|Welcome, Register :: Log In||Welcome to our newest member, Agent67.|
|Users active in this forum:|
|Users active in this thread:|
people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 29 at 13:36:32 Sat Aug 3 2002)|
|Pages: [ 1 ]|
|[ Notify of replies made to this post ]||[ Print ]||[ Send To Friend ]||[ Watch ]||[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]|
Sep 18 2012
This is a copy and paste from what I received and was given permission to pass on. Because of the copy and paste the formatting may be off.
This is merely being offered as a guidance for your own comment to the unlawful fees rule now imposed upon your granted mineral property:
Copying and pasting comments generally will do no good. Any comments that are similar will be lumped together and treated as one comment. The more administrative defects we uncover the better. Use this as a guide of the possible subject matters available to challenge the rule on. There are more. There are other reasons besides the ones used here to support a procedural defect. Maybe better than were found on the ones identified. State those as you find them. This is not definitive of all that might be stated, neither exhaustive of the potential problems the rule causes. Go through the Rule paragraph by paragraph and comment on what you find in error of the procedural requirements or the law.
And there are many ways to state differently the same problem. Your opinion upon interpretation may be different state it.
Stick to the law and the procedural defects and how it harms you as well. This is only one Grantee's observation, good or bad. The comment below is not to be criticized. Don't waste any time. If you see an error in it, either make your own comment to fix the error or move on to something you perceive to be a better procedural defect. Not much time left to get something in. If you file your comment, you will be able to challenge the rule judicially. If not you don't, You sit on the sidelines while they steal your property and your right to claim and possess future property.
Comments must be RECEIVED by September 25 to the place listed in the Federal Register. Give time in transit. Over night mail may not be. It would be nice to see 20,000+ unique comments delivered in time. The following confidential Comment was served Certified Mail Return Receipt requested, 0917. Some parts are altered though not substantially altering the context.
Comment to the Administration of Mining Claims and Sites
This is a comment to the Administration of Mining Claims and Sites AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Interim final rule. 43 CFR Part 3830, [WO–620–1990–00–24 1A], RIN 1004–AE27 and for other purposes. The Secretary knows or should know the following and had the duty to avoid adversely affecting and protecting the congressionally granted mineral properties and trusts. The mineral estate is so unique a property that not even the United States can shield itself with its political or “sovereign” character against any if its grantees or the constructive trust establish in, 1866, modified to encompass Placer deposits in 1870 and then to all valuable mineral deposits in 1872. The Department ought to Acknowledge this matter of law fact and act accordingly.
With the increasing hostilities shown by the Department, agencies, instrumentalities, etc., or 3rd parties against mining property interests, for safety and security reasons and possibility of retaliation against me, I require my private information to be withheld from public view.
The continuous meddling by the departments and agencies of the General Government of a granted mineral estate property must stop. The infiltration of special interest into the departments of government must stop. The insertion of a foreign Programme of Action which at its core is contrary to the laws of the United States and its Property grants by the General Government, must stop. The Usurpation of the legislative grants of Congress itself, dishonoring its legislative grants, State's rights, and the people of the United States of America, must stop. To these ends this comment is of record notice. Warm and fuzzy words will no longer cut it. The Secretary will have to do better, duty to start.
Any of the following causes the rule to be either unlawful, illegal, or promulgated without lawful due process to adversely affect possessions or interests or in out-right breach of applicable law or the contract provisions established in the various legislative grants whether or not by breach, tort, or insurrection. Because of the limited and prejudicial time of and for response and that to have to respond to preserve judicial review requires interfering with my granted property, rights, and remedies, as well constituting a harassment, a violation under state law, the following is merely a summary of the objections, not limited to others as may be found on less hurried inspection with more time for more complete explanation, to the rule to be fleshed out more completely at the time of judicial review, if required.
In this regard, as the rule has already, being effective July 27, 2012, breached the covenants of the various legislative grants for valuable mineral deposits, in Notice, in part stating the following: Bureau of Land Management Mineral Deposit Location Claim Records,
For the reason of increasingly hostile agency actions against mineral deposit grantees, as is evidenced in this office unilaterally divesting grantees, of their mineral properties without due process of law or right to cure, the BLM in apparent collusion with the IBLA and now, together with lawless disregard and dishonor by Congress and this agency where breaching the constructive trust established in the granting of certain of the public domain minerals of the mineral estate to citizens of the United States where playing loose with the terms of law under new and surprise Rule contrary to 43 USC §2, §1740, §1744, and attempting lawless conversion our granted property to a leasable or salable character or “common” mineral claim on public land, beyond “the extent practical ”, and in trying to find a way to protect ourselves, being mineral estate grantees, from unilateral divestment of the perfected vested claim through agency fraud or dereliction, being the apparent interpretation of the challenged Appropriations enactment fraudulently burdens and wrongly obstructs recognition and treatment of granted vested disposed property through extortion by threat of statutory abandonment for failure to pay the fee, contrary to 43 USC §1701, Specific Uses, estoppel, and §1732 (b), not to “impair the rights of any locators or claims under [the] Act” of 1872, converting the lawful situs on public domain to an unlawful designation upon any “Federal Land”, “Public Land”, or “Public Domain Land”, as tenancy, or violating “other Federal laws permitting filing or recording thereof; State law guiding, that prior work purchase performed “shall protect the mines from relocation.” ORS 517.230;
By that document and the requirement here to Comment to protect my vested property and for those similarly situated and because the Secretary failed his fiduciary duty to protect me, being grantee beneficiary of the United States of America, and the granted property held in trust for me and those similarly situated, I hereby give notice of my intent to sue, whomever, is the principle officer causing harm to my congressionally granted property, and rights, or interference with the same through use of this rule. I am just waiting for a signature at this point. I require notification of whomever that is by return mail as soon as it is known.
Summary of Further Violations of the Interim Final Rule:
Being a breach of fiduciary duty the Congress has no subject matter jurisdiction or continuing Power over the disposed mineral deposits with which to alter the terms of the legislative grant of Congress, the, so-called, General Mining Law of 1872 amending the prior granting acts by way of subsequent legislation.
The law to which it is purported the interim rule relates is unlawful. Congress having no authority to change the terms of the granted mineral estate and constructive trusts established in the Act of 1866, Lode, 1870, Placer, and 1872, amending the previous clarifying, modifying and enlarging the original legislative grant can not lawfully enact legislation to interfere with its prior grants, being estopped by the implied contract thereof the grant itself.
The agency has no subject matter jurisdiction with which to alter the terms of the legislative grant of Congress, the, so-called, General Mining Law of 1872 amending the prior granting acts by way of any Rule even in the face of legislation purporting to authorize the authority to adversely affect the trust properties.
Being an interim final rule already in application, it violated the law or due process and breached the various congressional land disposal grant covenants. The imposition of a requirement to act under threat of loss of a granted property is an extortion of those granted properties and rights.
The rule section relied upon, 43 CFR 3830, is a fraudulent representation as to the applicability of the terms of the grant as authority or as has not been delegated to the department. The uncommon mineral deposit locations or right prior are not subject to department regulation, but are privately self-executing upon acceptance of the prevailing legislative grant with fulfillment of its terms.
The Secretary, short of the muniments of title, has no continuing authority over disposed or specific use public domain. The authority does not extend to public domain and must be constrained to “public land”.
As such, the loose use of the terms in the act relied upon “federal land” or “public land”, and such other, to include “public domain” is at least imprecise if not fraudulent. Neither does the Secretary have any authority over the surface estate of granted “federal land” and only a trustee's fiduciary duty to balance the servient and dominant estates interests therein or to the minerals reserved to the United States.
Settled mining law regarding uncommon minerals shows the department has no authority to alter the granted possession by rule. This is determined by the locator and his compliance with the terms of the grant, not any subsequent rule of the agency. There is a pervasive intention within the Department to ignore the distinction between the uncommon and common mineral laws contrary to the uncommon mineral grant.
This Group identified in the federal register, “The Solid Minerals Group as to program matters or the substance of the interim final rule”, pertaining to disposable common Mineral Materials. e.g., coal, has no lawful authority or jurisdiction over uncommon mineral deposit locations. Therefore, and in part, as regards more information regarding the effect of the interim final rule upon uncommon mineral entries and Locators there is no lawfully competent source to seek out to provide adequate comment and as such no notice or opportunity to respond to any threatened interference by the Secretary or subordinate agencies regarding any rule of an agency which is lawfully competent to respond is available, violating at least due process. If the final rule is to affect uncommon mineral deposit locators, the department is duty bound to solve the due process failure regarding the lack of sufficient notice with full disclosure after proving authority and jurisdiction over such entries on public domain.
The notice as to the “Background” section that the BLM has the right to collect maintenance fees is a long-standing fraud upon mineral estate grantees whose grant covenant is only for yearly Work Purchase. Therefore, the purported federal register notice authority, and therefore also, the entire federal register notice is fraudulent.
This rule commingles separate and distinct mineral classes which as a matter of law may not be mixed.
This Rule unlawfully abrogates private property or real estate creating yearly leaseholds which is contrary to the obligation of Congress upon it prior legislative property grants, the mineral estate of which, because of its unique nature, as a matter of law can not be altered by present rule or regulation or even Congress. This rule could be viewed to violate 18 USC §1361, plunder of the property of the grant contract.
The Rule can not reconcile the right under the mineral grant of associated claims with the right of those in association can still work as any number of acres in an associated claim versus the “modernization” principle of mere leasehold tenure, not ownership, limited to 20 acres parcels for the same associated claim.
The “modernization” fraud of leasehold tenure is right out of the play book of the international Programme of Action operates in direct contravention of the “major intent” of Congress regarding mineral development which major intent is confirmed by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Edward Woozley, 1954.
The wrongful concept imposed through this rule, these “modernization” and “wild land” objectives were treasonously espoused by the BLM Director Bob Abbey who, as I understand it, gave testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee before Congress hearing upon the so-called, “H.R. 3446: Fair Payment for Energy and Mineral Production on Public Lands Act” stating “mining for these metals on Federal lands would be governed by a leasing process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty” of which “Half of the royalty receipts would be distributed to the states in which the leases are located and the remaining half would be deposited in the Treasury” is not only contrary to and in dishonor of the prior grants terms, it is the imposition of a system of disposal wise people prior to 1866 found out was unworkable, a complete failure. Leasing the uncommon mineral estate is a proven failure. This is the reason why an informed and honorable Congress wisely turned to complete disposal of the uncommon mineral in favor of the failed policy of leases. Permanent disposal further honors the Congressional obligation to convey the lands within the states ceded. This Wise Disposal of the uncommon mineral deposits fueled and has served the nation and the people well since that time. In fact, serving so well, the granting to private enterprise sustains this nation with all you see comes from the earth, and despite the imposition of “sustainable development”, the usurpatious international Programme of Action, popularized and promoted by the Secretary today. As we can see the affect of it through this rule, it is nothing short of cultural marxism, the antithesis of a wealth producing property owning American people. This rule is a wrongful fiduciary trustee's attempt to divest grantee beneficiaries of their property.
As regards the aforementioned “testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee before Congress hearing upon the so-called, “H.R. 3446: Fair Payment for Energy and Mineral Production on Public Lands Act”, its intent getting expression through this rule, though having the duty, is any body paying attention to the matter of law fact that uncommon mineral estate deposits are not located on PUBLC LAND, but are segregated and exclusively or privately possessed public DOMAIN? Director ABBY spoke and Congress wrongly accepted, because of the estoppel against its own grants, statements out of turn as applicable to the inapplicable uncommon minerals. The Royalty greedily insisted upon does not extend to public domain where uncommon mineral deposits are located. Settled law and understanding, any royalty was forever abandoned when the Congress enacted the mineral granting Acts.
Mr. Abby went on to opine that, “Pre-existing mining claims would be exempt from the change to a leasing system, but would be subject to increases in the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872.” Again, the General Mining Law, so-called, does not provide for such fees, and therefore, annual maintenance fees are fraudulent extortion. Any fees and their increase are theft and breach of the express and implied terms of the grant acts of Congress disposing into private possession the uncommon or valuable deposit mineral estate on public domain. Abby's opinion to Congress was the Great “Green” Wish of special interest attempting to undermine this nation through an international Programme of Action, otherwise known as domestic terrorism. That no body makes the arrests indicates a deeper collusion.
Even if lawfully applied to uncommon mineral deposits, lease arrangement whereby the States only get half would be contrary to the contract entered into by Congress and the States in their admission to the Union, whereby Congress pledged to dispose of the lands within the states, not take a continuing leasehold interest in them. The trust spoils are not supposed to be divided between the governmental trustees.
This rule has, no doubt, caused many independent grantees to decide to give up holdings the agency had no right to threaten or interfere with. There are a number of other grantees, because of the scale of their development, could not continue to pay the extortionate “rental” demand of the BLM, the interim rule imposed. The Secretary having the duty, Did any body look to see, there is no “rental” available to the agency under the grant acts of Congress disposing of the uncommon mineral deposits? Such fees are a fraudulent imposition upon the granted uncommon mineral estate. They are an extortion if used to threaten and protect the undisclosed theft under color of official authority.
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) is inapplicable as basis for notice and public procedure for this rule. The rule is fraudulently imposed upon land disposed by grant act of Congress. In other words, as is settled law on the subject matter, the land department's authority over public land is suspended while the property is in private possession, such as uncommon mineral deposits located on public domain. As was stated in Footnote 5 in US v. Kosanke Sand 12 IBLA 282 at 288, 289; 5/ Section 103 of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. §4333) provides:
“"All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this chapter." In compliance with this mandate, the Deputy Solicitor, Department of the Interior, in a letter to the Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, dated July 1, 1971, stated: "On September 1, 1970, we submitted a report under section 103 of the National Environmental Policy Act. This letter is intended to supplement that report insofar as it pertains to the agency jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).”
fn. 5 (cont.)
"The so-called location and settlement laws leave BLM without authority to consider environmental factors in their administration. In Alaska particularly, the homestead settlement laws [43 U.S.C. §270 (1970)], the native allotment law [Acts of May 17, 1906, c. 2469, 34 Stat. 197, and August 2, 1956, c. 891, 70 Stat. 954, repealed by Act of December 18, 1971 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), §18(a), 43 U.S.C.A. §1617(a) (1973)], and the purchases authorized for headquarters, trade and manufacturing or homesites [43 U.S.C. §§687a to 687a-6 (1970)] permit entry without prior approval of the BLM. A similar situation arises throughout the United States under the mining laws (30 U.S.C. §21 et seq.). The Department has no control over entries made pursuant to these laws and the basic statutes under which the entries are made do not admit of environmental considerations. New legislation is required, and the Department has consistently recommended such legislation." (Emphasis added.)” Emphasis in original.
The same suspension is evidenced in A TREATISE ON THE AMERICAN LAW RELATING TO MINES AND MINERAL LANDS "WITHIN THE PUBLIC LAND STATES AND TERRITORIES GOVERNING THE ACQUISITION AND ENJOYMENT OF MINING RIGHTS IN LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, By CURTIS H. LINDLEY, Of The San Francisco Bar, 1914, VOLUME II, § 664, Page 1656:
[T]he Land Department's jurisdiction is suspended where lands theretofore public have, by virtue of congressional legislation or lawful executive order, been withdrawn from the operation of the public land laws. The Department's jurisdiction terminates and its authority ceases when the land passes into private ownership and the title of the government is transmitted through the forms of law.52a.
52a - C. Henry Bunte, 41 L. D. 520. A controversy regarding land has never been regarded as presenting a federal question simply because one of the parties to it has derived his title from
a patent or under an act of Congress."). Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1985)
(per curiam), as cited in VIRGIN V SAN LUIS OBISPO, 2000, No. 98-55557, CV-97-08599-ABC.
Even unpatented, derived from the unique nature of the mineral estate, the United States grantor being a mere proprietor as any other, uncommon mineral deposit claims being private property are to be protected as if patent has issued: “Though the source of the title and property is from a law of the United States, the perfected title is “ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 44”.
The BLM having no jurisdiction or authority over uncommon mineral deposit claims whether or not for environmental concerns, USC Title 5 is inapplicable. The Secretary is advancing, or allowing to be, a monumental fraud to assert otherwise. The notice that was required, where lawful authority could be found would be to each grantee privately, to the address of record, not publication in the federal register or other “public notice”. I did not receive lawful notice prior to being adversely affected by imposition of the interim final rule. Nor where the stated basis lawfully used as excuse because, respectively:
a) The rule does not merely codify lawfully imposed statutory procedural changes.
b) The law precludes the BLM using its discretion so as to adversely affect granted property by the wrongful imposition of fees.
c) The law does not allow the BLM to unlawfully use its discretion to fabricate the basis of the procedures to allow for a summary determination without sufficient notice or hearing.
d) A previously unpublished final rule did not give placer owners time to respond to a rule lawfully promulgated. This unchallenged imposition amounts to extortion where the BLM threatens forfeiture for failing to adhere to a rule published merely to appear to comply with the required procedures though facially deficient in due process.
Regarding the “Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules” that “(a) This rule. . . . will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities” the agency failed to take into consideration the adverse impact upon an industry already saddled with unlawful regulatory impositions, and the ripple effect mineral has on a nation whose policy, at least acknowledges its national security, defense, and economic contribution. While focusing upon the ill-gotten gains of increased fee booty, whether or not lawfully imposed, the agency fails to appreciate that independent grantees are historically the front-line development of the uncommon mineral estate the exploration of which economy magnifies through local economies and governments. In this regard, the agency failed to meet its burden under E.O. 12866.
As regards that, “(b) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency”, this might be true, but this does not relieve the agency of its trustee fiduciary to assure any of its actions do not commit a breach or trust de son tort against beneficiary grantees of the United States Government.
It was disingenuous to state, “(c) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients”, because those adversely affected do not benefit from or are actually and lawfully obligated to such government largesse or penalty, such as maintenance fees, indicating there is no service the government is actually and lawfully giving to exact such a penalty, notwithstanding there is no lawful authority to impose in the first instance.
It is not true that, “(d) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.” The very fact, not limit to that it created tenure in the place of granted property, creates a novel legal or policy issue. And it is further prevaricate to have stated in the federal register that, “The rule simply implements a statute requiring fees for placer mining claims”, because the fees purportedly required by the statute violates the express provisions of the grant acts of Congress, such as the 1872 amending the prior grants of the mineral estate, which the rule purports to implement.
The proof the agency did not meet the standard “Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends” is proven to be the most burdensome interference. I have been compelled to deal with the agency's unpredictable, arbitrary and capricious, violative, uncertain, lawless, surprise actions upon subject matter that requires nothing more, and surely not the best, most innovative tools to achieve regulatory ends where none are lawfully applicable. But for the agency's fraudulent representation and unilateral determination, the rule fails to meet EO 13563. It has not actually “been developed in a manner consistent with these requirements”.
As to the foregoing a - d, for focusing on surface disturbance as the sole causation, it is at least dubious that “This interim final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” to implicate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Except to appear to comport to the procedural requirements the statement is unsupported and meaningless.
The Certification to compliance with the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” fails where the agency did not take into consideration, if this rule could be found valid though law prohibits this could be, that though stating it “will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities” it changes for all time the nature of the disposal of the granted minerals and that these costs go into future generations to suffer. And with the attendant economic ripple effect which will most certainly have significant economic effect on small entities, communities, and ultimately cost the nation for all time to come. The myopic intention of the agency not rising to its fiduciary duty to protect the mineral estate trust or its Congressional mandate to foster and encourage mineral development while Congress was in sub-committee enabling the legislation to purport to impose the Programme of Action servitude of tenure upon a granted estate has blinded it to the larger effects its own certification belies. Instead of advocating this Programme of Action the agency should have done its fiduciary duty to remind congress it had no power to affect the granted estate.
The further statements made under certification for purposes of the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” is a lie which I will detail in the suit, should it be necessary, because the agency believes its international Programme of Action and international memberships trumps its legislative duty to the grantee beneficiaries or the legislative grant acts of Congress.
Moreover, suggesting the “small miner maintenance fee waiver program” would not be affected as it regards uncommon minerals is breach of the terms of the grant being the waiver, so-called, predicated on a September 1st to December 30th assessment period breaches the full year allowed for full appreciation of all investment or work for a given year. This altered time imposition, apparently, finds its authority in the Public Law 85-736, 1959, which pertained to common mineral materials and unlawfully interferes with the mineral grantee's work year development compliance. In fact, so keen were honorable lawmakers as to make sure to not alter or breach the covenants of the mineral estate granting acts, the provisions of Public Law 85-874, 1958, did not alter the terms of the grant obligation for total labor to patent. That this “waiver” program will not change under the new fee structure does not remove the fact that the program which it is supposed is being used to justify the rule as being in compliance with all applicable law is an unlawful interference with the grant act of Congress 1872. It is a further violation that applicable law provides discretion to the agency to prefer the money payment fee. This is a direct violation of the grant requiring work purchase from year to year. Furthermore, the grant makes no provision to the agency to alter its terms or to add to its costs, whether or not under extortionate threat or actual loss of the Location to the grantee as happened to me without due process of law.
While the fee is unlawful in the first instance, the increase due to the coverage of the fee no better, it seems more than far-fetched that in disturbing the granted properties which are part of an industry which creates over 700 Billion dollars in wealth yearly, would do less that 100 million in economic harm. The assertion that “the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. • This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The maintenance fee for placer mining claims is changing and will now be calculated based on the acreage of the claim”, again, only looks to the imposition of the fee not the actual economic impacts generally, is insufficient statement by the requirements of the act.
The Small Business Administration Ombudsman was not given any opportunity to validate the claims made by the agency prior to implementation and to certify to procedural compliance.
That “• This rule does not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions ” is rank speculation by the agency where the agency intends to return the industry to a failed lease system where investment and the consequent production of minerals is adversely affected as is historically provable and sources move into foreign lands. One has only to look to the Rare Metals fiasco currently under way.
The above “unforeseen” condition by the agency follows closely on the heals of this under-interpretation that “• This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign based enterprises.” It must be asked, Where it is the Secretary's duty is to keep abreast of the mineral development of this country as it pertains to the strategic advantage gained by foreign nations, has the Secretary not noticed that Congress is openly concerned with the lack of strategic mineral production sources that this rule materially and adversely affects? Did the Secretary actually believe returning to a lease-based system for uncommon minerals, even if lawful, which is proven to adversely affect every subset of this part could, with all intellectual honesty, not have significant adverse effect on this subset of parameters? Really?
As stated prior, the basis of authority for the rule are misapplied. This can quickly be seen in the title to the next section “List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3830 Mineral royalties; Mines; Public lands”. This authority does not include granted minerals located on “public domain”. Lawfully this section can not state “public domain”. Which is why it states “public land”, instead. This clearly indicates the rule is intended for other minerals then an uncommon mineral deposit location on public domain. This is yet another of the many frauds perpetrated by the Secretary through its agencies with regard to the extent of lawful authority lawfully executed. The rule authority clearly shows it is not actually meant to regulate uncommon or granted Locations or possession upon public domain, though location of common mineral material on public land for lease or sale has been allowed to follow the tried and true provisions for location or placement of the common mineral material mining claim stated in the Act of 1872 pertaining to uncommon minerals on public domain. Identifying section 30 USC 242 and 611 specifically points to this magic trick deception. The uncommon mineral deposits are not included. And if they are it shows unlawful mineral class commingling.
As applied whether upon the uncommon mineral deposit locator or the common mineral materials entryman the interim final rule is unlawful, illegal, or lacking administrative procedural requirements to satisfy due process and must be disposed of.
In violation of FLPMA, the agency with its “most innovative tools” has become a material interference to Mineral Estate Grantees and their Locations under provisions of the act of 1872.
This is further NOTICE, as the Secretary is fully aware and knows, or should know, the interim final rule causes a trustee de son tort by the fiduciary and breach of the grant covenants whether implied or expressed, each independently actionable.
I reserve further discussion or more complete presentation for judicial review of this rule at that time, if necessary. I hope the trustee Secretary sees the error in his ways before trying to further wrest congressionally granted property from the beneficiary.
Now, I've just spent ___ hours compiling this Comment instead of mining, which, I suspect, by the method plan of the agency will be round-filed whether physically or by evasion of substantive response. What is least burdensome about this theft under color of official right of our granted mineral estate that the standard comports to due process?
Status: Mineral Estate Grantee.
Certificate of Service
I certify serving this Comment to the Administration of Mining Claims and Sites by Certified Mail, return receipt requested on the Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C St. N.W., Washington D.C., 20240, Attention: 1004–AE27, deposited with the United States Post Office, September __, 2012.
Executed September __, 2012.
Status: Mineral Estate Grantee.
Sep 18 2012
That was an amazing letter.
Sep 18 2012
I can see why we are losing this fight to prospect.
I can't understand very many words that he wrote in that letter. They must speak a different language in Washington!
Reallllllllly SAD. :mad:
Sep 19 2012
If I was smart enough to understand all that rigamarole, I wouldn't be schlepping around here and there for a few bucks. I'd be making some REAL money. But I think it would drive me crazy.
Nov 23 2012
Has anyone else sent in a comment? And if so, have you received a reply/response back yet?...or even a green card back if sent certified mail return receipt requested?
|Pages: [ 1 ]|
|[ Notify of replies made to this post ]||[ Print ]||[ Send To Friend ]||[ Watch ]||[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]|
Total Members: 11956|| Register :: Log In :: Administrators|
The time is now 18:32:06 Mon Jan 17 2022