Below are questions, comments and concerns presented to Hal Anthony (and Hal’s response) to a posting on another forum in regards to Hal’s experience and the information presented on the Mining Law research he has done.

MEG…Hal’s defacto publicist.


Re: Attention all M.E.G.s and future M.E.G.s, ( 17:06:11 Sun Oct 11 2009 )

How does the average guy judge whether to believe the evidence that has accumulated via the years regarding court decisions concerning these rights ?
Is it possible that the State and Federal Guvnmints have just interpreted these the way they do, negativelty to miners, based on precedents that are set by decisions interpreting these 1872 etc writings?
Or is there an illegal scam afoot to deprive us filthy miners of the opporunity to get rich ?
I'm worried that slapping my local Ranger dudess with this paper stuff will end up costing me in the long run.

In other words, are you SURE about this MEG viewpoint? Do you have RECENT court rulings that clearly reinforces our rights as stated in the various laws starting from 1860 thru 1955 to date?
I've read much of what you've written the last few months and applaud your information and willingness to share it. Bravo !!!

b


Hal's Reply:

Thank you Baub.

Good and important questions.

You are right to question. I'm not asking any one to act beyond their knowledge. But I don't want people to continue to get run down by Administrative Bus Corruption, A.B.C., alphabet agencies, either. And until just real recently, I didn't see that many others stepping up. This is thankfully beginning to change.

First, I say READ READ READ.

I can only give you the places to look and orient your perspective, the how to read.

Second, don't just read words, read for the terms too. In other words, know what you are reading. Understand you can not look past things like Legislative Grants and how they are interpreted, the hierarchy of political authority, or that a Savings Clause must be included in every subsequent act and the reason for that. I've talked to all this prior.

The DVD is of the meeting in Cave Junction. It wasn't actually planned as a DVD more than it is capturing what we did that day. Ron and I read right from documents. I'm saying this to let you know what ever I have said, I can back it up. I only speak from the documents. This has been critical to do from the beginning because you all don't know Me from Adam. And going from the documents as we did in the DVD will show you how it ties together to make some sense of the mining law. If you are not seeing the sense it makes you are misinterpreting what you are reading. For instance if you read "exclusive possession" but allow for agency regulation, you've missed the most important point about the grant, that it conveyed actual private property and not a mere interest in property. Locatable miners deposit claims are on public domain, granted private possessions. Federal claims on federal land are government lands administratively disposed. If you miss this you're missing the entire point. This is what you can read and see in the 1955 Act EXCEPTION to mineral deposits. I think the statute for reference is 30 USC 612 (b), pertaining to leaseables and saleables EXCEPTING mineral deposits.

So let Me address your questions directly so I don't create a confusion:

"How does the average guy judge whether to believe the evidence that has accumulated via the years regarding court decisions concerning these rights ?"

This can be very difficult, especially when you find out a lot of the court cases have been determined correctly but for the wrong reasoning. Until you start to see the miners in those cases made mistakes, they admitted themselves in some way to administrative treatment of their private property, or that the subject matter of the case does not pertain to locatable deposits, it will be much more difficult to separate. But it is not impossible. I did it. You can to. Especially since I'm here to point the way through. That is why the older references are so much better to get a handle on things. For instance, most cases discuss Part 228 as applicable to locatable mineral deposits. But unless they are a federal project, NEPA from which Part 228 obtains authority, does not apply. I suggest starting from the beginning by identifying the authority and what that authority did. Then make sure never to forget the exclusive nature of the Legislative Grant of 1866. Once you see this, you'll see all the savings clauses or limitation upon the Guvmint prohibiting encroachment upon what was given away in 1866. It's been said those old cases are old and irrelevant. This is ignorance or Deception speaking. How else are you able to make a claim at all if it wasn't for the 1866 still being of force and effect? And every law or authority since then has to respect that grant of property. The 1866 is not antiquated and it isn't mere legislation that can be changed. Only ignorance or special interest says this. By definition the Act of 1866 is a "present grant". That means it works today.

The "average guy" today intending to be a Mineral Estate Grantee is going to have to step up to the responsibility of being a private property possessor and learn the lineage for his possession and how to defend it. Because in all of history if a property existed someone will soon arrive to either trespass or steal it. It's why we have adopted law and required it be put in writing for an objective basis...and why I say READ.

"Is it possible that the State and Federal Guvnmints have just interpreted these the way they do, negativelty to miners, based on precedents that are set by decisions interpreting these 1872 etc writings?"

I'm not sure of this question. My interpretation and as can be found in discussions of the court and elsewhere of the mining law is that it is "apart and above". It is completely unique and prevails other "authority". It can not be interfered with in any way by "State and Federal Guvnmints" at all. It was a property given away. It can't be messed with. Any Body purporting to do so, the interference is unlawful and any legislation or rule purporting to interfere will be void.

"Or is there an illegal scam afoot to deprive us filthy miners of the opporunity to get rich ?"

YES! That too. I speak about it on my week daily program Behind The Woodshed on revolutionbroadcasting.com at noon O'clock Pacific.

I have already covered all kinds of mining law documentation in the Archives.

But to the point of a scam being afoot to deprive us, We're in a war for your/Our land and your/Our wealth. It's been going on for a very long time, so very slowly. Our mining claims and the rights to make claims are the last Soil and Wealth that can be stolen or voluntarily given away. It's why they are locking up the wealth through wilderness and other designations, then by oppressive rulings. This Special Interest Agenda is what drives the abuses the locatable mineral mining community suffers today. The evidence is all around us of the infiltration and encroachment if we would just care to look. It's in the "news" I use to identify it every day in my broadcast. And we are surrounded by that agenda and their agents. SO, What we gonna do 'bout Dat? Give them YOUR land or make them take it from you? They are coming to take America and the miners are the last stand because they possess the soil. This Mineral Estate Grant may be the last opportunity for us to save the rest. If we abandon that grant we abandon America as we know it. He who has the soil has the law. It's that simple. The 1866 is a law which gave us the soil. As long as law rules we have a chance.

"I'm worried that slapping my local Ranger dudess with this paper stuff will end up costing me in the long run."

Well, though they need to be slapped, you don't have to go that route, first. And how is gathering evidence going to end up costing you in the long run? We're seeing results right now in communicating with the local agents as to the law. That can be done real casual like.; Make “friends”. If they don't want to do that you can ramp things up. That's how I prefer to do it. We don't need to make enemies of the “enemy”. They don't have the soil or the law, we do. So we educate them. If they trespass, we "slap" them. If you don't it'll cost you either way, won't it. SO it's gonna cost you when some one harms you in your property or rights. As someone shows they will not acknowledge the laws of the United States, we document their culpability and their violation and give notice. If they persist, we will be forced into a more formal remedy such as a court suit. And by then we ought to have all the written evidence to convict them. In this most recent matter with Clifford Tracy, it appears a lot of people are going to get slapped. It is available for him to do. From the Ranger on up to the "judge" and Persecutor. Time will tell on whether Mr Tracy executes his remedy for the harm done him. On the other hand in the same forest, another miner has just received a letter of complaint from a special interest agenda type sent to the Forest Service where in they complain to the Forest Service that they were informed by the Forest Service that the Forest Service has no authority in the mining matter. So Baub, is that maybe a recent proof? The Forest Service itself saying it has no authority over mining? You think that fact of law is going to be an asset in Mr Tracy's complaint? I can tell you it will. And it's the law. And all the Guvmint EMPLOYEES knew or should have known that! He can take them Behind The Woodshed any time I suspect.

The method by which you approach your particular matter is up to you. You can slap or you can stomp or you can encourage that everyone start following the law. That's up to you. I can't see, if you are concerned about it, and reasonably so, how encouraging the law be followed, that any Body's actions be consistent and not in conflict with the laws of the United States could be an improper method. This would certainly allow you to gain knowledge as you proceed and evidence they willfully, knowingly and intentionally trespass the law and your private property and rights. Notwithstanding agency and Special Interest Agenda brutality and intention to trespass, You are in complete control of this process.

"In other words, are you SURE about this MEG viewpoint?"

I'm sure, but you can't take my word for it. YOU have to be sure. Each one of us has to be sure. Each one of us has to protect our land in the first instance. If you choose to obtain the DVD you will see, I make no hesitation in my presentation. I am sure. I am further supported in the fact that even though I have a 5 year standing request, no one or Body has been able to show the information presented is inaccurate or incorrect.

" Do you have RECENT court rulings that clearly reinforces our rights as stated in the various laws starting from 1860 thru 1955 to date?"

"RECENT" is irrelevant when you find out court cases are merely opinions, and worse, those opinions can be wrong. Also we recently successfully answered a notice of non-compliance with 10 bullet-point references one of which was that the court case the BLM cited to was irrelevant as the claimant under the notice was not a party to that case nor subject to the notice. It's all on a case by case basis. Your case may be different than the one decided previously. And then, doesn't that just prove that what we possess is private? And in your case, you may not make the mistakes the attorney did for the other guy.

One recent case you might look at, wasn't mining, but it shows the 1866 is current / present in force and effect is the HAGE case of 2009 regarding water rights. Note: Miners have superior rights to that of Hage. Also the 2002 and 2009 Hicks cases. The links to the 2002 case is posted online at grantedright.com with the 1866 act itself.

One of the problems with your inquiry is that attorneys do not know how to represent mining law, actually. And "Judge"s are just attorneys. In the Hicks 2009 case the "judge" asked to be briefed on the entire mining law because he didn't know anything about it....He said this AFTER trial. Those involved also helping, wanted to file a full mining law "brief". I was adamant and had Hicks file only 8 bullet-points, chosen from our research, to the court to explain the "entire" mining law. Hicks won with the "entire" mining law as presented in 8 points. That ought to tell you something. But Hicks should not have even been in court at all, let alone through to trial. So here still is a violation to the miner that goes unresolved for now. Also Attorneys are trained in administrative side process. We are on the lookout for Lawyers that might know how to argue mining property law, but have not found any as of yet.

"I've read much of what you've written the last few months and applaud your information and willingness to share it. Bravo !!!

Thank you. This is important stuff. I appreciate that you must think so or you wouldn't have invested your time either. Keep plugging away. It isn't my intention to send you on a wild goose chase.

MEG

super post MEG! there is just so much material to go over and only so many little brain cells to absorb this material. the 3 dvd set of laws will be needed to keep up with you in our endevor to understand. thankyou for these posts.

I share this below, a copy of an email sent to Hal (and his answer) on this posting topic. It is to show there are people out there that work hard to defeat the understanding of the power we all posses under this 1866 Grant of property. It is my understanding this gal has had many years employment with the Forest Service.

MEG…Hal’s defacto publicist


Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Attention all M.E.G.s and future M.E.G.s,

I have real concerns that miners will be hurt if they believe all this and act on it. Hal is right though, everyone needs to decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. No one doubts that the General Mining Law of 1872 gives miners a statutory right to access, prospect and mine and occupy. And no one doubts that the FS and BLM are abusing the regulations, trying to make it impossible for the small guy.

The Law of 1866 is important to me, as this is the law that provides for access under RS2477. It isn't only miners who were granted access over these rights of way, it is all citizens. The Law of 1866 does not include placer claims, only lodes, so since I am not a lode miner I rely on rights granted me and other miners under the mining law of 1872, as amended, which includes both lode and placer.

And don't think the Mining Law hasn't been amended by other laws. The mining law is a simple law of location. It was never intended to be an environmental protection law. Those came later, but they are still laws, just as the 1872 mining law is a law.

Hal states that NEPA does not apply to mining. The actual extraction of minerals out of the ground is a statutory right, and is not a "Federal Action" requiring NEPA, but the District Ranger or BLM Manager Decision is a Federal Action. This is the convoluted way that NEPA applies. But the courts have stood firm, NEPA does apply to mining decisions.

The Federal agencies cannot deny mining. This is because mining is a statutory right. That's why you can mine with hand tools and not tell the agencies or post a bond. They can, however, make decisions on the merits of various means of environmental protection if you propose using mechanized equipment. Under NEPA, they must take into consideration the economic impact of requiring these mitigation measures.

At one time, a claim had all the rights of private property. In 1955 most mining claims lost their suface rights, and no longer could sell the timber to support the operation.

Then BLM came in with all their regulations on filing claims. If you have private property and don't pay your taxes, you have 5-7 years to get the back taxes paid. You also have due process so if your taxes are too high you can appleal and get them lowered. If you have a BLM claim and are one day late on your paperwork, you lose the claim. If the fees are too high for you to pay, you have no right of appeal, you just lose your claim. If you have a Federal mining claim on split estate Stock Raising Homestead Act lands, you do not even have the right to access your private property rights in the minerals until you give the surface owner 30 day notice (these surface rights were sold to farmers for $1 or so per acre because they were scab lands not useful for anything but the occasional hungry cow). The rights of a mining claimant are clearly not the same as a private property owner (even if he just owns the surface).

The right to patent your claim is at the heart of the mining law. Since this is the law, patenting a claim is not subject to NEPA. Doesn't matter if there are ESA species or wetlands or wilderness, a patent just proceeds if the criteria for patenting is met. Yet there has been a moritorium on patenting for many years. Why do you suppose no one has prevailed in a lawsuit to reinstate the clear and legal right to patent? Individual miners in the middle of the patent process did sue Babbit and eventually got their patents, but the moritoriam is still in place. You send an application to BLM, they send back by return mail.

Many miners talk about regulations not being important. Regulations gain the weight of law, with every court case. Every time a miner challenges the regulations and loses, every miner loses. Thus, I hate to see poorly put together cases. We won big time with Larry Dinger's reinstatement of his Notice and when they slapped BLM around for calculating Craig Monpas' bond illegally. But I have seen Ferrill Anderson quoted several times and used against the miners. If an attorney had filed that appeal instead of the miner doing it, Ferrill would have won. We simply did not know the court cases to quote to sway IBLA in our favor.

Hal says miners are the last stand because they possess the soil. Actually, miners only possess the part of the surface that is reasonably incident to the mining operation. I say miners are the last stand because they possess the minerals under that soil. As long as the mining law stays in place, we have a chance. Locating a mining claim, and developing that property for mining or for sale is the last statutory right left on public lands. I guess we should be glad the economy has gone to heck, the President and Harry Reed have other fish to fry, and they have kind of quit trying to change the mining law; at least for now.

If you work on BLM, read and know the 43CFR3809 and 43CFR3715 regulations, if you work on FS know and read the 36CFR228 regulations. The Feds will not be truthful with you about your rights to mine if they think you are ignorant about what is in the regulations. But just drawing a line in the sand and saying you aren't going to play because you are right and they are wrong is not going to get you mining. And that is the bottom line for a lot of us, we are not in this for the fight, we are in this because we want to mine.

Jan


Hal's response Sent: Tue 10/13/09 10:53 PM:

Jan,
I will speak to you directly, because you failed to answer my question and then promote this unsupported rhetoric which may have been found irrelevant had you been able to answer honestly prior. I needed to know and, as previously asked: "So I can understand your point better, because FLPMA provides no citation or enforcement authority and is applicable to both BLM and the FS, What Act of law are you referring to? And where in that law is it expressed that it or the agencies can interfere with claimed locateable mineral deposits or the surface within the boundaries of the claim?"

The 1955 act amended the 1947 Common Materials Act, not the 1866 act and expressly excepts from its imposition, [USC 612 (b)], as the law requires, all locatable mineral deposits to save the public domain property granted in 1866. The grant of 1866 is no mere "simple law of location". Public land is not public domain and not all mineral claims are locatable mineral deposits. To confuse these is to miss the significance of the 1866 grant. I write particularly of this 1866 grant in following:

Without being exhaustive, and because you refuse to answer my inquiry into your prior unfound proposal, some things become apparent that may need to be fleshed out. Where in the grant is any discretion left to the Forest Service or the BLM regarding what the Congress, through the grant, declares to be private property? The entire surface of the claim must be “reasonably incident” to the discovery under claim. So to try to make a distinction that some of the surface isn't included is disingenuous at the very least. Anything found outside of the grant will be disqualified. But even this requires due process and a judicial trial, not administrative "decisions on the merits".

Your traverse, regarding another NEPA requirement, that of agency "discretion", or to "make decisions on the merits", not granted to any Forest Service agent is an incredulous tactic to cause people to believe the Forest Service has any discretion which magically becomes controlling. In other words, the NEPA does not grant to any agency more authority than it is already delegated. So clear is this intention that even the Organic Act, 1897, explains the mechanics; That land found valuable for minerals will be restored to the public domain; removing that part from the public land reserved for forest and placed into the “exclusive possession” of the claimant an as patent right. In fact, even if the 1905 Transfer Act did not expressly withhold any authority from the Forest Service over minerals not given in the Organic Act, another rule in the 228 NEPA family of regulation shows specifically there is no authority @ 36 CFR 251.5. In 2009 Hicks, again, won on this very point. And this has to be because a rule can not legislate beyond the bounds of a statute or law. The law disposed of the land in question to those that make a valuable discovery.

For those that want a complete explanation of the limitation upon “special use” land regulations of 3809 and 3715 rules inapplicable to locatable mineral claims on public domain as read right out of the BLM's own publications, listen to the programs I devoted to this very subject matter at :

http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/..._Over_Property/ http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...tive_Sentences/

In these programs I'll walk anyone desiring to understand the law through the BLM rule pamphlet, the documentation states that the rule 3809's are not applicable to private property, and doesn't apply to the land we claim by way of the grant of 1866 but only those listed. If one is missing let Me know I'll see what the technical difficulty is in getting the file. From this Archive there much more mining law information: http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...spx?show=Behind the Woodshed

And anyone not understanding that the act of 1866 was a grant of the uncommon minerals, a giving away of those deposits to citizens, and that the 1870 act "amendment" in nowise changed that, in fact expanded in clarification on the gift of Congress in its oversight to more fully explain its intention in the grant, to give, those deposits issuing from rock in place, that no law since the 1866 can lawfully exist without a clause saving this gift of private property, including the Act of 1872, does not understand mining law or is someone that intends to deceive people. Any one not accurately discussing mining law by correctly identifying the 3 classes of minerals and how each are independently dealt with by the terms of their respective congressional acts, either doesn't know the law or is deceiving those trying to understand it.

Jan, because it would be against the law the BLM does not, Why do you commingle these classes of minerals and their respective disposal authorities? For you to continue to do so is at least disingenuous.

Another thing. It isn't what "Hal says" or "Hal states". What Hal is doing is quoting right out of the law. So before anyone gets confused, what “Hal says” is simply the matter of what the law requires, Hal is just reporting on that. It isn't Hal's opinion. For instance, Hal didn't say the minerals were the land, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said so in Hicks 2002 when it slapped two judges for getting the mining act wrong. Hal was merely referencing to that....if he hadn't heard it anywhere else. You can read that for yourself at http://www.grantedright.com/The_Law.html :

"Mineral rights are ownership in land, and therefore Lewis is a landowner. See, e.g., United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyo., 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938) (with respect to question of ownership, "[m]inerals ... are constituent elements of the land itself"); British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of State of Mont., 299 U.S. 159, 164-65, 57 S.Ct. 132, 81 L.Ed. 95 (1936) (finding a mineral estate an estate in land); Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. State, 125 Mont. 258, 234 P.2d 452, 453 (1951) ("[l]ands as a word in the law includes minerals")."

For proof of the fact we are reading from found documentation purchase the DVD set of Decoding Mining Law, from: www.armadillomining.com Armadillo Mining Shop (2041 N.W. Vine Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Phone: 1-541-476-6316) and you can watch Ron Gibson and myself, reading right from documentation that is available to everyone. We just put that information in a simple to understand order so that no one else needs to be confused by the obfuscators.

And for now, lastly, Jan, if I didn't know any better, and didn't have 20 years of study under my belt regarding law, what could possibly explain why I am holding a letter written by the rogue Riverkeepers complaining upon the development of a locatable mineral deposit, in a river bed, that Mineral Tech Karla Gallegos told this Organization the Forest Service "has no authority in this matter". Now, the law proves this statement accurate, Why do you speak contrary to this lawful response? If your suggestions were not such a serious threat to miners, your notions, till now unsupportable in law, are laughable, frivolous. And I can't come to any other conclusion because you never answered my first question. I think you did not because you know to answer that question would prove your interpretation to be wrong. And you know that, don't you? being the mineral lands of the public domain were “previously designated for a specific use”, saved in FLPMA where it says so right at 43 USC 1703 (a) “(3) public lands not previously designated for any specific use and all existing classifications of public lands that were effected by executive action or statute before October 21, 1976, be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Act;” if you missed the 3 other clearly stated exceptions overriding management authority at Section 1732.

The problem with this is you are dangerous to people where actually bringing upon them what is NOT required to be brought upon them, such as a P.O.O. See McClure, no criminal liability for not having a P.O.O. Then compare the recent violation to Tracy, without a P.O.O. in the same forest the agent of the Service explained it "has no auithority in the matter". Yeah, Jan, having, “helping”, or requiring people file for a P.O.O., NOI, or put up bonding, etc., where they aren't actually required could be viewed as criminal interference with a valid mining claim. But I'm sure you know that and tell people that, right?

In short Jan, it won't matter what I or you say or don't say. Anyone found in conflict with the intention of Congress as expressed in the act of 1866 will by found personally liable to the miner they harmed. And that trespasser and those who aid their criminal interference will find themselves between a proverbial Rock and Hard Spot owned by the Mineral Estate Grantee. If this law and grant of private property was not what the Congress had the Constitutional power to dispose, why do locatable mineral deposit claims enjoy as patent right and ORegon Statutes state that mining claims are Realty and that interference "in any way" is a crime?

~Hal.