Heard today from SWOMA Vice President Ron Gibson that Cliff has had the charge/conviction of polluting Sucker Creek dropped. This will be spoke to along with the 7 miners cited for occupancy court case and much more at this Friday's SWOMA meeting at Pottsville. Hope to see you'll there. Door should be open 6-6:30


And heres a BIG THANK YOU to Dan and Denise for this forum and web site.

MEG

im sure Cliff is very releived to hear this! but i wonder what the courts are trying to hide/ circumvent/ or keep from being brought to the publics attention? the lawyers have been know to withhold evidence to keep certain facts from being made a public record and eventually becoming fuel the fire against them .

The below is what SWOMA VP Ron Gibson has sent to BLM Abbie Jossie during the comment period for Cliff Tracy Mine Plan proposal:


January 24, 2010.


RE: Comment on Tracy Mine Plan proposal; Limit of Bureau of Land Management Authority on vested mineral properties. Unlawful Takings.


Abbie Jossie,

A) There appears to be a great misunderstanding on the part of the public or a continuing deception unlawfully misapprehending a most unique law pertaining to a most unique property.

B) As representative and Vice President of the members of the South Western Oregon Mining Association and by our members their independent or unorganized Mining Districts and on behalf of the 1000's of other congressional grantees, potentially every American, that may be unaware of the threat against them and our property entrusted by Congress into your fiduciary care, we have become aware of an opportunity to comment upon a mining plan proposal of Clifford Tracy in the Sucker Creek and would like to file our findings with regard to the law showing the BLM neither has authority to impose or accept a Notice of Intent or a mining Plan Of Operation, a comment period, or discretion nor interfere in any other way with such grantee accepting of the Congressional intent to disposal valuable mineral deposits under the Act of 1866 as clarified in 1870 to include and expanded and settled in1872 to include all locatable valuable deposits. Moreover, as a matter of law any interference or delay or the purporting of authority which interferes under any law of Congress to keep any Mineral Estate Grantee from the free and open development of his private or exclusively possessed property is an unlawful takings compensable against any one shown interfering in any way under either federal or state law or as presented, in part, here. Special note must be made not to confuse the three classes of mineral disposed of by Act of Congress independently, known as Locateables, Leaseables, and Saleables. The class of concern here is those valuable deposits known as locateables that were disposed by Congress in the Act approved July 26, 1866 and specifically excepted from agency authority:

1) The Act of Congress approved July 26, 1866 provides a prior valid or “other authorization” for “free and open” occupation or development and private inholding on the public domain within the public land as is clearly confirmed in the Congressional Record of October 23, 2000 presented by the the honorable Jim Gibbons, of the final report of Chenoweth-Hage, based on unrefuted “testimony given and records available” of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, page E1885-E1886, “submitted into the Record of this 106th Congress”: “The courts have repeatedly held that when a lawful possession of the public lands has been taken, these lands are no longer available to the public and are therefore no longer public lands”; and “Possession of the mineral estate in public lands could be lawfully taken under the mining acts. Where valid mining claims exist, that land is no longer public land” while “all acts of Congress, relating to land disposal contain a savings clause protecting prior existing rights,”“including [the] FLMPA.” See: 5 page Congressional Record attached;

a) Federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973). With other cases stating these properties are held “as patent”.

2) Whomever, without found authority, imposing rules inapplicable to exclusively held private inholding on the public domain, acknowledged in the FLPMA, 43 USC 1701 (a) 3 “, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.” and can be held culpable and liable for acting outside the “Scope” and “Purpose” of CFR 3800 and:
a) As applied, such classes of Management Obstruction are not delegated to the Department of Interior and expressly prohibiting the Bureau of Land Management for land found valuable for minerals, 43 USC 1732, 1733. Unlawful interference or harassment and wrongful imposition is proven again, in part, at:
1) The admitted mere “parallel authority” of PART 3800 MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS --Table of Contents -- Subpart 3809 Surface Management, Sec. 3809.411 What action will BLM take when it receives my plan of operations? (ii) BLM completes the environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act;
A) The rules cited, or for providing a “Comment period” is not applicable to any granted, private, vested property, rights, or appurtenances, for instance and not to exclusion, as required of the BLM:
i) Granted mineral property or development is not a major federal action,
ii) Is not using federal funding,
iii) The discretion for which project, program, or demonstration does not reside in the agency, notwithstanding the lack of any federal action;

3) Moreover, valid Claims, and presumed so, on the public domain are neither as a “special-use permittee”, nor any other administrative entry on public land subject to agency regulation, oversight, or discretion pursuant to the provisions and customs covered under the act approved July 26, 1866 and saved and incorporated by the Act of May 10, 1872. Due process rights are violated and unlawful taking occurs where any body or any one unilaterally determines a lawful bona fide and good faith claim of a vested private property or “exclusive possession” under the Act of 1866, as saved by the Act of May 10, 1872 and all subsequent congressional land disposal acts, is an unauthorized use and occupation or causing unnecessary and unreasonable degradation without a trial comporting with due process;

4) This vested granted possession further saved from management discretion or management authority in the FLPMA at 43 USC 1732 (a), (b), and © “That, where other applicable law contains specific provisions” “or other authorization to use, occupy, or develop the public lands, the specific provisions of such law shall prevail”, expresses a limitation of authority upon the Secretary of Interior. We strongly urge you to see to it, personally, that the Bureau of Land Management records are correctly to reflecting this fact of the granted, and not administrative, character locations under authority and intention of the Act approved July 26, 1866. The records are required to reflect accurately the recorded Notice of Location accepting the prevailing “other authorization” entitled to and of which is beyond agency discretion, interference, or diminishment by rule or otherwise and which enjoy rights by relation to the originating grant;

5) The Notice to the public of a comment period regarding the locateable uncommon valuable mineral deposit as opposed to the Saleable and Leaseable common variety minerals is evidence of a fraud perpetrated upon everyone, in part, that any BLM employe has the duty to adhere to all the law, stay within lawful authority, and not misrepresent that authority, the law, or the extent of any rules or applicability thereby, and the applicable facts. The Comment Period or imposition of any federal law, including as here the NEPA, is devoid of these duties upon the Secretary or his agents and is therefore unlawful as applied and compensable;

6) Even if the BLM had subject matter jurisdiction, the interference the delay for comment causes adversely impacts the property of the claim without compensation and without, or denied, due process or opportunity to waiver;

7) By the Foregoing we reasonably and in good faith know, assert, and challenge the BLM is without subject matter authorities, or territory to impose, interfere, obstruct, or diminish presumed valid and private Location under Authority of the prevailing congressional land disposal grant of July, 26 1866, as Claimants accept;
8) Being the law provides no authority to interfere with any mineral estate grantee, the imposition of a comment period under provisions of NEPA is unlawful. Delaying to tell this fact of law to Mr. Tracy, or any one similarly situated, is an unlawful interference. Even in land where the government has purchased the surface rights the agency has no authority to interfere, NEPA is inapplicable, an mineral development can not be held up due to an EIS. See: Minard Run Oil v. Forest Service, rendered December 15, 2009. In the matter at hand, the agency does not even maintain a surface right interest being Congress granted a the entire surface within the bound of the monuments of a claim to the grantee. It is a high crime to suggest the 1955 act amending the Common Material Act of 1947 does not contain a clause saving the valuable mineral deposit and affecting in any way the intent of Congress. Interference in any way is a compensable takings and under state law a crime. Purporting or holding out that a mineral estate grantee such as Tracy can not develop a valid claim without the “permission”, oversight, or discretion of the BLM is likewise a compensable takings;

9) Additionally and most importantly, the current actions of delay by the agency are compensable violations due to the probable cause and due process of law requirements under the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, an unlawful interference of lawful activities, and diminishment of valid vested granted mineral property, rights, appurtenant rights, and obligations under the grant of 1866;
a) Under which all involved are duty bound to adhere or be privately culpable;
b) or to avoid continuing culpability in the already perfected violation of the administrative notice which is not a valid agency action or authorized for the purpose for which it is being used, abandon .
1) At the very least it is harassment and threatened interference adversely affecting Clifford Tracy's economic interests and the obligations under the grant of 1866 without due process of law. The delay the frivolously imposed NEPA Process has caused is evidence of economic harm, alone.
2) As an Association we are concerned with the agencies continued misapprehension of the mining law and continuing harassment by this ignorance. Be advised such interference or harassment is a criminal act under state law.

C) The Summation of our Comment is that in light of the existence of the Comment Period, the BLM finds itself between the proverbial Hard and Rock Spot. It is unlawful for the agency to keep Mr Tracy from developing his claim and unlawful to impose the inapplicable NEPA Process to his private property inholding or purport to maintain any discretion over his congressionally granted property. We most strongly urge and suggest the agency withdraw the public hearing process and immediately inform Mr. Tracy, or others similarly situated in the future, that it was improper to accept an application under NEPA being it is applicable uniformly throughout the federal government and not applicable to exclusively possessed inholdings in the public land, and being Congress intends he has a right to work his claim closing further comments under the unlawfully imposed NEPA. Mr. Tracy will have to decide whether or not to pursue a takings claim against whomever is currently infringing his property rights and causing the damage to date due in unlawfully purporting an authority over his located exclusively possessed valuable mineral deposit claim.

Sincerely,

Ron Gibson
Vice President of the South Western Oregon Mining Association.
Phone-541-621-548
Email-dritecrg@hotmail.com




cc: Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, 1849 C street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240

thankyou for posting this MEG!

From Ron Gibson, SWOMA Vice President:

ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 BLM LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS UNLAWFULLY CITED DUSTY D. FORD WHILE ON HIS LAWFUL MINING CLAIM IN SOUTHERN OREGON. DUSTY FORD WAS CHARGED UNDER OREGON CRIMINAL STATUTES, COUNT 1, CRIMINAL TRESPASS IN THE FIRST DEGREE. COUNT 2, CRIMINAL THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE. COUNT 3, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

THE TRAIL WAS HELD ON FEB. 10, 2010 AT THE JACKSON COUNTY COURT HOUSE, MEDFORD, OREGON. THE BLM FAILED TO PROVE ANY GUILT ON DUSTY FORD FOR ANY OF THE CHARGES. COUNTS 1 AND 2 WERE DISMISSED HALF WAY THROUGH THE TRIAL FOR LACK OF PROOF BY THE BLM, THE JUDGE AGREED. THE REST OF THE TRIAL WAS TO DETERMINE THE MERRITS OF THE CHARGE ON COUNT 3, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.

THE TRIAL WAS HEARD BY A SIX PERSON JURY. THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.

NOTE! DUSTY FORD UPON FILING HIS MINING CLAIM , CLEANED UP A MESS LEFT BEHIND BY OTHERS TRASH AND UNWANTED ITEMS, ETC. THIS WAS THE BASIS THAT THE BLM BROUGHT CHARGES AGAINST DUSTY FORD. THEY SHOULD GIVEN HIM A REWARD.

RON

we need to hear more reports like this! then these people need to start spanking the FS and others for false arrest and make them pay!