# Bundy Ranch scenario with Gold miners.



## GotTheBug (Apr 14, 2015)

http://agenda21radio.com/?p=16435&hc_location=ufi


----------



## maynman1751 (Apr 14, 2015)

I like the comments after the article. Things we are not allowed to discuss here. Which is fine. They really have no business here. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Harold_V (Apr 15, 2015)

Documents posted that contain glaring errors (such as 2. BLM are in active violation,) leave a great deal to be desired if they are to be taken seriously.

BLM are? There is but one BLM. The BLM* is *(not are)

Harold


----------



## Long Shot (Apr 15, 2015)

As it does involve recovering of precious metal (mining) and this is the general chat area I am hoping I can ask a few things about what is going on in this article? I am not an American and do not watch TV so I do not keep up with a lot of the goings on in the USA. The article points to the actions of the BLM as not legal and unconstitutional - anyone agree? What is the premise of them wanting to stop these guys from mining? They have been doing so for a couple hundred years, what is the problem now? Does the BLM have authority to do what they are trying to do? A couple of commenters say no. To me, the hidden agenda thing makes sense IF they have no valid and/or legal reasons for stopping these operations. Excuse my ignorance of American law.


----------



## patnor1011 (Apr 15, 2015)

That is government and how they work for you in general (unless you are too big to fail). 
You are not supposed to understand, you should obey. 
It is not just USA thing, stuff like this is going on all around the world. 
Enough said.


----------



## GotTheBug (Apr 15, 2015)

I thought the article was an interesting pointer. If "they're" harassing those with claims and larger scale operations, say for the purpose of confiscation etc., then how long before the "eye of Soron" turns to hobby refiners?


----------



## Geo (Apr 15, 2015)

In the 1800's, the railroad was moving from east to west. The railroad needed to be able to take the path of least resistance in the topography. If townships or individual claims lay in the path, the Robber Barons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) would employ the U.S. government to force people off their land so the railroad could progress. The lobbyist in Washington learned the tactics of the Robber Barons and employed the same tactics in the early 1900's under the pretext of conservation. If the government says we need a dam in this river, the people that live there have no choice but to move or drown. If an individual had a large tract of virgin timber, the department of conservation can dictate which trees on their property can be removed and which ones have to stay. Before the department, huge tracts were clear cut causing land erosion and pollution in waterways. The department of the bureau of land management was created to manage how the land was utilized. They stopped hydraulic mining and restricted strip mining. Like anything else, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now the BLM uses the regulations and mandates like welding a club to enforce their ideals on individuals. Since the BLM is a federal agency, it conflicts with state laws concerning the land usage. State law supersedes federal law (but don't tell the feds that) and individual state constitutions supersedes the U.S. constitution in that state (hence the legalization of pot in state law but still illegal in federal law). The state constitution forces the state to uphold the state law over federal law and protect it's constituents from persecution of the federal government. The BLM only has power as long as state and local law aligns with federal law. If state law protects the rights of the land owner, the state police must protect the land owner from persecution by the federal government agents.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Apr 15, 2015)

Land is still grabbed under the principle of eminent domain ( I think I remember that is what it is called). I have seen 2 rail road facilites built around here in the last 15-20 years using this procedure. They come in and take the land and build their facilities.


----------



## Long Shot (Apr 15, 2015)

Geo - thanks for the enlightenment. I always enjoy your posts. It amazes me that this goes on though, what jurisdiction do they have?


----------



## acpeacemaker (Apr 15, 2015)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> Land is still grabbed under the principle of eminent domain ( I think I remember that is what it is called). I have seen 2 rail road facilites built around here in the last 15-20 years using this procedure. They come in and take the land and build their facilities.



Your right Barren,
I remember from living around the Branson (close to Arkansas border) area, problems arose in that part of the state. I believe Oklahoma had a problem as well.


----------



## Geo (Apr 15, 2015)

Long Shot said:


> Geo - thanks for the enlightenment. I always enjoy your posts. It amazes me that this goes on though, what jurisdiction do they have?



The BLM is over all natural resources in the United States. It can be timber, water, oil, mineral so basically, everything. Every conservation agency (wildlife,watershed,forestry,mining and even grazing land) is under control of the BLM.


----------



## rickbb (Apr 16, 2015)

The BLM only has jurisdiction over Federally owned land that is not a National Park, National Forest, National Monument or other such "special" national designation. Unless granted the management authority on an individual basis by an act of Congress. The do not have any jurisdiction over state land or private land. 

The BLM was originally created to manage native lands as people at that time did not think they could do it themselves. (Others think it was to keep the natives from making the money on it instead of eastern business men.)

The issue in this case is of the paper work on a very old claim. The claim owners have proof that they have rights to mine on federally owned land and the BLM seems to have lost the paper work or otherwise believe the claim owners should not be doing what they are doing. The courts will sort this out soon enough.

This is in no way another "Bundy Ranch" scenario as Mr. Bundy decided that after lawfully getting a permit to graze his cows on federal land, he would no longer pay the fees that he agreed to pay when he applied for and received that permit. Mr. Bundy was/is nothing more than a free loader, a welfare queen that wants to use public owned property for his own profit. He has no more "rights" to that property than I do. Which without that lawful permit and paying of the fees is none.

These mine operators have a legitimate claim and the BLM is in the wrong on this one, but not in the "Bundy Ranch scenario".


----------



## Palladium (Apr 16, 2015)

We all have rights and we own ALL federal lands. Everything the government owns belongs to the people, not the entity of government. We are a government of the people, not a dictatorship or Communist government of the state. At least that's the lie they tell us!


----------



## 4metals (Apr 16, 2015)

The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected are bound by oath to the written governing limits (ie constitution) yet vote "together" and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way. 

In a democracy (which we often are confused about because we are not a democracy) the majority can impose its will on the minority. 

In a republic, the majority cannot take away certain inalienable rights. 

Sometimes it seems even Washington gets the difference mixed up!


----------



## Long Shot (Apr 16, 2015)

rickbb said:


> The BLM only has jurisdiction over Federally owned land that is not a National Park, National Forest, National Monument or other such "special" national designation. Unless granted the management authority on an individual basis by an act of Congress. The do not have any jurisdiction over state land or private land.
> 
> The BLM was originally created to manage native lands as people at that time did not think they could do it themselves. (Others think it was to keep the natives from making the money on it instead of eastern business men.)
> 
> ...



So do they have the right to do what they are trying to do??


----------



## acpeacemaker (Apr 16, 2015)

If this sounds of any ignorance forgive me.

I just read an article on Utah wanting to take their land back from the Feds. Back home in Missouri we had a lot of conservation land that I believed to be state owned. You didn't have to pay anything for park permits, you could hunt and fish, and in some places camp. There were state parks that were different. Park pass, no this, no that etc.

My question is pertaining to Colorado. National forest (fed owned) you can camp, prospect, fish, hunt. All state parks I've seen are pay, and prohibit pretty much everything. So if Colorado took some national forest. Is it council that delegates what it turns into like more state parks? Saving land that nobody can do anything, but has to pay to step foot into. I do understand preservation, but cannot express some of the anger felt from different places I've come across. 

One of my favorite places in a national forest that was well known for hunting garnets was sold to a single individual. Fenced the entire mountain off as private property.


----------



## rickbb (Apr 17, 2015)

Only problem is, it was never Utah's land in the first place. The US owned the land, let some natives think it was theirs for awhile, then took it from them BEFORE Utah was ever a state or official territory.

It's like Argentina wanting the Falklands back, they never had them. England took them from Spain when Argentina was still a small colony of slaves for the Spanish Crown.

@ Long Shot, from my reading of the issue, (and not from that propaganda site in the OP's link), the BLM is on the wrong side of this one. Mining rights laws are very old and people who have wanted to reform them have been blocked at every turn. These claim owners have the paper work to prove they have the rights to mine, BLM can't show they don't. If comprehensive land use reform was allowed to move forward then issues like these would stop coming up. When what is and is not allowed has to be researched through 200 years worth of old laws mistakes will happen.


----------



## rickbb (Apr 17, 2015)

acpeacemaker said:


> One of my favorite places in a national forest that was well known for hunting garnets was sold to a single individual. Fenced the entire mountain off as private property.



Perfect example of the small government at work. I was once a Scoutmaster, had a group of boys on a canoe camping trip in a state park at the coast. Beautiful place, 200+ year old Cypress trees, and so on. 

One dad started in on politics saying how he didn't think the government should own any land at all. It should all be sold off and the money used instead of income taxes. I pointed out how much fun his son was having here at the government owned land he was camping on and asked him where would his son be if the state did not have this park. And how many Walmart's did he think could be built on the land.

He didn't talk to me the rest of the trip, (thank god).


----------



## Palladium (Apr 17, 2015)

China and Japan own your federal lands now.


----------



## rickbb (Apr 17, 2015)

Palladium said:


> China and Japan own your federal lands now.



LOL, no they just hold the 2nd mortgage on them.


----------



## Geo (Apr 17, 2015)

There was a thing in all state laws called a "grandfather clause" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause which basically gave people squatters rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting . Gradually, these loopholes are being closed. If the mining company can provide an unbroken claim to the piece of land, the claim should still be considered a legal contract. The laws vary state to state so it will be decided by lawyers. Even if the claim is outdated but no other claim has been staked, it may still be grandfathered in legally. If it already has been, they can thumb their noses at the feds and wish them a good day.


----------



## Long Shot (Apr 17, 2015)

Rick - thanks for that. I am in total agreement that it is an "ancient" claim and therefore should not be subjected to modern law. In my country, should this trail of claim be abandoned, and one would be stupid to do so, then government would have the right (or perceived right) to change the rules. It is subject to "grandfathering" rules in my mind, they have granted rights by very old tradition, and that should not be subject to change on a whim. Real, legal reasons need to be present and it seems not. That is why I ask if the BLM is within bounds of their jurisdiction.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 17, 2015)

True rules do exist. The problem is that rules only work for those who make the rules up and enforce them. Sad! We use to be a country of laws.


----------



## Golddigger Greg (Apr 18, 2015)

Any valid pre-1955 claim is protected by the Mineral Estate Grant, which severely limits the ability of ANYONE to infringe upon the Grantee's Property Rights and lays out the very few circumstances that those Rights can be diminished. There are remedies for the Grantee in such case. The BLM's challenge to the operation must meet a very high bar, as a Mineral Estate Grant has been ruled paramount in the highest courts.

I see this as a land grab, and harassment by the BLM, in an attempt to essentially starve the miners out by tying them up in feigned legal proceedings until they either run out of money or will to mine. I don't see either happening, so it could get interesting. The newly elected Sherriff of Josephine County, who is supposed to be protecting the property rights of citizens of his county from all who would infringe upon them, is apparently OK with his deputies when called upon in this matter 'to having trouble with the Constitution' as it relates to mining and miners.

Comparing Bundy to Sugar Pine is a disservice to Sugar Pine. Bundy entered into an agreement he probably shouldn't have with the BLM and reneged on it, Sugar Pine did no such thing, and has lived up to every one of it's obligations under the Grant. The onus is on the BLM to prove it's challenge to the Grant in the courts. The last I read the Claim owners were privy only to the heavily redacted documents in BLM's hands. Sounds kind of under-handed to me; tell me to stop doing something, but don't me what I'm supposed to stop doing, or why I'm not to do it, and give no way to find out what I'm not supposed to be doing, and if I don't stop doing it by the end of the month I'll be punished!


----------



## Long Shot (Apr 18, 2015)

Thanks for the input guys. It will be very interesting to see how this goes. Palladuium - isn't that what is meant by "The Golden Rule"?? Those with all the gold make up the rules! Maybe in this case it is those who want all the gold are attempting to make up the rules?


----------



## maynman1751 (Apr 18, 2015)

Palladium said:


> True rules do exist. The problem is that rules only work for those who make the rules up and enforce them. Sad! *We use to be a country of laws.*


We are now a country of outlaws!!!!! :x


----------



## Geo (Apr 18, 2015)

maynman1751 said:


> Palladium said:
> 
> 
> > True rules do exist. The problem is that rules only work for those who make the rules up and enforce them. Sad! *We use to be a country of laws.*
> ...



That's what the founding fathers were. That's how the U.S.A. was started. I'm not trying to get the people to revolt because I find people in general revolting enough as it is.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 18, 2015)

The word profiteer comes to mind.


----------



## kurtak (Apr 19, 2015)

Geo said:


> maynman1751 said:
> 
> 
> > Palladium said:
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Thanks Geo --- I may now have to take my computer in for repair after spitting coffee all over it :lol:


----------



## jason_recliner (Apr 19, 2015)

Geo said:


> That's what the founding fathers were. That's how the U.S.A. was started. I'm not trying to get the people to revolt because I find people in general revolting enough as it is.


 :lol: 
There's an old joke where the King's loyal subject comes running in...
- "Your Majesty! Your Majesty! It's the peasants, Sire! They are all revolting!"
- "Yes they are a bit, aren't they?"


----------



## Geo (Apr 24, 2015)

Check this. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alabama_and_fracking

https://youtu.be/sDt54CFXfRI


Public lands
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management planned to auction off oil and gas excavation rights to 43,000 acres of Talladega National Forest in Alabama on June 14, 2012. If the auction winners determine the land beneath the virgin forests contains petroleum or gas, the likely method of extracting it will be hydraulic fracturing.[7]

The NRDC challenged the auction, saying it violated federal law since the BLM did not do a site-specific analysis of the effects, but instead relied on a 2004 analysis that assumed only one well would be drilled in the entire Talladega in a ten year period. According to the NRDC, the study is inadequate and outdated as it does not consider fracking and its effects.[8]

After public pressure the auction was delayed, but state officials have said the auction could occur in 2013.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 24, 2015)

This one happened in my back yard several years ago. I know some local folks it made rich!
http://www.ogb.state.al.us/documents/misc_ogb/Conasauga%202007_C%20Nov.pdf


----------



## Geo (Apr 24, 2015)

Not bad. There is shale here in Decatur close to the surface. I know it's not the shale they are looking for but it is pre-coal or grey-blue shale and clay.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 24, 2015)

It was a real cluster cluck! People running around like chickens with their heads cut off. You wouldn't believe the ruckus it caused! Everything from tree huggers to traveling con artist were hustling this new frontier of unlocked riches and everybody had it on their land and was going to be rich. Duck Dynasty rich! I had some business dealings with 1 of the 5 people who were the only ones to really benefit from it when all was said and done. He made out good. Not Duck Dynasty good, but good.


----------



## rickbb (Apr 24, 2015)

Here in NC we've been hit that that black gold fever.

The politicians have just passed a law that says any gas/oil under you land can be drilled and taken by your neighbor with a so called "pooling rights". 

In other words if you neighbor sells to a drilling outfit and you don't, the driller can bend the drill hole to come under your land and frack your gas right out from under you. And this new state law forbids, FORBIDS, you from being able to like suit to stop them.


----------

