americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index 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
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

I've been cited
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Nicole,

You're always going to find that the majority won't  fight back.

Most people honestly believe that if they don't rock the boat, they'll be left alone. Hence they comply (and worse, they often criticize those who refuse to comply, stating "You guys are ruining this for the rest of us!", when the reality is, their complacency/fear/ignorance/compliance is what has ruined it.

Another angle is that most people assume that the agencies, attorneys and judges must be right. They also really can't stomach the idea that the people they believe is their government would willingly, knowingly and intentionally destroy their way of life or intend them harm.

The reality is quite opposite:

The agencies, attorneys and judges are, as a general rule, CLUELESS about this mining law.

Those who are not so clueless often conspire to harm the average person. I submit that when agency employees, attorneys and judges conspire to take property and rights from people (miners or others), it is a form of violence and ultimately terrorism levied against the people by their government.

Now the good news.

You don't need a bunch of miners to stop rogue agents, all you really need are a handful that are completely committed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wallrat



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to be tardy, I don't get out of the bush too often. Here are the citation details:36 CFR 261.10 (k) citation, "use and/or occupancy of NFS lands without special-use auth. (mining without a permit)". Then it says I can pay a $175 fine, or appear. No date given, it says "To be". That's it, though he did include the address for the magistrate. at 550 W Fort St. in Boise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
beebarjay



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 230
Location: Central Oregon Coast & Az

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From another Woof posting on another thread....posted for your consideration.

Hefty wrote:

Mon, June 18, 2012 2:47:13 PM
From: "Fischer, Christopher -FS" <cfischer@fs.fed.us>View Contact
To:  
Cc: "Barnett; Gary -FS" <gbarnett@fs.fed.us>; "Torres; Anthony W -FS" <awtorres@fs.fed.us>; "Wiese; Karen -FS" <kwiese@fs.fed.us>; "Madrigal; Tom -FS" <tmadrigal@fs.fed.us>; "Weaver; Rick -FS" <rweaver@fs.fed.us>... more


Mr. Hepfner,

As a reminder, in order to work your mining claim, you will need to have an approved Plan of Operation (POO). Please work with my office to get an authorized Plan of Operations for your mining activities at your earliest convenience. Until you have an approved plan, any mining activities, associated equipment or occupancy of National Forest System lands is prohibited.


I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Chris Fischer

District Ranger

American River Ranger District, Tahoe NF

W: 530-478-6254 x238

M: 530-906-2095

cfischer@fs.fed.us



This little "note" is a real treasure Hefty. Guard it with your life. It not only is proof of intent to harass you under color of law but it is tacit admission by those agents that they consider their own occupancy regulations to be entitled to deference.

I gave the explanations the FS provided when they published the new criminal regs on occupation. In that Federal Register notice they explained that occupancy did not require any notice or plan if there was no "significant surface disturbance" from that occupancy. They also made it clear that they do not consider any forest stay regulations to apply as long as "the occupation is reasonably incident to mining".

So why is this so important? Why would it matter to some district ranger that the FS published some explanation on where they thought these new regs apply?

The courts have applied a hands off approach to agencies interpretations of their own regulations. If an agency regulation could be interpreted in two or more different ways the courts have allowed the agency itself determine which way they want to interpret the regulation. The courts have refused to make those decisions for them. (PLP should be paying attention here too.  )

This principle is called "deference" and there is one exception to this principle. Where the agency has already defined the meaning of the regulation in the process of creating it there can be only one interpretation of that regulation - the one defined when it was created.

Here again are some of the defining statements made in the Federal Register along with the new reg:
Quote:
Regardless of the local stay limit, an operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to conduct operations unless the locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, might cause significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

Moreover, as discussed above, an approved plan of operations is not required for locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, unless those operations are likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

An operator, consequently, is not required to notify the Forest Service prior to conducting locatable mineral operations which involve occupancy of NFS lands providing that those operations meet two conditions: (1) The occupancy is reasonably incidental to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing and (2) those proposed (or ongoing) operations, including such reasonably incidental occupancy, cumulatively will not cause (or are not causing) significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

To the extent that respondents fear the Forest Service might cite an operator who is camping on NFS for the operator's failure to submit a notice of intent to operate when one is required, those fears are groundless. None of the prohibitions set forth in 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, including those adopted by this final rule, prohibit an action requiring a notice of intent to operate. Rather, the prohibitions applicable to occupancy of lands in conjunction with locatable mineral operations that require prior notice or approval apply when an operator acts ''without *** an operating plan when such authorization is required.'' For purposes of 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, Sec. 261.2 defines the term ''operating plan'' to mean a plan of operations that has been approved. There is no prohibition applicable to acting without a notice of intent to operate when it is required by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.


So that is what is meant by "occupation" in the new (2008) regs. The Forest Service are stuck with it now, you can hold them to those definitions in a court of law. The courts can not allow "deference" to any other definition of what those regs mean.

Also by publishing those definitions in the Federal Register all Forest Service personnel are now put on actual and constructive notice of what those regs mean. No excuses.

Now do you understand how important it is that you have written proof that the district rangers intend to enforce those regulations without regard to their actual meaning? Color of law. Intimidation and harassment.

Woof!
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also note, that in the note, it was forwarded on to many employees of USFS. That is not standard policy. It is however, putting the others on notice that "Hefty" is a problem for the agency and is to made an example of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wallrat



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I went to court on the 6th...was offered three options; guilty, not guilty, and nolo contentre (pay a fine and it goes away). I offered him an option too; dismiss. That was good for a laugh, and we go to court on Oct. 2nd. I intend to use McClure, Lex (in case they go towards the 'occupation), and since my work was both casual use, exploratory,  and there was no significant disturbance, so there was no need for an NOI.  Luck to the Crossmans, we'll all need it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, wallrat we all will need it. I don't know what time you were there in court on Monday, but they got a new prosecuting attorney and he lives in garden valley. I am going to call him on my case because they refused me my right to a speedy trial. Also, your trial is a day after mine.

Did you have a judge or just a negotiator? Obviously they weren't there for me.

Keep us posted.
_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
legalminer



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any updates?
I think we're all very interested to see how this is resolved.
Hope it's looking good for your defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wallrat wrote:
Sorry to be tardy, I don't get out of the bush too often. Here are the citation details:36 CFR 261.10 (k) citation, "use and/or occupancy of NFS lands without special-use auth. (mining without a permit)". Then it says I can pay a $175 fine, or appear. No date given, it says "To be". That's it, though he did include the address for the magistrate. at 550 W Fort St. in Boise.


Wallrat, Just curious?  Why did they send you to Ada county court house?  How come, if you were cited in Idaho City (or Boise County) they didn't give you a date to appear in Idaho City at the Boise County court house?  550 W. Fort st. in Boise... hmmm. that is interesting.  I would suggest that they dismiss it on the grounds that it didn't happen in Ada county?  Or am I just reading all of this wrong? Let me know. I just noticed it and was wondering.  Thanks
_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wallrat



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No idea why I'd be sent to the Boise courthouse, except that it's a Federal citation. I was all ready for court, with McClure, a definition of "Significant Disturbance" [from 36 CFR, section 9], then I got a call from the Prosecutor, where I told him there was no significant disturbance, and so I had no idea why they cited me. We talked a bit about it, then in a couple of weeks I got another call............DISMISSED! So, it would not have happened without the knowledge I found here. As  a side note, after my citation I went down and put in an NOI. At the time there was a temporary ban on either approving or disapproving NOI's because of the Karuk suit. So, after 15 days, there was still no action on it, and I went back to work. Really, this was a win/win. No NOI to operate under, and a dismissal. I owe you guys a bunch, and can't express how thankful I am for all the help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the update wallrat. Next time, don't even bother with the noi. It just puts you on radar. I believe as of today the forest service is looking for myself and john, but even though they know we are there... somewhere, they can't find us. Part of the reason is because we have no permits, are under no radar except for my court stuff, but other than that, we plan on moving back to our claims soon.

Congrats wallrat, but don't be surprised if they show up again. It is just a matter of time. And next time, the planned harassment will only be more detailed. But continue to work your machine and get gold, I believe we miners have a chance at taking these bullies down.

Good luck and keep in touch.
Ciao!


_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum