USFS and BLM agency visits

[Bejay]

On a different thread the question was asked: How many miners have had visits by an agency person(s) who wanted to bring forth some agency authority.......Say a visit by a USFS or BLM agent.

I have, and it was pre-emoted by a USFS District Rangers letter....and that Dist Ranger came with 4 of his staff and the Hired hand Sheriff who was funded/employed by the USFS.

Also:

Last year I met and talked to a Douglas County Oregon Sheriff (a nice guy) who was employed by the BLM. He was putting up emergency road closure signs for the BLM.... (Douglas Complex forest fire). He even explained to me he was acting on behalf of as an employee of the BLM. He told me personally he does not harass miners.

The reason for this post/thread will be to see how many miners have actually had "out in the field" visits/confrontations/etc. with agency personnel.....And we may be able to clarify some of the issues miners are being asked to deal with.

A prospector/miner has a lot of potential issues to deal with.


Bejay

 

[M.E.G.]

A trip to that court in Hawaii could result in a nice vacation but I'm thinking you might just be stymied by the local perception of venue if you could find a magistrate to help form a court.

Trying to form a District Court of the United States will prove to be difficult at best. Every court requires three entities at minimum to gain jurisdiction. It seems to me your adversary and the referee would be missing in your attempts, leaving you with nothing but an empty room and other men thinking you the fool for attempting to "swap the words around".

What you assume to be ignorance on my part is really just a lifetime of dealing effectively with the situation as it is.

You might try it sometime, it can be refreshingly productive.

In the meantime lets try to stick to non political subjects. The moderators here are particularly touchy about that rule.

Again, it appears you are continuing to explain away or convolute what amounts to recognizing the law and the requirements of law.

You are not seeking a magistrate, i.e., administrative park commissioner, but a commissioned Article III judge in an Article III court, if in the district court. Hawaii is only one of two Article III courts available. This is not a trivial matter to establish. If this is being ignored so goes your claim.
And the courts are not established by the magistrate but by the legislature.
What the practice has been is officials pretending to be Article III judges in territorial courts.

So I'm not sure why you think this is merely word swapping when, as you acknowledge, the US Code makes the distinction and it is up to the claimant to file in the correct court, in particular where the judges fail to properly transfer.

If you do not acknowledge the corruption currently sitting in the seats of decision, you aren't dealing with the situation as it is, but avoiding it. Or are you saying you are agreeable to a system that no longer follows the law?

And since when does learning about the methods to assert or protect one's possessions, rights, and remedies a political subject matter?

There are a number of remedies, beyond the discussion of the claims court or the district court, in appropriately dealing with the government as I have offered we are doing as well, as to any success you may have, congratulation, the miners need all they can get.

 

[timberjack]

Overcoming great obstacles is never easy! We have a great challange and to set things right we need to move forward with all possibilities. Do we know which tact will succeed without trying? I am very happy we have gifted people exploring all the options. Thank you all and keep it up. Its going to take me weeks to read and understand this, but i will, just got my copy of Blacks Law Dictionary. I think this back and forth is critically important.

 

[Clay Diggins]

You are not seeking a magistrate, i.e., administrative park commissioner, but a commissioned Article III judge in an Article III court, if in the district court. Hawaii is only one of two Article III courts available. ...
And the courts are not established by the magistrate but by the legislature.

I'm not seeking a magistrate. Apparently you are.

As I'm sure you are aware there are no appointed Article III Judges outside the court of last resort. The best you will find is a magistrate.

The issues of Article III Judges and Article III courts can only be settled by lobbying the legislature. That is pure politics.

Political discussions are forbidden by our hosts here. Thus my comment and your dilemma. Lobbying your fellow posters, myself included, will have no effect. Lobbying for the Congress to do the job we have assigned them is political speech... wrong place wrong audience.

Lets get back to what works. You can lobby for change elsewhere, there are many forums that would welcome your political speech.

 

[AzViper]

M. E. G, put it to rest or this thread will get locked by the MODS. You have stated your view point now move on.

 

[goldenIrishman]

I agree. Points have been made on both sides so now everyone get back to the focus of the thread.

 

[M.E.G.]

Clay,

Another traverse. You respond just like an attorney avoiding the truth and the law.
I didn't come here to quarrel with you.
I came here to warn people off of relying upon a misstatement in Kitchar's Report regarding the 1955 Act, nothing more.
You could not counter with any thing substantive, except convolution and as here traverse. Mine is not a mere opinion. It is the law.
Now you lash out.

Contrary to your imposed political suggestion, a strawman, that we are here to lobby the legislature, I suppose you'll have to explain the lack of Article III status to all those commissioned officers pretending to be Article III judges under Act of Congress.

Or, if they don't exist, have we just identified yet another breach for the takings court, the right to remedy under the Constitution before a competent court and Judge?

If this thread is locked down over the fabricated excuse of politics, then it is evidence the forums are not a place to get knowledgeable in the law or its application to protect our property.

 

[Bejay]

Personally I have been attempting to become a well informed miner. It seems lately I have spent more time attempting to learn mining law and all the relevant jurisdictional applications than I have mining. And I am a miner who understands the current battle confronting miners today.

The back and forth between MEG and Clay exemplifies the need to understand how a miner must know the court system. Whether corrupt or not....the miner will struggle to "hit a home run". There have been numerous instances portraying miners attempting to confront the agency "OVER REACH'' we are becoming accustom to seeing today. The reason for this thread was to see how such agency confrontations have impacted miners.

If effective tools can be presented to help miners:.....the mining community will benefit. To that extent the back and forth does not harm the intent of the thread.

Personally I have watched a lot of attempts by the small mining community to achieve a win in the court system. I personally can agree to the fact that the courts can be an extreme challenge. Corruption in the courts would have to be a consideration....as power lies within the court...and a specific court can take on different perspectives....whether justified or not. IMHO. We would hope the LAW(S) would be definitive...but even within the Supreme Court rulings we see judges disagree on an outcome. And they are to be the supreme decision makers pertaining to law.

BUT I must confess that more often than not I see the tactical maneuvering to be lacking. More often than not I see the arguments failing to address the correct action necessary to achieve a positive outcome for the miner(s).

Also there is no doubt in my mind that many different venues and means of approach might end up hitting the nail on the head. For sure everyone has an opinion.....even the Supreme Court Judges. In their rulings we see a difference of opinion(s).

The courts are what we have. The courts are where we end up. Tactics and knowledge of the law(s) as well as agency "reach" is fundamental. BUT to date we have seen many errors. Plenty of opinion as to who makes the errors.

I believe I understand MEG and I understand Clay. Both feel strongly about their approach and positions. I believe this thread should continue and if we can provide help to miners....or show them some alternate routes.....so much the better.



Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

Any finished case examples?

Clay MEG

 

[Goldwasher]

Any finished case examples?

Clay MEG

Same question here...and sheesh M.E.G....try not to be so insulting....and stop talking like a lawyer...your knowledge is getting lost behind so many words....I would like to know who you work for and what actual cases you have one and have a direct contributing association with...or are you just a mining law Theologist?

 

[Bejay]

Same question here...and sheesh M.E.G....try not to be so insulting....and stop talking like a lawyer...your knowledge is getting lost behind so many words....I would like to know who you work for and what actual cases you have one and have a direct contributing association with...or are you just a mining law Theologist?

Come on guys. MEG is extremely knowledgably and does a tremendous amount of work helping the mining community. His understanding of mining law is second to none. Take note that there are many ways to approach things and each man does it himself. Those who do not have no room to bicker. MEG has an approach and Clay has an approach. Nothing wrong with that. In sports we say let the best man/team win on any given day.

So there is no need to pick sides. I welcome MEG's Perspective and I welcome Clay's. In the end it is up to me to make decisions as to how I want to take on a challenge. Such knowledge is extremely welcome.

MEG has done, and is doing, a lot for the mining community.....I applaud him for all his efforts and sharring his knowledge. Clay does as well. No need to keep score. Just be thankful such men are making an effort.

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

Any finished case examples?

Clay MEG

It seems to mostly come down to just what Congress meant when they passed the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955 Hefty.


We had already been discussing that Act on another thread when it migrated here. (See abandoned discussion here)

I tend to believe the courts and Congress knew what they were doing. The case linked in my post above is just one of several that seem to have settled the issue.

MEG seems to believe the courts and Congress got it wrong or were talking about something else or are running a criminal enterprise. I'll let him explain why each of his explanations might apply.

MEG hasn't given any court decisions or shared links to any Acts of Congress yet. From what I understand of what he has posted he would rather rely on his interpretation of part of a sentence in the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955.

He may be right but I have never found a court decision or discussion in Congress or an Act that supports his interpretation.

 

[Goldwasher]

Not trying to keep score. I understand What Barry says and where he is coming from. M.E.G not so much doesn't mean I think he is wrong.... 99% of miners are not Lawyers and would benifit on a more refined and focused passing of knowledge that has some substance backing it. Theory does nothng until it is tested. I would like to know where M.E.G's theories have been tested and proven. Seems a simple enough request.

 

[Bejay]

All I can say is I have learned a tremendous amount of knowledge from the two men. And this is not the first time I have witnessed them going back and forth. Such dialogue offers one a tremendous amount of perspective. The Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act demands a lot of attention......it is the most difficult to understand...IMHO. To the layperson, one will immediately buy into the concept that ALL claims fall under the same management category. It was MEG who first set me straight and then it was Clay who expanded the meaning/interpretation per court rulings/cases.

No doubt one can end up in a hearing/court should one violate agency interpretational challenges resulting from the agency designated to enforce the Act of Congress (Law). One must learn all previous mining law and subsequent acts pertaining to mining in order to understand the relevance of the Multiple Use Act. So personally I welcome the back and forth and have no need to question eithers performance/record....as the back and forth will speak for itself. Having seen it often I can attest to the fact that each individual will reach their own conclusion.

No problem making a request. It is rather the way one does it: "Hey MEG: Quit being so insulting. Hey MEG stop talking like a lawyer. Hey MEG quit talking so much and using lots of words."

I thought Hefty1 raised the question adequately.

Rather than get into the "who said what" I will gladly concede that the question is relevant and see what transpires. As one can see Barry is willing to continue the relevant dialogue. Knowing Barry one will easily see he is willing to discuss things in a civil manner. I look forward to a better understanding of how all the relevant subsequent Acts impact or relate to the Mining Acts of 1865, 1866, and 1872.
But we can move this to the discussion of the Act on another thread before it migrated here. (See abandoned discussion here:

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/g...ose-you-who-just-don-t-get-4.html#post3981031

So Goldwasher nothing but the best and heavy pans to you!


Bejay

 

[Goldwasher]

I want to hear what both of them say. I honestly did not know they had ever "discussed" things before. I have only seen these few threads. And know of M.E.G. from Mike Highbees from way back. I know where he is coming from and speaks like he knows his stuff. Though I do think he should tread lightly when he is basically saying you can go do such and such and call it this instead of that, and you will have the holy backing of the Mining law.Yet, believes the "systems" main flaw is its corruption. Telling a bunch of typical "Laymen"( compared to M.E.G Claydiggins and you of course ) that its ok to do something that a Government entity says is unlawful or restricted and they are out of bounds. And the whole property issue he brings up and Clay expands on. Considering the actual "perfection" of a claim vs. just "staking" a claim. To me as a concerned Miner who has located a claim that my partner and I would not like to have taken. Or our ability to make it produce the valuable mineral located upon it. Basically I know M.E.G should be right....Barry understands how it works and is better at relating factual data. M.E.G. is better at espousing theory. I think having an actual instance he was involved in and provided guidance for a win would be cool to know about. Without a real name or information on the help he has provided it's just hearsay. All the education and knowledge in the world is nothing without the actions and people it should inspire. And you know what? M.E.G. tried to debase ClayDiggins by inferring that he was just that a "Layman" professing to know more than he actually does. So, If you all have your strengths and weaknesses. you should compliment each other well and should try to not have to argue to be so smart. And figure out how to work together in person for the benefit of the greater good. These rights we all profess to hold so dear.

 

[AzViper]

I am very grateful we have the likes of Clay Diggins (Barry) in these forums. Barry has always been available to my questions and to others either in the forums, email, or by phone. It is my understanding his entire life is about prospecting/mining and has always shown a willingness to help others. M.E.G whoever he is, on the other hand speaks like a lawyer and comes across in speaking in terms like a lawyer that many of us have to spend hours trying to figure out what the hell he is saying. Again all these Acts are written by lawyers and very few of us understanding these Acts because of the way they are written, but to continue to explain in terms like a lawyer and not to back up what M.E.G is saying means nothing to many of us.

 

[Bejay]

Sorry guys but I have to chuckle. Barry will know why.....as I know he is amused as well. All is good. I'll have to leave it at that and let Clay (Barry) speak for himself if he chooses to enlighten the forum crowd. MEG can speak for himself as well. I am sure both men have a lot of respect for each other. As they say in life: Different strokes for different folks. We don't all march to the same drum.

MEG was a big contributor on the GPAA forum, and so was what's his name. Sorry but I am typing with a smile on my face. Both knowledgeable men have exchanged opinions/facts/laws on many occasions. I don't need to say how I feel about Barry/Clay....as he knows without any doubt the amount of respect I have for him. I think MEG knows how I feel as well. IF IT WERE NOT FOR THOSE TWO MEN "Bejay" would just be another uninformed miner. And I don't hold a candle to those two men. BUT I welcome the opportunity to be informed further....and let me tell you they can get er done.

SO. What say we grab a bag of popcorn and sit back and watch some educational dialogue. Questions are always welcome and respect for both of them is deserving of our attention/interest.

Maybe this thread can continue to offer constructive information regarding the Gov's intrusion upon our Granted Rights. Lately my greatest mining law word is "PERFECTED". And for sure Barry is a real stickler for words and he corrects me more often than not.

Be advised that Bejay uses stuff provided him by MEG and Clay/Barry....as my portfolio of information is gathered from their teachings........I am their student. And I feel obligated to share the information....as I am now an informed miner wanting others to become same. Knowledge is our "savings clause". Which is a BIG phrase when studying all the relevant Acts and even CFR's.

Time for my bag of popcorn...but the Dr. said it is a big No No for me...so I'll have to make do with some pretzels.

Bejay

 

[mendoAu]

.....checking out the name of this thread again...."agency visits" I see few posts pertaining to such visits and/or outcomes to such visits. Now that would be helpful to me. Kinda like when an agency says you can't pull water from the creek for your mining operation. Previous plights and outcomes would be "boots on the ground" helpful to this miner at least. Since having to pull my dredge out of the water down in calif. I've read a lot of legaleze and have just got to admit my mind just won't retain much of it. But give me a good straight judgement in a court case and I can remember that!!! We've all read we better start standing up and fight for the causeBut I'd feel better with a precedent than an " it should be ". I'll just put it this way ......I used to worry about a boulder falling on me while underwater, now I have to worry about getting beaned by a rock thrown by someone in a dang uniform. Times are changing and I would sure like to just turn the clock back, HA!!
I for one take no offense from the posts in this thread... it's just good ol' debating and thats where the word forum came from.

 

[Bejay]

You want to see a real visit watch this:

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

All 12 vids

 

[Lanny in AB]

Wow Bejay.

The whole story is remarkable in how draconian and heavy-handed the forest service, legal system, and environmentalists have behaved toward the entire Emily Camp issue. I had no idea things were that severe or ridiculous.

I wonder how many zealous environmentalists drive cars? How many have a computer? How many have their homes heated by a furnace? How many of their homes are powered by electricity? Where do they think the metals come from that allow them such conveniences? It boggles my mind that zealots can appear to be so narrow-minded and naive, and yet be so hypocritical by partaking of and enjoying fully the very things (whose existence derives from mining!!) they purport to despise.

As an add-on, here's a quote I pulled from this article:http://kalmiopsiswild.org/emily-camp-kalmiopsis-inholding-for-sale/ :
"Claim holders grew pot, had stills, held road hunting parties for friends, bulldozed the old mining tracks at will and sold claims as vacation spots. One man even started to clear a strip to land airplanes. You can still see the scars of this. Another (the year before wilderness designation) miner bulldozed about 15 miles of road and began mining along the crystal clear wild Chetco River, causing it to run red for days."

Wow!! If that doesn't sound like a pail full of generalizations to slander honest miners I'm not sure what is! I'm sure there are some bad miners around, but this article makes it sound like every miner fits the description. What a bunch of slanderous nonsense!

All the best,

Lanny