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
Out of all the claim owners I have yet to meet a small claim owner go through this process, anyone else?
