort a POO, destruction of mineral development workings, and other Rights violations, all constituting Felony level crimes. Notice of suit service on the criminals being completed, the Court Clerk acceptance of the suit filing, only to some days later remove any evidence of the suit being filed, using White-out over the official stamped filing date and time received and sending it back without a reason. This obstructing our access to the court.
A remedy was filed directly to the Supreme Court of Oregon to force the clerk to reinstate the filing in it’s originally filed in order of acceptance. During the 9 months time waiting for an answer from the Supreme Court the gate was unlocked.
When the Supreme Court answered, the judge denied the remedy for no reason. Access to the original court of filing being once again denied.
We consider it a win despite being denied access to the courts to sue. It also implies the state courts protect Federal employees who violate granted property rights.
We don't file a POO or NOI.
This State denial of access to the court, the interference of the judiciary in protecting granted rights, in fact, advised JMD on the strategy used in its lawsuit against Kitzhaber & the Bar Association, enjoining SB 839, SB 838, and more, which resulted in an Art III court default judgment in favor of JMD.
Quote: Real49er at 19:30:27 Wed Feb 22 2017
I would say it was overly long, as well as a bit disjointed, chaotic, repetitive and not really well written, but I did read it, and appreciated doing so!
Real49er,
It appeared to be disjointed, chaotic because it was responding to prior letters and false claims of authority from the agency as they were discussed.
It is repetitive because the agency violates the same laws usually for the same reasons which must be straightened up in the record.
The length was dictated by what record that letter was required to make before the lawsuit. In other words, what you don't see is the claims this letter responds to which the district ranger made or tried to continue in the record to show his actions where lawful. The letter fixes those false statements as they came up in the letter.
A lawsuit was filed against the district ranger, and accomplices, for blocking access to our claim by locking a gate while attempting to extort a POO, destruction of mineral development workings, and other Rights violations, all constituting Felony level crimes. Notice of suit service on the criminals being completed, the Court Clerk acceptance of the suit filing, only to some days later remove any evidence of the suit being filed, using White-out over the official stamped filing date and time received and sending it back without a reason. This obstructing our access to the court.
A remedy was filed directly to the Supreme Court of Oregon to force the clerk to reinstate the filing in it’s originally filed in order of acceptance. During the 9 months time waiting for an answer from the Supreme Court the gate was unlocked.
When the Supreme Court answered, the judge denied the remedy for no reason. Access to the original court of filing being once again denied.
We consider it a win despite being denied access to the courts to sue. It also implies the state courts protect Federal employees who violate granted property rights.
We don't file a POO or NOI.
This State denial of access to the court, the interference of the judiciary in protecting granted rights, in fact, advised JMD on the strategy used in its lawsuit against Kitzhaber & the Bar Association, enjoining SB 839, SB 838, and more, which resulted in an Art III court default judgment in favor of JMD.
russau
Gold Member
CONGRATS! A fight can NEVER be won UNTILL the first man stands up!
