For those that are not a member of the New 49ers forum, below are questions, comments and concerns (I believe to be shared here as well) from 'bearkat' on the Clifford Tracy matter, followed by MEG's reply.
http://bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread...&thread=161
Hey M_E_G...What is your take on Clifford R. Tracy's Trial?
Just curious...
I lost confidence after this trial in standing on the 1866-72 mining law (grant) for mining if no one including judges/governments/etc wont listen or wont enforce this.
If this guy Tracy took your advice or tried on his own to show the court the law....what happened? This has set a bad precedence for future mining, especially with the Forest Circus, which will give them more confidence to harass us.
I have heard people talk about this case in Medford (my realator for one) and their take on this is that the new envirinmental laws supercede the 1866-72 mining law or are an addition to it....How do I answer this? Is the grant subject to these enviro laws?
Maybe the dude (tracy) just made a big frigin mess and and is paying for it by doing that...I heard he tried his best to go by the rules...I just dont know.
I lost alot of confidence about what M_E_G has been saying now. I believe it, but if I loose all I have to try to get some jerk off judge or gov official to believe me, I'll just go by the "rules" and get my stupid dredge/mining permits like they want instead of using the mining law for my permit...which I had planned on doing next year...
Alan in Oregon
MEG's Reply:
Alan,
Thanks for your inquiry. I don't know when you submitted this but I apologize for any delay, I've been real busy and don't get to the forums too much unless directed to answer.
I'd like to say right up front, the M.E.G. is not a religion that you loose faith over. Being a Mineral Estate Grantee is a status. There is no confidence involved. You either are or you are not of the status. You are either a grantee of a privately held property or you are not. You either accept the grant of Congress or you don't. I've been attempting to get people to look at the law and understand the law so they can decide based upon the law not mere opinion. Once we understand the law we ought to have the tools to address the government encroachment that has become an ongoing and continuing policy in conflict with the laws of the United States. But until people read and understand the law as Congress intended it, instead of through attorney ignorance, or agency and judicial mistreatment, people will remain confused and fearful.
Until the mining law is fully understood, para materia, all together, there is no property right that you can assert. The problem you are seeing in the Tracy matter is one of government, BAR Association, corruption of law. But this should not have been a surprise to any one. The evidence of "judicial" corruption, at least lower court, has already been posted. To see evidence of what to expect from the lower federal courts, all you have to do is read the Hicks Case of 2002 at http://www.grantedright.com, The Law page. Notice the lower courts convicted Hicks TWICE. The appellate court however did the lawful thing, chastises the lower court "judges" and restored Hicks to his property right; The right to travel on a "Closed" Forest Service" route"..... i.e., actually a Section 8 Highway under the grant. And I believe this is where Tracy is right now, before the appellate court has reviewed the lower courts judicial competency. And those using this matter as a basis for qualifying what we now call the MEG are disingenuous, ignorant, ill-advised, and divisive. And this is a shame but it's what occurs. All this derision does not change the fact, the law, and the Congressional intent of the Act of 1866 s clarified an expanded upon in the 1872 Act amending.
I have never said a miner has to learn the law or of his power. I've merely offered that this knowledge was available and how the law lays out to understand the Congressional intention and to stop the agencies over-extension of legitimate authority into private matters. People are free to disregard the law if they choose. Though, then I don't know of what authority they think they use to make claims. Too, they are free to disregard the heritage and history that miners have created, even before the existence of the United States itself; of which heritage the laws, customs, usages, "rule and regulations", i.e., which 1866 Act refers to in Section 1, that the Congress pulled from when conveying the mineral estate to all citizens. Miners today are absolutely free to abandon that heritage and give their power and property to some interloping trespasser. And that is for each of us to decide, where we draw the line; in the law or by capitulation to lawless imposition. Do we exclusively hold property as the congressional intent expressly states or are we serfs under the thumb and by the apron strings of agency? Can you support your belief for either status by the law? If not, then I am asking you to study the law to find out. The clear and easy answer is there.
Property possession brings with it responsibility, the least of which is to protect the property from theft or trespass, waste, or nuisance. We each are free to make the choice, for it is our own land we are talking about. We are free to decide who we will tolerate to interfere with us on our land. You are free to give up your exclusive possession and control to someone else. But by definition then it isn't your property. The question then becomes, How far over backwards are you willing to bend to "enjoy" "your" claim. But if it is not your property, because you never understood why you had right to claim it or you did not defend it once claimed, then you can be told to leave at any time, no matter how far over backwards you would agree to bend or how long that might take. So your loss in confidence in the MEG brings you into a quandary. How can you both have exclusively possessed mineral land as Congress expressly provided and not be in control of it to exclude interference by agency regulation? And if you are in exclusive possession but will not defend it, are you worthy of the land Congress gave to you exclusive of every other interest, even the United States itself, and that means the agency?
Getting back to Tracy, as I have said, I did not advise Tracy leading up to the government's theft of his land and livelihood. But that may not have mattered because he was caught in the middle of a process, and agenda, and thrown before the wolves under color of uniforms, suits, and robes. The only thing I could contribute at the time was how best to deal with the fallout of a Government Gone Goofy. Since Hindsight is 20/20, I won't discuss what ought to have been done for him to more fully assert his rights without the loss he has suffered. I will say this, that had I known of his matter earlier I would have suggested a couple more things to have been done to flip the burden onto the government giving him the advantage outright. Though it appears he did the correct thing, he didn't also have that advantage. THEN he walked in to the HICK's 2002 condition, systemic and judicial corruption. As far as I can tell right now, Tracy did all he could do under the circumstances. I will hope he writes his notice of appeal and gets his matter before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. Then we'll see whether or not that circuit will review consistent with Hicks 2002. If not, Tracy has to go to the Supreme Court. And this does not preclude going to the Court of Claims for the theft of his property, it's use, and his livelihood by regulatory fiat.
There are a number of things you can do to limit your exposure to government theft or what happened to Tracy. I wish I had known of him before the government tried to make an example of him to push the withdrawal agenda slated for the Siskiyou forest. The main requirement to limit losses is communicating ON POINT, in writing, with the agencies. This is how "notice' is determined. This is also how you can avoid big losses. Because, let's face it, if the Government Goes Goon you aren't going to stop it from thieving your private property. And that won't matter whether you are under regs or not. If you are under regs you are denied access, if you aren't they steal your stuff denying you access.
The only question for you is, do you stand by and watch them take the land from you and each of us or, with likewise effect, do you willingly participate with lawless agency fiat regulation to aid the agencies stealing the land Congress granted us or do you stand up for your exclusively possessed land against their lawless encroachment?
But here's where we are back to the law. If you haven't read it, understand, and assert it you don't know what I just said about lawless encroachment and how to defend against it to the corruption that aids and abets it.
All that said now, let Me answer your questions,
"If this guy Tracy took your advice or tried on his own to show the court the law....what happened?"
He didn't take my advice, directly or timely. But he did do things I would have advised, like rescind his signature on his application for the NOI or POO. He didn't or wasn't able to do all that I would have advised in time. What happened was, he walked into the government corruption evidenced in the HICKS 2002 case. I am assured that he did everything he could to preserve his procedure rights and the violations of the "judge". I am told the judge prejudiced himself by saying he wouldn't recognize any rights in Tracy. We're you aware his defense attorney didn't know anything about mining law. So the this matter isn't over until it's over....and maybe not even then. The 1866 was not put on trial in this matter, and it can not be. Though not in direct contact, I am offering information which hopefully will aid Tracy in his next decisions. Otherwise, I have no control in this matter. Understand, this is as frustrating for Me as you. Hicks 2002 would not exist to show us both the systemic corruption and existence of the 1866 in absence of that grant. So, we can listen to the Contrarians in the forums beating their chest about the failure of the "theory" of the 1866, tuck tail and run, or stand up for ourselves, knowing Congress granted us a private property and help where we can in the aftermath of the ill-wind that blew. Tracy did what he knew to weather the storm. A few of us are working now to rectify the injustice.
"This has set a bad precedence for future mining, especially with the Forest Circus, which will give them more confidence to harass us. "
Well, it isn't really a precedent, but it will be used for the time-being by the agencies. This is predictable. You have to understand, as have been told, that there were over 10 Forest Service agents at the trial and only about 2 miners in support of Tracy. A lot of government money was spent to fill those seats to watch the dog and pony show at "taxpayer" expense. So understand, the wolves work well together to pick us apart one by one. We've advised all the miners in our Association of the fact and how to deal with it. Mostly, having knowledge of the Act of 1866 and those related documents posted on the various forums have stopped even the Forest Service aggressions since the Tracy Case. So yes, the Forest Service thought Tracy gave them license to abuse us more, but the law is still there requiring, when confronted, communication in writing and answering with the law which is still backing them off. In light of the Tracy matter, we're advising miners to take a step back for now and go into "writing mode", as should always be the case, getting everything in writing, before action/working their claim without a POO. Getting it in writing mode is used to establish the limit of agency authority on paper in communication with the agency of ON POINT discussion to show the agency has no authority and that it is fraudulently asserting authority it does not have. This can usually be done in one letter. For instance, where Oregon law provides that interference "in any way" with your mining claim is a crime, how can any agency interference with your claim not be a crime? A written response to that question, as well a couple other ON POINT questions regarding delegated authority, would be at least interesting to have. Once you have obtained these sorts of well-thought communications you have the written proof you need to "allow" you back to work. If not, you'll have grounds, if "ordered" to cease and desist your vested right to work the land, to sue the agents themselves privately for fraud and interference with your mining property and right to work it. But this brings up yet another complication. Do you know how to prosecute a harassment or interference or compensable takings lawsuit regarding your mining claims? Yes the mining community has a long way to go to get to what their "forefathers" knew and could do to maintain their prevailing Law of Possession, the "rules and regulations" acknowledged in the Act of 1866.
"have heard people talk about this case in Medford (my realator for one) and their take on this is that the new envirinmental laws supercede the 1866-72 mining law or are an addition to it....How do I answer this? Is the grant subject to these enviro laws? "
The answer is, if you don't know the intent of Congress and about Legislative Grants you can't answer this. And this is where the rubber meets the road. Are you going to educate yourself enough to know the answer or give in to ill-advised opinions? A real estate agency in and of it's self is not any evidence of knowledge or competency of the mining laws. Such an agency is merely the admission of obligation to statutory limitations upon action of the subject matter, dealing in someone else's property. Everyone wants the silver bullet answer before the let loose of agency apron strings. But there isn't any silver bullet.....well, except what I have already suggested, READ and UNDERSTAND. I've given the forums all the info needed to know and we speak to this on the DVD available at Armadillo Mining. Though my answer here provides you with no more support to engage the ignorant or agenda pushers, I'd ask you, as you should them that assert the belief, to show Me where in the grant of 1866 does it provide for environmental regulations? Where FLPMA provides no regulatory authority at all, where in NEPA, which is expressly and merely amendatory and supplementary of EXISTING agency authority does it provide for an amendment of the grant of 1866 to authorize environmental regulations? And why would Gov. Kulongoski say the 1872 mining law provides no environmental regulation, requiring the need to withdraw all the minerals, if the 1872 or 1866 allowed for environmental law impositions? I've told every one, cause I read it somewhere, that there can be no subsequent land disposal or other law which can affect the property given away in the 1866. If you are thinking about this clearly, at some point you have to come to the question -- not so difficult to answer--, How can Congress pass a law to injury what it does not possess and duty bound to protect? The Contrarians amoungst us can not answer this. But the Oregon governor and attorney knows there is no environmental laws authorized by the 1872, the reason for his recent request to the Secretary of Interior and of withdrawing YOUR mineral lands. There is a reason in law why the environmental laws can not supersede the Act of 1866. If you don't know what that is you miss the power of the Congressional gift and why as the Congressional Record of 2000 will confirm that every subsequent law must include a clause saving the property conveyed by Congress in 1866 from imposition that it not be encroached, at all, ever.
I think every one has missed the point that, even if the "judge" and the court had jurisdiction or competency over Tracy's private property the "judge" did not actually and fully explain how Tracy ran afoul of the law, just that he did. Don't you find that the least bit interesting? Don't you find it interesting that the "judge" said the law and evidence was clear, but he didn't say he lawfully applied either to come to his "decision". He never explains this. And by the law he can't, because he is a thief in a robe, just like those robed bullies in the HICKS 2000 case, subsequently found to be trespassers and in "plain error" for doing so.
I'm not telling you to do more than you fully understand or are willing to risk. That is up to you to decide, indeed. I will never judge anyone against their limitations. If You want to give up your land to a bully and brute, that is up to you. I've decided that isn't going to happen to my land, if I can help it. I guess I still maintain, yet, that it means something to be American, and that the Mineral Estate Grantee may be the last example of one; Rare as these are to find anymore.
MEG