Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Wallrat

Any Word On The Crossman Case?

It was supposed to be on Oct 4th, if I remember correctly...I'd like to hear the results, if possible?
NCrossman

Oh there is a lot to do.  My public pretender is taking the side of the blm and claiming it to be a mining case instead of an obstruction case.  

The more I try to clarify obstruction to him, the more evidence he takes from the blm.  I just got the discovery today and the blm, not the officer had a recording. Though that recording is audible, all I can say is that she hung herself by presenting this recording.  With that being said, the pretender wanted a trial, set for December.  So that is what happened when I went to my court appointed date and will have to appear then.

So, as of today, I am seeking a change of venue.  If they make it a mining case (nothing cited about mining) then I will lose this case.  If we keep it obstruction, I will win on their video evidence alone.  She recorded the Sheriff stating: "some kind of constitutionalist group and they have to understand that they are not above the law... they are all JERKS."  With the blm's response, "Thank you for HELPING me with this, ITS ALWAYS NICE WHEN WE CAN "GET" THEM.  I WILL BE ISSUING PAPERS ON MONDAY..."  THE OFFICER, "OH DO IT WHEN  I AM ON DUTY, NOTHING EVER HAPPENS WHEN IM ON SHIFT."  BLM, "OK.  I WILL SET IT FOR FRIDAY THEN. WE CAN ARREST THEM ALL!"

If you ask me, this all sounds like a big old pile of collusion... they can't work together and record it and submit that as evidence?  Anyway, here are some things to ponder as an Idahoan....

IDAHO CONSTITUTION STATES:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
APPROVED JULY 3, 1890

ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 3. STATE INSEPARABLE PART OF UNION. The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

(this is just fyi)
SECTION 7. STATE WATER RESOURCE AGENCY. There shall be constituted a Water Resource Agency, composed as the Legislature may now or hereafter prescribe, which shall have power to construct and operate water projects; to issue bonds, without state obligation, to be repaid from revenues of projects; to generate and wholesale hydroelectric power at the site of production; to appropriate public waters as trustee for Agency projects; to acquire, transfer and encumber title to real property for water projects and to have control and administrative authority over state lands required for water projects; all under such laws as may be prescribed by the Legislature. Additionally, the State Water Resource Agency shall have power to formulate and implement a state water plan for optimum development of water resources in the public interest. The Legislature of the State of Idaho shall have the authority to amend or reject the state water plan in a manner provided by law. Thereafter any change in the state water plan shall be submitted to the Legislature of the State of Idaho upon the first day of a regular session following the change and the change shall become effective unless amended or rejected by law within sixty days of its admission [submission] to the Legislature.

SECTION 11. DUTIES OF OFFICERS. County, township, and precinct officers shall perform such duties as shall be prescribed by law.  (BLM is not law)



I am doing my homework.  I really am.  any info would help in my research, however, my most important research is this: GETTING THAT NEW LAWYER OR TWO...
NCrossman

By the way, I will say, that the 5 lawyers I have talked to say that there is definite federal harassment and I have a federal case on my hands.  GOOD! right? Wrong, they ALL said I should have just prevented it and given them my ID... This is not the point and I don't want someone representing me that I can't trust!
NCrossman

by the way, anyone looking into Sharkey might want to start in Nevada.  She claims that she has been working for the blm for 5 years and just recently transferred from Carson City, NV.  But she trained in Georgia City.  Wherever that is?  And the guy that was with her, he was new to Idaho, but he trained in Georgia city too.
Wallrat

Nicole, are you planning on writing up a transcript of the arrest tapes? I think that might have a weight against the FS and BLM. They're usually fair and tall people, like most cops, and the Judge will be affected by that IMHO. Also, have you been to the FIJA page? http://fija.org/  worth a look, and it can't hurt.
Hefty

Wallrat wrote:
Nicole, are you planning on writing up a transcript of the arrest tapes? I think that might have a weight against the FS and BLM. They're usually fair and tall people, like most cops, and the Judge will be affected by that IMHO. Also, have you been to the FIJA page? http://fija.org/  worth a look, and it can't hurt.


Idaho



Ted Dunlap

1356 Castro Dr.

Kuna, ID 83634

208-954-3576

ted@idaholiberty.net

FIJA Speaker


Last updated 16 August 2012.


Very nice, good info Wallrat
NCrossman

I just spoke with a "mining" lawyer (The only local one we have)  and he even said that the BLM has authority to ask for my ID and that the Sheriff probably became suspicious as to why I refused my ID and continued to press the issue of me giving him that info!  

So apparently the right to probable cause is no more? and along with many, many, many other lawyers/attorneys they all seem to think that I am a criminal for not showing my ID.  Apparently, as the lawyer states, "Just chalk this one up as a learning experience because you can't just go drop your suction line in water at any time and not expect to get questioned by the authorities!"  

Wow!  What a bunch of bull!  Yeah it is getting really old with every phone call I make!

BTW: Nice info Hefty!
legalminer

I'm curious to hear how this plays out.
From what I understand, probable cause has been watered down to reasonable suspicion.   The arresting authority still has to be able to explain what crime they have reasonable suspicion has occurred or will occur and that they are currently investigating.   I suppose obstruction is the crime here, but what crime were they investigating when they determined that you were obstructing an investigation?  I don't think they ever told you... even when you repeatedly asked.  
Please keep us informed and best of luck with your fight.

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home