Monday, November 20, 2017

Senator Jim Risch Letter About Forest Service Illegal Activities

US Senator James Risch pens angry letter to Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue over illegal actions by the US Forest Service.

Namely, that the Forest Service, especially the Payette National Forest, is violating federal laws by locking people out of the wilderness, which is the exact opposite of Congress' intent when it passed the Wilderness Act.

Click for larger image 



Airstrips and certain backcountry roads were to remain in place to give the public access to newly designated wilderness that had been set aside from economic development.

Senator Risch claims that the Forest Service is causing "resentment" and "negative" public sentiment by locking taxpayers out of the wilderness, which Congress intended for the enjoyment of all.

The US Forest Service has been instead treating wilderness as an elite playground that only upper management of the Forest Service may visit, especially places like Cabin Creek and Chamberlain Basin.

 In recent years, those places have become luxury resorts for elite members of the Payette National Forest who find themselves lucky enough to be flown in to the remote locations for private fishing and hunting excursions....all at taxpayer expense.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Rules Are For Thee, But Not For Me

Thomas Jefferson said "tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but ILLEGAL for the citizenry".

Nowhere is this more blatant than the current lock-it-all-up-and-watch-it-all-burn management policies the US Forest Service follows.

Very little effort was made to contain the Chetco Bar Fire on July 12th when it was first detected.

Had it originated on private or state land, it would undoubtedly have been extinguished. If for no other reason than to prevent massive fines from the Forest Service, had it spread to public lands.

The facts from the case are showing a high degree of negligence on the part of the Forest Service, yet not one Forest Service official is in danger of losing their job.

No restitution is being paid to the eight families who lost everything. Or the 8500 homeowners forced to evacuate and abandon their livelihoods for much of the duration of the fire.

Maybe if the Forest Service had to play by the same rules as the rest of us, they wouldn't be so quick to lock-it-all-up-and-watch-it-all-burn.

Or, maybe if we turned management of federal lands over to state control where it belongs, thousands of people wouldn't be displaced by wildfires on the scale that the Forest Service likes to let them grow to.


Thursday, October 12, 2017

Keith Lannom Blames Landowners for Sugar Creek Road Closure

I thought I would respond to Keith Lannom's false claim that he would love to give the public access to Sugar Creek Road, but the landowner is stopping him.

Besides the fact that the landowners at Cinnabar have written a dozen letters saying that they WANT public access to Cinnabar to remain open, the Forest Service has a history of land-grabbing, or stealing access from landowners through the court system in the rare case when the Forest Service wants public access through private property.

Keith Lannom, Payette National Forest Supervisor lies and blames the landowner at Cinnabar as being the primary reason for the Forest Service closing Sugar Creek Road. 


The landowner, in his 12th response, calling Keith Lannom's assertions "false". Numerous emails have been sent to Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom asking him to stop blaming the landowner. Numerous emails have been sent to Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom asking him to look for ways to work WITH the landowner to restore public access. Krassel District Ranger Anthony Botello also blames the landowner at Cinnabar anytime a member of the public asks why he ordered the closure of Sugar Creek Road. 



Such was the case involving  the Wonder Ranch and Indian Creek Trail #328 in Montana, where the Forest Service claimed "adverse possession" over private property because a public trail over private property once existed, when the landowner once agreed to letting the public access public lands through private property.


The U.S. Forest Service targets cooperative landowner in Montana.

https://www.perc.org/articles/arrogance-us-forest-service





The landowner had asked to move the trail away from his home for privacy, even offering to pay for it. However,  the Forest Service wasn't happy with that offer, sued the landowner to retain ownership of the existing route, and won against the landowner in federal court.

Where it suits the Forest Service to retain access to their personal favorite camping spots, they have no problem fighting and winning for public access through private property.

When it suits Keith Lannom, Payette National Forest Supervisor to shift blame onto someone else, he says that he would love to grant the public access to a road in Cinnabar that has been a public right of way for over 100 years.....if only the big mean evil private property owners would let him.

 Which is more childish than the time my son, an only child, blamed one of his stuffed animals for making a mess of his room. He was only three at the time. Keith Lannom is supposed to be an adult who takes responsibility for his words and actions.


Scott Amos
208.297.0634

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom Forced Response to Senator Mike Crapo Inquiry

Sign and gate Payette National Forest blocked Sugar Creek Road with. Keith Lannom, PNF Supervisor, failed to show this image to Senator Mike Crapo in his official response. 

*Click photo for larger image*  

Forest Service placed sign on South Fork of the Salmon River claiming millions of tons of sediment and debris from forest fires "helps" fish and wildlife. While trying to make the argument that "12 tons" of sediment from the Sugar Creek Road "hurts" fish. Proof that sediment, which is a vital part of fish nesting grounds, is more of a political weapon the Forest Service uses, than a concern to them. 

Mud flowing into Profile Creek  (tributary of the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River, downstream from Sugar Creek Road). This mudflow was caused by fires in 2007. More than a million tons of sediment from this one mudflow have entered the river downstream from Sugar Creek. Thousands more wildfire induced mudflows dot the moonscape left behind by the 850,000 acre Cascade Complex fire the Forest Service refused to fight in its initial stages.

 The Forest Service has made ZERO EFFORTS to stop this mudflow, contaminated with arsenic and mercury. But has created a public relations nightmare for itself by destroying access to Sugar Creek Road, for the stated purpose of stopping "12 tons, annually".

Pure and simple politics. The Payette National Forest doesn't really care about keeping our rivers clean, unless it provides an opportunity for locking the public out of the forests. 



In his official response to an inquiry from Senator Mike Crapo, into the closure of Sugar Creek Road, Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom either deliberately omitted several facts, or simply doesn't care enough to find them. Which seems to be increasingly common among an agency where his high level staff, such as Sue Dixon, openly state that "NEPA isn't a democracy".

In fact, the Payette National Forest skipped NEPA altogether when closing Sugar Creek Road and hundreds of miles of public access to public owned lands....which is a clear violation of NEPA and other federal laws.

Sugar Creek Road is a perfect example of the Payette National Forest overstepping, abusing and misusing the power and authority granted to it by Congress, as I will explain in the paragraphs below.

This is an open response to the written response Keith Lannom sent to Senator Mike Crapo.  You can download that flawed and inaccurate  response here:
http://tinyurl.com/CRAPO-SUGAR-CREEK

Complaint #1.  The Forest Service violated section 212 of the 36 CFR and held ZERO public comment periods before unilaterally declaring Sugar Creek Road closed to the public some time in 1996-1997.


As stated in the Forest response “36 CFR 261.50 ( c) (5) requires orders to “Be posted in accordance with 36 CFR 261.51”.  The posting requirements in 36 CFR 261.51 are summarized as posting a copy of the order in offices of Line Officers who have jurisdiction and displaying the prohibition in such locations and manner as to bring the prohibition to the attention of the public.”  The Forest letter also states: “Between 1996 and 1998 the road was closed.”

 During the 1996-1998 time period I was a resident of Yellow Pine, which is the closest permanent community to the Sugar Creek Road.  I can submit under oath no such posting as described in 36 CFR 261.51 was done and I was a frequent visitor to Cinnabar.  Furthermore, I have discussed this with other residents during this period and they are willing to sign a similar oath.

I find the following statement in the FS response as a very very disturbing answer to Complaint #1.  “We have been unable to find the records related to the decision to change the management of the Sugar Creek Road sometime between 1996-1998”.


During the 1996-1998 time period the Forest Service had accepted that the National Environmental Policy Act and subsequent CEQ rules applied to actions such as closing federal roads.  Thus any closures should have been accomplished under NEPA rules in effect at that time.  NEPA has always mandated extensive public involvement and a structured process that is well documented.  Losing all evidence of a NEPA process does not seem possible.

In addition, I cannot accept the answer provided of no records because in the past the Forest Service has referred to a Special Order signed by David Alexander in September 1997.

 This document is part of the official record of the 2007/2008 TMP Lawsuit (FS017350).   The order was to establish road status Forest-wide, and replaced six existing Special Orders.  This non conventional use of CFR 261.50 to establish road status Forest-wide clearly identifies all Roads on the Krassel RD as being those on the McCall and Krassel Districts Map, 1995 Edition.

 This reference, I believe, is to the 1995 Visitor Map, although it may have referred to a different McCall/Krassel District Map that I have in my possession, that is undated, but does reflect the same status as the 1995 Visitor Map, namely that Sugar Creek Road is open.

Complaint #2 has a typo error (alluding to the MVUM) but was intended to address the general problem of misleading and confusing direction provided to the public relative to road closures on the Krassel Ranger District of the Payette National Forest with focus on the Sugar Creek Road.


The following is a list of various actions and publications available to the public regarding the Sugar Creek Road.



Backroads Guide not shown on map
in the early 2000 years.

This guide was not intended to
reflect road status as established
through CFR & NEPA process.

The Guide states: ‘…this publication is
Only a general guide.  The 1995 Forest
Visitor/Travel Map show more information
Such as closed roads”. Why Keith Lannom chose to use it for reference in showing the legality of closing Sugar Creek Road is confusing, at best.

During the 2003-2007 period the
legal status of Sugar Creek was
frequently questioned and the
Backroads Guide was the justification.

 No CFR or NEPA analysis was
ever produced for the BC\YP area
even though Forest Officials stated an
underlying action had been accomplished.

During the Lawsuit over the 2007-2008
TMP the Backroads Guide was never
mentioned by the Forest Service
as a basis of establishing road status.


2000 BNF Visitor Map Unimproved Road
2007 PNF Travel Management Plan Not a designated
(This plan was found invalid Road
in District Court on 2/11/2014)
2010 BC/YP Travel Management Plan Not a designated
(This plan was found invalid Road
in District Court on  1/5/2015)
2007 PNF Visitor Map Unimproved Road
(This map states, “This map depicts
the present day open road and trail
system”
2012 BNF Visitor Map Road not maintained
for Passenger Cars
2013 PNF Visitor Map Dirt Road Suitable
for Passenger Cars
2017 The remedy for resolving the Closed as of 7/8/17
lawsuit mandated an all new NEPA
analysis & re-evaluation of all
road status, but allowed the
current MVUM to be implemented
to avoid chaos.




Complaint #4.  The real purpose of the Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation was to illegally and physically close the Sugar Creek Road.


As documented in the Forest Service response immediately prior to this work the public was using the road even with installation of gates and barricades, but no citations were issued, probably because in 2016 the road had never been legally closed.

  The Forest Service used(or MIS-used) the categorical exclusion intended for projects that don’t substantially alter existing road use (such as replacing a culvert or other minor maintenance).

It was obvious from the start the real objective was to make the ford totally impassible by all but a military tank.

I was not aware of the project prior to the construction, but members of the Senator Crapo initiated BC/YP collaboration were briefed on the project and some of those briefed did comment.

At my request, Chris and Lois Schwarzhoff shared their comments.  The following was part of the written comments by Chris and Lois Schwarzhoff supplied to the Forest Service prior to the project being accomplished:


 “Based on the descriptions of actions to be taken it appears the proposed project is really an action to functionally close a road that has not been legally closed, and follows the same objective as placing large boulders in the road earlier this year.  This would be in direct opposition to long standing laws and regulations relating to processes to be followed to legally close roads.”  

Their prophecy turned out to be dead on.  It is interesting the completed construction report of this  project included lots of pictures fixing the road, but none of the final ford that physically completely closed the road to all normal vehicles.  All of this activity is truly ironic in that the Forest Service certainly has an easy and low cost option to legally close roads following 36CFR 261 in cases of emergency or dire need. Instead of following THOSE processes, the Forest Service pretends to act as if "the landowner" or "the public" wanted the road closed, which is a complete and deliberately deceptive move by a shadow agency which prefers to operate outside of any legitimate, legal framework. 





Friday, September 15, 2017

Letter to Idaho County Commissioner Brandt

Commissioner Brandt,

I recently read an article in the Idaho County Free Press where you expressed your disdain for the way the Payette National Forest is sitting on their thumbs, regarding the Highline Fire. 



I am admistrator for a site called Idaho vs USFS, which seeks to chronicle incidents of waste and abuse,  especially by the Payette National Forest.

I thought you might be interested in the following conversation I had with Brian Harris, official Payette National Forest spokesman. 


Apparently, the Payette National Forest believes that the [85,000] acre[and rapidly growing] Highline Fire doesn't even make smoke, because it is "natural caused" and "burning inside the wilderness".
It hasn't contributed to the dirty air we are forced to breathe, and it's actually "good" for endangered species getting incinerated by the Highline Fire, because it is mostly in the wilderness, and is "natural".

Of course the Payette National Forest deleted the entire thread shortly after group members of Idaho vs USFS pointed out how ignorant the Forest Service sounded....

But it gives insight into how dyed-in-the-kool-aid, high level Payette National Forest team members think(or don't), just the same.

Quite frankly, there is a  rapidly growing segment of the public which is beginning to get tired of Forest Service lock-it-all-up-and-watch-it-all-burn management policies. That, and not being able to see the sun or mountains at least four months every year while the Forest Service uses taxpayer money to buy more of our forests, just so it can sit back and lock it all up, to watch it all burn. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Amos 
Outdoor enthusiast and sensible forest management advocate. 

208.297.0634



Saturday, August 26, 2017

Boise National Forest Closed to Debate

Unsurprisingly, the Boise National Forest Facebook page has blocked people from commenting or even liking their page.

Even though comments were respectful, although non-praising of the Forest Service, people making them are banned simply for disagreeing with the Forest Service propaganda machine.

Official Facebook page for the Boise National Forest has banned myself and others from "liking", commenting or discussing anything on their page. Fitting for a public entity where rangers like Sue Dixon openly state that "NEPA is not a democracy".


The Forest Service recently lost lawsuits in federal court for excluding Valley County and other affected members of the public from what NEPA and other federal laws require to be a "public process".

In the business of ideas and open discussion, it appears that the Forest Service knows they will lose. Which is why they hold public scoping meetings 150 miles away from project areas.

Tyranny has to be done in secrecy,  at least at first. Wouldn't want the peasants to find out what the Forest Service is up to and start talking amongst themselves. 

Thursday, August 10, 2017

The King's Forest

Hassle-Krassel District Ranger Anthony Botello once again steps outside of his power and authority for the purpose of harassment and abuse of an elderly gentleman. 

This time Botello reportedly told a visitor from Iowa "ride your horses, kick a few rocks, but don't stay too long". Or basically, "hurry up and go back to Iowa. You are not welcome here".

When Anthony Botello told Robert that he needed to "inform" him about the purchase of a mining claim, Botello stepped outside of his power and authority. 

When Botello told Robert that he needed "a plan of operations" to operate a recreational  highbanker on Robert's established mining claim: he (Botello) again stepped outside of his power and authority. *See attached court case from 2010*.

The Forest Service has already tried that argument in federal court,  and has lost its case.

Botello's harassment of an elderly gentleman named Robert Ginter this last July is typical of the "King's Forest" mentality that many of the management in the Payette National Forest seem to be suffering from. 

Suzanne Rainville, then Payette National Forest supervisor, at a public meeting in 2008 told an elderly wheelchair bound citizen named Jim Earl and his wife Viola Earl that "we are closing Sugar Creek Road" and "if you are too old to hike the six miles to Cinnabar,  maybe you shouldn't live in the backcountry anymore".


 This was AFTER Jim Earl told Suzanne Rainville that he had been traveling to Cinnabar via Sugar Creek Road since 1936, after Joe Harper told the crowd the Forest Service was closing Sugar Creek Road,  because in Joe Harper's words: "nobody ever uses the road"(even though car counters showed an average of 43 vehicles per day using Sugar Creek Road).

Around the same time, at a public meeting, Valley County Commissioner Gordon Cruickshank made it very clear to Krassel District Ranger Joe Harper that the manner in which the Forest Service closed several public roads was a violation of the law. Joe Harper responded "we are closing the roads anyway, and if you don't like it: sue me!"

A Payette Forest Service internal email obtained through FOIA showed the disdain that Sue Dixon had about so many public comments demanding roads be kept open.

Sue Dixon, an advocate for obliterating public access, responded in writing, stating "NEPA is not a democracy". Implying that she apparently wishes that the Forest Service was exempt from the democratic system. 

Anthony Botello seems to be determined to carry Suzanne Rainville's disrespect and harassment of elderly citizens into the management style of the Payette National Forest, for the foreseeable future. 

I have traveled to more than 40 states, have hiked the Grand Canyon,  parts of the Appalachian trail, almost every national park in Utah, Arizona,  New Mexico. I believe that I can authoritatively state that the Payette National Forest is the worst run national forest in the country. With the rudest rangers, management, and a core belief that the public has no right to even visit public lands.

Which is why I openly support Congressman Raul Labrador and his proposal for returning management of federal lands to local control. Because maybe then, Rangers like Botello would actually have to listen to the communities which they are supposed to serve. Instead of lording over them in the manner seen here which has been unchecked for far too long.

Scott Amos 
208.297.0634


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Citizen Complaint Against Anthony Botello and Officer Dingman

Submitted by an elderly gentleman who had the severe misfortune of dealing with Anthony Botello and Officer Dingman face to face.


This is one of many complaints, but is typical of the type of rudeness and unprofessional behavior you are likely to encounter when dealing with Anthony Botello and most of the Payette National Forest staff.

Forwarded message begins:


TO: USDA, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, USFS

IN THE EARLY SPRING OF 2017 I BECAME INTERESTED IN SOME RECREATION ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO, IN THE 90'S I WAS ABLE TO GO THE AVERY, IDAHO AREA AND LIVED IN THE MOUNTAINS FOR 5 WEEKS FOR THE ELK SEASON AND TO TAKE A HORSE I HAD JUST PURCHASED THAT NEEDED TO BE TRAINED AS HE WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE GREEN BROKE. IT WAS THE MOST AWESOME THING I HAVE EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IN MY LIFE. THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE OF THE WONDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, FREEDOMS WE HAVE, PLACES TO BE EXPERIENCED AND THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE WAY TO EXPERIENCE WAS UNHINDERED.

IN MY INTERNET SEARCH FOR AN AREA TO GO TO I RAN ACROSS THE SUBJECT OF MINING CLAIMS, THE IDEA OF ESTABLISHING A PLACE TO GO, REPEATEDLY AND DO A VARIETY OF THINGS ON A RECREATIONAL LEVEL APPEALED TO ME. I PURCHASED A COUPLE OF CLAIMS IN THE PAYETTE NATIONAL FORREST AND BEGAN PLANNING A TRIP TO THE AREA, NO SMALL TASK, I HAD TO SELL AND PURCHASE A TRUCK THAT WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR TOWING A HORSETRAILER WITH A CAMPER. THIS TOOK WEEKS OF SEARCHING AND FINALLY I FOUND WHAT I NEEDED, A TRUCK IN COLORADO AND A HORSE TRAILER WITH LIVING QUARTERS IN TENNESSEE.

ON THE 19TH OF JUNE 2017 I LEFT MY HOME IN IOWA WITH MY GRANDSON CODY AND MY WIFE PAULINE. I WAS TAKING 2 HORSES AND OUR DOG AS WELL. WE ARRIVED IN MCCALL, IDAHO ON OR ABOUT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22ST, 2017 ABOUT 1600 HOURS.
I FOUND DIRECTIONS TO THE CAMPSITES LOCATED ON LICK CREEK ROAD AND THE SESECH RIVER, ALSO THE AREA OF THE CLAIMS I OWN.

UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SESECH HORSE CAMP WE CHOSE A CAMPSITE AND NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE CAMP GROUND WAS A MESS OF DEADFALL, DEBRIS AND WOULD NEED A LOT OF CLEANUP TO STAKE OUT THE HORSES AND EVEN PULL OUR TRAILER INTO THE SITE, THERE WAS ONE OTHER SITE BEING USED AT THE NORTH END AND LATER I WOULD COME TO KNOW THEM AS JIM AND JUDITH KEENE, FROM THE CASCADE, IDAHO AREA. WE WOULD ALSO JOIN FORCES AND SPEND SOME THREE DAYS CLEANING UP THE AREA WE WERE USING OF THE DEBRIS, PICK UP BOTTLES AND CANS, CUT UP A DEADFALL THAT HAD CRASHED ONTO THE KEENES TABLE, BREAKING A 3X9X12 PORTION IN TWO, JIM ALSO ASSISTED ME IN CLEANING UP THE SOUTH END OF MY CLAIM, I INTENDED ON MAKING A CAMPSITE ON THE CLAIM. JIM ALSO HAD SOME HAND TOOLS FOR FINDING GOLD, AND SHARED HIS KNOWLEDGE ON THE MATTER WITH ME DURING OUR STAY.



DURING THE NEXT 2 WEEKS I BEGAN A SEARCH FOR ANY OFFICIALS OR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ON HAVING CLAIMS IN THE AREA AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IN ADDITION TO MAKING A CLAIM PURCHASE/FILING I NEEDED TO DO.

PAGE 2

THE AREA WE WERE IN DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGNALS FOR CELL OR INTERNET, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ALL DAY TREK INTO THE CASCADE AND MCCALL TOWNS TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE SOME INFORMATION OR A REPRESENTATIVE. I WAS ABLE TO FIND OUT THE PERSON I NEEDED TO SPEAK TO WAS THE HEAD RANGER, ANTHONY BOTELLO, I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO DO THAT ON THE 11TH OF JULY, 2017 AT THE MCCALL USFS OFFICES WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF SUSAN LAU, ALSO OF THE FOREST SERVICE, AROUND 1530 HOURS.

I WAS INTRODUCED TO RANGER BOTELLO AND IN A JOKING MANNER SAID THAT I NEEDED A GUN AND BADGE TO FIND ANYONE (IN THE USFS WHO KNEW ANY INFORMATION ON GOLD CLAIMS) AND HE ASKED IF I EVER USED A GUN AND BADGE TO FIND SOMEONE, I REPLIED FOR 30 YEARS OR SO, HE SAID DID YOU FIND THEM, I SAID YES, EVERYTIME.

RANGER BOTELLO WAS ALREADY AWARE OF ME AND THE REASON FOR TRYING TO LOCATE HIM, HE WAS AWARE THAT I HAD CLAIMS IN THE SESECH AREA, THAT I HAD HORSES THERE, AND SAID IT WAS REPORTED TO HIM THAT MY HORSES HAD THE SITE THEY WERE IN 'BEAT DOWN PRETTY GOOD', I SAID IT IS A HORSE CAMP ISN'T IT, HE SAID YES, SARAH LAU WAS PRESENT AND DID OR SAID LITTLE, JUST HANDED ME A MAP OF THE AREA INDICATING OPEN AND CLOSED ACCESSES TO THE AREA I WAS CAMPING IN. THE SUBJECT OF MY ATV ALSO CAME UP AND I THEN ADVISED MR. BOTELLO THAT MY ATV WAS USED TO OFFSET MY DISABILITY TO MY FEET AND LEGS, TO AVOID MEDICATION AND ALLOW ME ACCOMPLISH THINGS IN SPITE OF THE DISABILITY.

 MR. BOTELLO ASKED WHAT I HAD BEEN DOING ON THE CLAIM AND WHAT MY RELATIONSHIP WAS WITH THE OTHER CAMPERS, JIM AND JUDITH KEENE, HOW LONG WE ALL HAD BEEN THERE AND WHEN WE WERE PLANNING TO LEAVE. I ADVISED HIM THAT I HAD SENT PAULINE BACK TO IOWA IN A RENTAL CAR THE 5TH OF JULY, MY GRANDSON CODY AND I PLANNED TO STAY LONGER AND HAD TO BE BACK FOR HIS SCHOOL  ACTIVITIES IN EARLY AUGUST AND WE TALKED ABOUT STAYING TO AROUND THE 20TH. I AM RETIRED AND HAVE NO HARD LINES ON MUCH OF WHAT I DO.

I TOLD MR. BOTELLO WE WERE PANNING, AND HAD A SLUICE ON THE CLAIM KNOWN AS A HIGHBANKER WITH A PUMP. WE HAD JUST PURCHASED IT FROM A PAWN SHOP IN BOISE AND WERE ATTEMPTING TO SET IT UP AND PREPARE IT FOR USE ON A ROOTBALL  HOLE FROM A FALLEN TREE AND ROTTEN STUMP ON MY CLAIM, ALSO THAT WE HAD BEEN CHECKING FOR GOOD PLACES TO LOOK FOR GOLD ALONG THE BANKS OF THE RIVER. MR. BOTELLO STATED THAT THIS WAS A MAJOR DISTURBANCE AND WOULD REQUIRE A LETTER OF INTENT AS WELL AS A PLAN OF OPERATIONS, I SAID 'REALLY' AND WOULD NEVER HAD MADE THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT WE WERE DOING. MR. BOTELLO ALSO STATED THAT THE USFS DID NOT LIKE THAT CLAIMS WERE BEING FILED WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM AND I SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM BEFORE BUYING THE CLAIMS, HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH THEY CAN PROTEST CLAIMS AND THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF PROTESTING  SOME OF THE CLAIMS IN THE AREA. HE DID NOT STATE THAT MINE WERE BEING PROTESTED.

PAGE 3

I HAD INVITED MR. BOTELLO TO THE CAMP AND CLAIM SITE TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION OF THE CLAIMS AND THE CAMPGROUNDS AND HE STATED HE WAS BUSY ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY BUT COULD MAKE TIME IN THE MORNING ON FRIDAY.

MR, BOTELLO STATED THAT HE WANTED ME TO STOP SLUICING, I SAID, OK, HE ALSO SAID TO CONTINUE TO STAY IN THE CAMP, KEEP PAYING THE REQUIRED FEE, I AGREED. DURING THIS FINAL MOMENTS OF THE CONVERSATION MR. BOTELLO STATED, 'I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, GO BACK TO THE CAMP, KICK A FEW ROCKS AROUND, RIDE YOUR HORSES THEN GO BACK TO IOWA'. I WAS DUMBFOUNDED AT THAT POINT AND REASSURED THAT THIS MEETING WAS NOT A POSITIVE GESTURE BY THE USFS AND WHAT I COULD EXPECT FROM THEM WAS NOT ASSISTANCE BUT INTERFERENCE. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THESE ATTITUDES COME FROM BIGGER SOURCES THAN THOSE WHO DISPLAY THEM.

THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AND ON FRIDAY ABOUT 1000 AM MR. BOTELLO ARRIVED AT THE CAMPSITES. HE MET WITH JIM AND I IN THE SITE OCCUPPIED BY JIM AND THE SOUTHERN AREA OF MY CLAIMS. MR. BOTELLO WAS SHOWN THE AREAS WE CLEANED UP OF DEBRIS, THE CAMPSITES STILL TRASHED OUT AND OUR CLEANED UP SITES. I ALSO SHOWED HIM WHAT I HAD DONE TO MY CLAIM IN TRYING TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE DEBRIS LYING ON IT, IN AN AREA OF 50 FEET OR SO, HARDLY MAKING A DENT IN THE BRUSH, DEADFALL OF STICKS AND PARTIALLY BURNED STUMPS. MR. BOTELLO COMPLAINED OF MY RIDING OR USING MY 4 WHEELER ON THE CLAIM, I USED IT FOR TRANSPORTING AND DRAGGING DEBRIS ABOUT THE SITE, ON AND OFF THE CLAIM. MR. BOTELLO FURTHER STATED ALL THIS IS A MAJOR DISTURBANCE OF THE SURFACE AND WOULD REQUIRE A LETTER OF INTENT AND A PLAN OF OPERATIONS. I ASKED MR. BOTELLO ABOUT A ROAD THAT EXISTS, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CLAIMS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW ACCESS INDEPENDENT OF THE CAMPSITES AND THE ROAD THAT EXISTS ON THE EAST SIDE AND TRAVELS WITHIN THE CLAIMS TO THE NORTH OFF XENA CREEK ROAD. MR. BOTELLO SAID HE COULD LOOK INTO OPENING THEM, BUT THAT WOULD TAKE A YEAR TO DO. MR. BOTELLO INSTRUCTED ME TO TAKE THE DEBRIS WE HAD PILED UP AND SCATTER IT AROUND THE CAMPSITES AND ON MY CLAIM WHERE IT CAME FROM, HE SAID IT WAS TO MAKE IT LOOK NATURAL, MR. BOTELLO ALSO SAID THERE WAS A BOND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED FOR THE USE OF THE CLAIM, MR. BOTELLO AND I DISCUSSED WHAT WAS TO BE DONE WITH THE HORSE MANURE FROM THE AREA I HAD THEM IN AND HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE WAY I INTENDED ON CLEANING IT UP AND WHERE IT WAS TO BE PLACED. MR. BOTELLO THEN TOOK PHOTOS OF MY CAMPSITE AND OF JIM AND JUDITH'S SITE.

MR. BOTELLO WENT BACK TO JIM'S SITE AND WAS SPEAKING TO HIM OUT OF MY PRESENCE FOR A FEW MINUTES, AFTER THAT JIM WAS VERY UPSET, HE MADE A COMMENT THAT HE WAS GOING TO LEAVE THE AREA UNDER MR. BOTELLO'S CHARGE AND NEVER COME BACK. I HAD SOME CONTACT INFORMATION FOR JIM AND JUDITH, I HAVE TRIED TO CONTACT THEM WITHOUT SUCCESS.

PAGE 4

DURING THE STAY AT THE SITE, FROM THE 22ND OF JUNE TO THE 11TH OF JULY WE SAW ONE PERSON FROM THE FOREST SERVICE, HE DROVE IN TO GET THE FEES FROM THE BOX AND OUT AGAIN. ON SATURDAY, THE 15TH OF JULY, AROUND 1500 HRS A LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUCK PULLED INTO THE CAMP, THE OFFICER, DINGMAN WAS THE ONLY OCCUPANT, HE EXITED HIS TRUCK AND APPROACHED JIM AND I, WE ENGAGED HIM IN A CONVERSATION, JIM HAD MET HIM PRIOR TO THIS DAY AND IT SEEMED THEY HAD A CORDIAL RESPONSE TO EACH OTHER. DURING THIS CONVERSATION THE USE OF MY ATV WAS BROUGHT UP, I WAS ASKED IF IT WAS REGISTERED/PERMITTED IN IDAHO, I SAID NO IT WAS REGISTERED AND INSURED, AS A CAR IS IN IOWA, HE ADVISED ME THAT IDAHO REQUIRED THAT IT BE REGISTERED THERE AS WELL. HE THEN ASKED IF I HAD CERTIFIED HAY, I SAID THAT I DO AND THAT I BOUGHT IT AT THE FARM STORE IN BOISE, I ALSO HAD COMPRESSED HAY PELLETS AND GENERAL HORSE FEED IN BAGS.

OFFICER DINGMAN ALSO ADVISED THAT THE USFS DID NOT RECONIZE ANY OF THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITES ACT IN RELATINSHIP TO WHAT I WAS DOING, AND IN HIS WORDS 'THAT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE' I TOOK THIS TO MEAN, AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS SO, THAT MR. BOTELLO, THE USFS IN GENERAL, BELIEVES ME AND OTHERS LIKE ME, OR WORSE, TRY TO USE THIS AS A MEANS TO CIRCUMVENT SOME RULES, OR TO GAIN SOME PREFERENCIAL TREATMENT OVER THOSE WHO ARE DENIED ON A GENERAL BASIS. I REPLIED THAT THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT CRAMS THIS NON-DESCRIMINATORY RULES AND LAWS ONTO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME RULES? NOT SURPRISING TO ME REALLY.  I ALSO ASKED OFFICER DINGMAN IF HE WAS SENT TO CHECK UP ON US AND HE SAID THAT NO ONE SENT HIM, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT THE SAME SUBJECTS INCLUDING THE CLAIM AND THE SAME CONCERNS WERE DISCUSSED, SORT OF A RECOUNT OF THE VISIT BY MR. BOTELLO ON FRIDAY.

JIM AND I HAD DISCUSSED LEAVING THE SITE ON TUESDAY, HOWEVER AFTER ALL THIS JIM HAD BECOME VERY AGITATED, I WAS NOT HAPPY EITHER, BUT HE WAS MUCH MORE SO, HE BEGAN PACKING UP HIS CAMP AND BY SUNDAY ABOUT NOON HE HAD LEFT AND WE LEFT A SHORT TIME AFTER ON THAT SUNDAY.

THE ENTIRE INCIDENT LEFT ME IN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER I WANTED TO COME BACK OR EVEN ATTEMPT TO BRING IT TO SOMEONE'S ATTENTION WHO WOULD LISTEN. I ALSO KNOW THAT TO HAVE SOMEONE LISTEN AND THEN SEE NOTHING REALLY DONE OR THINGS LEFT THE SAME AND SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO DO THIS ALL OVER  AGAIN IS A REAL POSSIBILITY AND LIKELY TO BE THE CASE.

IN DOING SOME INVESTIGATING INTO ALL THIS I SEE AT LEAST 3 AGENCIES IN SOME SORT OF BATTLE WITH THE LAWS THAT ARE SUPPOSE TO AFFORD THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS AREA, OR COME TO THE USFS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AS A FREE PEOPLE, IN A FREE AND SELF GOVERNING NATION TO BE DENIED ACCESS FOR REASONS THAT ARE HIGHLY SUSPECT FOR VALIDITY AND REASONABILITY, A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR EACH IS AVAILABLE TO MOST OF THE RESTRICTIONS. THE GOAL IS APPARENT, EXCLUSION NOT INCLUSION OF ALL INSTEAD OF A FEW CHOSEN LIKES OVER WHAT OTHERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO.
PAGE 5

IN ADDITION I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE AN OPINION, SOMEWHAT EDUCATED ONE, DUE TO MY EXPERIENCE WITH LIVING IN WOODED AREAS MOST OF MY LIFE AND DOING MANY OF THE THINGS DONE IN THOSE AREAS SINCE BEFORE I WAS 10 YEARS OLD, LIKE FISHING AND HUNTING, SHOOTING, HIKING, TRAIL RIDING ON BIKES BEFORE A 'MOUNTAIN BIKE' WAS EVER MADE. BEING TAUGHT HOW TO PLANT, GROW AND MAINTAIN TREES, GARDENS, FLOWERS, LIVING AND WORKING ON FARMS AND ACREAGES. I HAVE ALSO DONE SOME QUICK INFORMATION CHECKING ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FOREST IN THE PAYETTE, TALKED TO SOME LOCALS, ABOUT BEFORE AND AFTER, AND NOW. THEIR OPINION IS NOT A GOOD ONE WHEN IT COMES TO THE USFS AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES. THE CONDITION OF THAT REGION IS HORRIFYING, THE SIGHT OF IT MADE ME SICKENED TO MY STOMACH, IT WOULD TAKE ME WEEKS TO EVEN GET AN IDEA OF THE SIZE AND EFFECTS OF THE DAMAGE, THEN TO LEARN THAT ANY EFFORT TO REMOVE THE DEAD AND DYING TREES IS BLOCKED AND MAY BE POINTLESS NOW, AS FOR 15 YEARS AFTER THE FIRE THERE WAS AND IS NO RESPONSE TO CLEAN IT UP AND REDUCE THE DAMAGE AND ENHANCE THE AREA FOR USE OF ALL SORTS OF ACTIVITIES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ARGUMENTS, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS  DO NOT ADDRESS THE VISIBLE AND OBVIOUS, I COULD SEE MANY LOG JAMS FROM DEADFALL, OBVIOUSLY FROM THE FIRE DAMAGE, JAMMING UP STREAMS, LANDSLIDES THAT DWARF WHAT IS IMMAGINABLE, UPROOTED TREES BY THE DOZENS IN A GIVEN AREA, THIS HAS TO BE THOUSANDS OVERALL, DISEASED LIVE TREES, RANCID MARSHES CRAMMED WITH DEAD AND ROTTEN WOOD FROM COLLAPSING TREES, ENTIRE MOUNTAINS COVERED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, WITH LAYERS OF DEADFALL TREES PILED LIKE STREWN MATCHSTICKS, IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVERSE BY FOOT OR HORSE. A NATURAL RESOURCE LEFT TO ROT IN THE SUN.

Valley County RS-2477 Assertions

Lyin' Ranger Anthony Botello says that Valley County has never asserted RS-2477 jurisdiction over Sugar Creek Road. So here is the letter from Valley County Commissioners asserting jurisdiction over Sugar Creek Road, and many other roads.

Click photos for larger view





Monday, July 31, 2017

Senator Crapo's Office Response to Forest Service Lawlessness

This is a recent response from Senator Crapo's office to the lawless manner in which the Forest Service closed Sugar Creek Road.

Signs the Forest Service posted on Sugar Creek Road. The Forest Service offered ZERO public comment periods required by NEPA and other federal laws before closing Sugar Creek Road. 



Follow up from Senator Crapo regarding the Forest Service's unlawful closure of Sugar Creek Road:

Mr. Amos:



We hope this e-mail finds you well. Upon submitting a congressional inquiry to the U.S. Forest Service on your behalf we learned that there is an open Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation based on a hotline complaint registered with the agency earlier in the year. The investigation includes Sugar Creek Road. On the advice of the Senate Ethics Committee, once a matter reaches this level it is not appropriate for a United States Senator to intervene.



Once the investigation is completed, you may certainly contact us again with any further thoughts or concerns. You may also contact us should you need assistance on another federal matter.



Senator Crapo sends his best regards.



Sincerely,



Sam



Samantha Marshall

Constituent Services Manager

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo

202 Falls Ave., Suite 2

Twin Falls, ID  83301

(208) 734-2515

(208) 733-0414 (fax)

That criminal complaint against the Forest Service can be read here:

http://usfspayettenationalforest.blogspot.com/2017/07/payette-national-forest-under_5.html?m=1

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

"If You Ignore Your Rights, They WILL Go Away

Unlawful gate closing Sugar Creek Road



A wise man once said that if you ignore your rights, they WILL go away. But even he could not foresee the multitude of federal agencies entirely devoted to stripping rights from American citizens. Such as the Forest Service and BLM..... 

Only by educating the public and ourselves will the wolves(USFS, BLM) be kept at the door.

It is impossible for one person to know everything about every subject. This blog welcomes outside expertise and opinions. 

They are just that, and should always be read with grains of salt. Hopefully, they will inspire you to research and think for yourself, and offer new ideas for combating lawless entities like the Forest Service and BLM. 

Contributed message begins:
Mr. Amos,

Below is a letter that I sent to the new administration at the U.S.D.A. (Sonny Perdue's office) that explains clearly that the government has ZERO authority to regulate miners on their "valuable mineral deposit" mining claims filed under the Mineral estateGRANT act of 1872! 
Years ago I received a law summary from an incredible fellow named Hal Anthony, of Oregon - I've spent countless hours researching his summary and verifying its validity. In short, it is all 100% true. 
Hal only failed to add a few pertinent pieces of information to "glue" it all together. (not slighting him in any way - he is my hero!)

The people at the new USDA have been incredibly interested and so far, completely on our side! So much so, they forwarded my email (below) to EVERY Forest Service office in this country a few days ago!!!!!  [ and the FS is FREAKING OUT RIGHT NOW]!!!!
Now, I've sent this to FS offices before (without the new "glue" that pulls it all together) - but they just told me to get a lawyer and sue them (knowing that they could out-spend me in court forever)

 This time it is very different because their boss (Sonny Perdue's office) is the one that sent it to them!

The perfected summary is below and it proves that the RIGHTS (not privileges)  granted to us are permanent and can NEVER be taken away from us! EVER!  

Spread this info far and wide...

Thanks very much,
Joe
J.Farmer Mining
http://jfarmermining.com/
208-912-3248


Dear Mr. Johansson, 

The legal information below is the culmination of over 10 years of my life - 

It is a requisite for me to send this information with a format to guide you and your attorneys, due to the complex nature of it.  

I will list, in order, the truths that cover the legal summary below that are absolute - and are legal "conquered ground" in the sense that these are rights granted to the people of this country, so powerful, that congress literally gifted their own authority away to the people forever under these certain provisions!

As confusing as it may become while reading this information, if it is always referenced back to this opening list, it will remain coherent and understandable.  (especially to professional lawyers/attorneys) 

1) The legislation passed into law in 1872 is NOT a law - IT IS A GRANT!
     A grant transfers RIGHTS and AUTHORITY to someone.  The Mineral Estate Grant Act of 1872 did gift away certain rights directly to the citizens  of the United States forever.

2) Rights granted away can never be taken back! 
     If the US granted an island to France, it could not later assume authority over it - for that would be stealing.

3) This Grant Act of 1872 is so absolute, that EVERY SINGLE PIECE of legislation passed into law (that gives agencies of government authority to regulate the environment and surface resources) since the grant, has bold savings clauses (provisions) in them protecting the 1872 Grant!

4) A GRANTED RIGHT  could never require permission "a permit" to obtain said rights. 
     By the very legal definition of a right, it is freedoms that are in the sole possession of the grantee and have protection from interference! 
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

5) ALL land management laws cleverly "seem" to steal the rights under the 1872 Grant - but if read carefully, reveal that they are all speaking to "any mining claim filed" with the express intent to remove "common sands and gravels....  etc" NOT valuable mineral deposits under the 1872 grant! #5 of this list is the most important to keep in mind while reading the summary. 
This is the method that all agencies of government use to keep from "technically" breaking the law, by requiring grantee's to be permitted to mine their claims. Even though, when pressed with the truth of the 1872 Grant, continue to unlawfully claim authority! 






I have read all associated laws that pertain to any rights that claimants have on locatable “valuable” minerals, mining claims.

As a result I have found in succession from the Mineral Estate Grant of 1866 and the perfected Mineral Estate Grant of 1872 (and given possessory title before that) until present, the rights granted to the citizens of the United States (and those who intend to become citizens of the United States) have been preserved in every subsequent piece of legislation passed into law. (And had to be)

The National Forest Service claims authority to regulate the surface resources and activities on mining claims under the   “Organic Administrative Act” (30 Stat., as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-475, 477 – 482, 551”  AND  “The 1955 Multiple Use Mining Act” (30 USC 612)
The former shows clearly those mineral lands are exempt from inclusion in National Forests and the latter holds locatable valuable mineral mining claims in reservation from regulation.

The law is clear in that the Organic Administrative Act (as amended) specifically keeps mineral lands from inclusion into the National Forest System:  but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisionsor of said section, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.”

The law is also clear in 30 USC 612 with its many savings provisions.  Most notably, but not limited to:
“Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States).”!!!
(Clearly differentiating between (“any” common minerals claims), and (“Locatable” minerals claims)

Summary


Where both the Forest Service and the BLM are required to adhere to the congressional public land management mandate of the Federal Land Management Policy Act, FLPMA, which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that, “. . . no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, impairing, obstructing or closing access against, or managing the surface of Locatable mineral deposit property on public domain in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort.

                                 The distinction between “public land” and “public domain”.
The distinction between just “any mining claim” and those “mineral deposit” claims. And lastly, the distinction between the uncommon minerals disposed of by the grants culminating in the act of 1872, and the common mineral materials variety sold or leased under separate statutes. These distinctions must be made to properly apprehend mining law and to avoid confusion.

The distinction between “public land” and “public domain”

Any interpretation of mining law requires that it be read “para materia”, interpreted all together. The definition given to distinguish the difference between “public land” and “public domain”, citing the Congressional Record of October 2000, page 1885-1866, states, “2. The true nature of ‘‘public lands.’’ ‘‘Public Lands’’ are ‘‘lands open to sale or other dispositions under general laws, lands to which no claim or rights of others have attached.’’ “The United States Supreme Court has stated: It is well settled that all land to which any claim or rights of others has attached does not fall within the designation of public lands.’’ In additional support we add from the same record, “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. Possession of the mineral estate in public lands is lawfully taken under the mining acts. Where a valid mining claim exist, that land is no longer public land.”  The “public land” that is disposed by claims under the act of 1872 is public domain as stated in that Act, reference “USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment: The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain. . .”

The “public land” has many potential uses, until disposed. The FLPMA, conveniently recognizes two general Uses, “Specific Use” and “Special Use”. A valuable mineral deposit location is a specific use on public domain, not a special use of “public land” such as is regulated by 43 CFR 3809. Reference the Act of May 10, 1872, amending the Act of 1870 and the 1866 mining law clause 1, after “granting” or 30 USC 22, locatable minerals are not mining claims on “public land” but mineral deposits, 30 USC 22, on public domain, 30 USC 26.

30 USC § 22. Lands open to purchase by citizens
Except as otherwise providedall valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by lawand according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.
-R.S. Sec. 2319 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 91.

USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment
The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge,  situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial,and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory titleshall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,
-R.S. § 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91.

The mechanics of what happens to the “public land” once found to be mineral in character is expressly evidenced in the Organic Act of 1897, that “any public lands embraced within the limits of any forest reservation which. . . .” “...shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain.” By private settlement under various land disposal laws of the United States, such as the Mining Law of 1872, “public land” is restored to the public domain. The federal agencies have management authority only over “public land”, not privately settled public domain. The act of location restores the land to public domain and the mining law provides the locator of such segregation “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,
-R.S. § 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91.

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).

but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent."
                                                       

By clear and identical language, Congress has stated in the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, the Eastern Forests (Week’s) Act of 1911, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, that there was no intention to retain federal jurisdiction over private interests within national forests. The courts have consistently upheld the ruling in Kansas v. Colorado since 1907.

The rights the locator maintains exclusive possession even against the government, including all agencies, must be preserved, “saved”, in every land disposal act subsequent to the original granting act of 1866, including the FLPMA. Those rights include that the locator of a valuable mineral deposit, “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations.

The courts declared possessory title in 1864 before the grant itself.

This grant is exclusive, conveying permanent title, as good as patent, such that the title shall not be affected by the paramount or trust title of the United Stated, referencing 30 USC 53, that “No possessory action between persons, in any court of the United States, for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land in which such mines lie is in the United States; but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession”. The existence of valid existing rights by relation back of the granting act of July 26, 1866 disposing the uncommon mineral estate held in trust are required to be “saved” in subsequent acts as a “specific use” of the public domain to the Locator. This mineral estate is treated like any other granted property, the contract of which a grantor in this case Congress, or by agency, treated as a mere proprietor may not breach.

It must be noted, referring to the italicized emphasis in both Section 22 and 26 above, that the former referencing “regulations prescribed” and the latter  “the laws of the United States...”“and local regulations” are only those laws and regulations relevant and “governing their possessory title”. This was a miner's law for miners. The only “regulation authority” retained by the federal government, was that oversight authority in dutifully disposing the soil pursuant to the various grants, to avoid such things as fraudulent public land entry, not to regulate the uses thereby those disposal acts.

Despite current Agency rhetoric to the contrary, and fraudulently so, the FLPMA contains many savings provision eliminating agency authority over uncommon mineral deposits and other rights, such as ingress and egress, and water, or obligations, such as livelihood. Those are as found referencing the:

Short Title Of 1988 Amendment “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976'." SAVINGS PROVISION Section 701 of Pub. L. 94-579 provided that: "(a) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act [see Short Title note above], shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act [Oct. 21, 1976” “"(f) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal any existing law by implication. "(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or - "(1) as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water on public lands; "(2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water resources development or control; ” “"(h) All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights. 

The previous list of withheld authorities under the FLPMA, 43 USC 1732, as found in annotation, the Section Referred To In Other Sections” following Section 22 printed above, constraining agency authority further, consistent with the previously mentioned Savings Provisions of which all enforcement provisions such as 43 USC 1733 are subject, we find:

§ 1732. Management of use, occupancy, and development of public lands
(a) Multiple use and sustained yield requirements applicable; exception
     “. . . . 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.
(b) Easements, permits, etc., for utilization through habitation, cultivation, and development of small trade or manufacturing concerns; applicable statutory requirements
     “In managing the public lands, the Secretary shall, subject to this Act and other applicable law and under such terms and conditions as are consistent with such law . . .
     “. . . . no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress.”
(c) Revocation or suspension provision in instrument authorizing use, occupancy or development; violation of provision; procedure applicable
     “. . . . Provided further, That, where other applicable law contains specific provisions for suspension, revocation, or cancellation of a permit, license, or other authorization to use, occupy, or develop the public lands, the specific provisions of such law shall prevail.

This clearly evidences no section of the FLPMA can amend or impair the rights of locators under the 1872 Grant. This is so even for Forest Service authority where, for example, purportedly criminal, citations issue under 36 CFR 261, implement 16 USC 551 the authority of which was 16 USC 471, repealed by FLPMA, redirected by 43 USC 1740, now authorizing 16 USC 1609, “Multiple Use”, subject to FLPMA mandate 43 USC 1732 (b) stating that no section of the FLPMA and, therefore, no Forest Service authority may impair or amend locator's rights under the act of 1872.There is no federal agency authority in this context regarding Locatable deposits. Imposing authority is a trust breach.

The distinction between “mining claims” generally, and “mineral deposits” specifically.

In contradistinction to the possessory rights under the 1872 act for uncommon, such as gold, mineral deposit grant disposal, Common Mineral Materials, such as sand and gravel, were only first disposed of in 1947, and today as amended in 1955, the oft and erroneously relied “Surface Resources Act”, are under the FLPMA and of continuing disposal or mineral management oversight and regulation by lease or sale contract. In other words, until 1947, unlike the granted uncommon minerals since 1864, common mineral materials were not available for disposal. Paying particular attention to the difference and distinction between “any mining claim” generally under agency managed surface rights, and “mineral deposits” with exclusively or privately possessed surface rights, specifically reference:

30 § 612. Unpatented mining claims

(a) Prospecting, mining or processing operations
Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.
(b) Reservations in the United States to use of the surface and surface resources
Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States).

Please note above,  any mining claim (not a valuable mineral deposit) is a US owned mineral subject to surface servitude, treated as a split or severed estate, unlike the Locator of a valuable deposit who shall have exclusive or private possesssion and enjoyment, including the entire surface within the limits of the claim. Unlike Common entries, a locator by the act of 1872 enjoys a complete land estate.

Federal agencies are required to recognize the private “as good as though secured by patent” property rights and non-discretionary nature of locatable mining as being distinct from United States, U.S., owned mineral operations of leasable or saleable contract of agency discretion.

The distinction between uncommon minerals disposed by grant and common mineral materials.

It must be remembered here that under the laws of the United States regarding mineral deposits, 30 USC 26, the locator of any valuable mineral deposit “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations”, and why the FLPMA or the 1947 Common Materials Act or its amending act of 1955, 30 USC 612, can not impair or interfere at all with such locator's right or property or obligations, such as livelihood. In other words, as long a mineral deposit locator holds pursuant to the act of 1872, any surface management authority delegated to the agencies shall not interfere nor impair a locator's rights under the 1872 act.

This exception for the UNCOMMON mineral deposits disposed of by the Acts culminating in the Act of May 10, 1872 represents that Congress keenly understood the need by cause of it's grantor obligation and Trustee relationship, that paramount title, to "save" or protect, in relation back honoringCongress' reciprocal obligation in the granting enactment, rights of the future locators of valid unpatented mineral deposit locations. Congress does this by placing a preservation clause in every subsequent property disposal legislation such as found at 30 USC Section 612 (b) "Any mining claim" “(except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States)”.  Another preserving exception is stated in Section 612 (c): “Except to the extent required for the mining claimant’s prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto, or for the construction of building or structures in connection therewith, or to provide clearance for such operations or uses, or to the extent authorized by the United States, . . .” Certainly this shows too, placing buildings on exclusively possessed in-holdings is a lawful use contrary to what the agencies currently, unlawfully,enforce. Any act by any federal agency causing any interference to the granted uncommon mineral deposits or rights appurtenant the locator is to come in to conflict with the laws of the United States.
42 U.S. CODE § 1983 - CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsshall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” –
 And since hundreds of NFS USDA personnel have declared our need to comply with regulations that don’t apply to a “valuable mineral deposit Mining Claim”, remedy through 18 USC §241  applies.

 “Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties” (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) “and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation.” See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., supra.

 Moreover, it must be noted, at the time of the grant enactment for compliance with laws and regulations, i.e., 30 USC 22,  “under regulations prescribed by law” and customs of the mining districts there were, other than the land General Land Office, no agencies existing such that might today represent that the phrases “under regulations prescribed by law” “and local regulations” provided for current agency management authority. Even so, any interference would still be contrary to the Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976, FLPMA, prohibiting agency interference, impairment, or amendment to the rights of a mineral deposit Locator. The phrase in 30 USC 26 “so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title”shows any regulation could only be in regards of how a locator acquired or maintained possessory title or as recognized by the courts since 1864.  Any suggestion that the FLPMA did amend the 1872 Grant would be a fraudulent representation. To suggest it would constitute an intentional tort in breach of the trust expressly established by the Act of 1866. The FLPMA, as a matter of law, shall save, preserve, this granted or “Locateable” mineral estate, appurtenant or contemporaneous rights, or obligations when appropriated.

Federal Authority Under Law In Contrast of Current Agency Practice.

Given that the Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976 is the sole congressional act delegating and dictating to any federal agency how and to what extent federal trustees manage the public land held in Government trust, it can not be conceived and there is no other Act of Congress found describing any agency possession of “public land” or “public domain”. The federal agencies have no actual title.

As a matter of law, even Congress is merely trustee of the public land trust. Therefore, subject to delegated authorization, any and all authority, or the lack thereof, will be found in this act. Because of Congress' trust obligations there are certain authorities which, and because of Agency, must be withheld from all agencies to avoid a breach of trust of disposed lands. Federal agency has not power to interfere with disposed public domain. Savings provisions mandate the FLPMA can not be used or extended in such a way as to encroach in any way upon any disposed properties or rights.  The only remaining authority is managing what of the “public land” is yet to be disposed, as the Constitution requires.

In trying to remove any and all continuing confusion the mining law seems to create, what about the phrase in the grant expressing that the locator “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations” is so confounding as to render anyone reading that part dumb-struck?  And coupled with the knowledge that the singular delegation of authority to the federal agencies states that no provision of this section or any other section of this Act [FLPMA] shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress”, What is left to be understood causing confusion regarding whether a federal agency or State may interfere with a granted property? What about “exclusive possession” “of all the surface” is confusing?

Where, by Act of Congress, federal agency authority is withheld, by what authority does a “public land” management agent lawfully act to interfere or impair rights of a locators exclusively possessing public domain under the Act of 1872? The answer is, as previously shown, there is no lawful authority.

Federal jurisdiction in the States

 The one remaining topic is to discuss current agency activity as it relates to legitimate agency authority. As contrasted from what the authority management agencies purport is omnipotent and omnipresent, it will be found that federal agents acting outside of their lawful authority are not immune from state prosecution for abuses against property holders in-holding public land. From the Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The StatesReport of the Interdepartmental Committee For The Study Of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States, Part II, June 1957, Page 252, "We mean by this statement to say that Federal officers who are discharging their duties in a State and who are engaged as this appellee was engaged in superintending the internal government and management of a Federal institution, under the direction of its board of managers and with the approval of Congress, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the State in regard to those very matters of administration which are thus approved by Federal authority." Page 253, “The government is but claiming that its own officers, when discharging duties under Federal authority pursuant to and by virtue of valid Federal laws, are not subject to arrest or other liability under the laws of the State in which their duties are performed." 7  “In addition to these sources of constitutional power of the Federal Government, which have consequent limitations on State authority, article IV, section 3, clause 2 8, of the Constitution, vests in Congress certain authority with respect to any federally owned land which it alone may exercise without interference from any source.”

7 In the case In re Turner, 119 Fed. 231 (C.C.S.D. Iowa, 1902), it was held that an injunction could not issue to prevent a Federal officer from carrying out his official duties.
8  This clause reads:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or any particular State."
The clause does not give the United States jurisdiction over its property within the United States, such as public lands, in the legislative jurisdiction sense of art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17. Op. Sol., Dept. of Agriculture, No. 10906-10910 (May 6, 1924); Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845).

Page 274, Gibson  v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92 (1872) "The same principle which forbids any State legislation interfering with the power of Congress to dispose of the public property of the United States, also forbids legislation depriving the grantees of the United States of the possession and enjoyment of the property granted by reason of any delay in transfer of the title after the initiation for its acquisition."

USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment
The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory titleshall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,
-R.S. § 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91.
To summarize: Federal officers acting without the approval of Congress and outside the internal management of government are subject to the jurisdiction of the County or State. There is no question here that federal agents acting pursuant to invalid laws or contrary to the laws of the United States are subject to arrest or other liability. Injunction will issue. The Report identifies Congress the Principle trustee and further indicating its principle authority can not be interfered with, including its delegated agent. This appears to be acknowledgment of the Trustee status of the Federal government in holding as proprietor of the public lands for disposal to the people accepting a land disposal offer. To dispose land is to divest the federal government of authority and jurisdiction in it. As a matter of law, agencies of Government and its employees are without authority to interfere with lawful disposed uses, or livelihood on “public domain” and may be subject to the penal or other liability for acts contrary to law or the mineral grant.

Even in the Forest Services’ own regulations, 36CFR 228.2 states that any part of the National Forest System that is found to have a locatable mineral deposit and a claim filed on it must recognize 16 U.S. CODE § 482 - MINERAL LANDS; RESTORATION TO PUBLIC DOMAIN; LOCATION AND ENTRY: AND REMOVE SAID LAND FROM THE NATIONAL FOREST AND REINSTATE IT TO PUBLIC DOMAIN – AND THERFOR ATHORITY FOR SURFACE REGULATION UNDER 36CFR WOULD BE WITHDRAWN AND THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT  (WHICH GRANTED THE RIGHT TO “FULL ENJOYMENT OF THE SURFACE”) WOULD SUPERCEED!
The court cases referenced in this letter to show precedent are merely a sample of the many more that I have found that confirm that the 1866 and 1872 mining Grants are granted and/or “gifted away” rights.
Not even an act of congress can take away a granted right or the institution would render itself illegitimate! In the Mineral Estate Grant of 1866 the United States divested itself of these mineral lands. Even N.E.P.A. carefully states that federal agencies are to incorporate said values into “new law” and “existing regulations” knowing that it can’t take away granted rights.

                                         - We do not voluntarily surrender our rights. -

If any person or agency of the government suggests that existing mineral rights and/or land as good as though secured by patent” property has been taken through regulation (which would be illegal) - claim holders who have been paying assessment fees on granted real property and rights would have had there property taken from them without being paid fair market value which would include the surface and mineral values. This would be unlawful under the 5th amendment.

That liberty includes the right to pursue a livelihood and provide for a family is a most profound proviso of constitutional adjudication. Liberty "means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his facilities; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned." Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 US 578, 589. And again: "It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the amendment to secure." Truax v Raich, 239 US 33, 41. Greene v McElroy, 300 US 474; Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390; Butchers Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746; Grosjean v American Press, 297 US 233: Regents v Roth, 408 US 564; Hall v Geiger-Jones, 242 US 539; Chicago B & Q R. Co v McGuire, 219 US 549.


1)     A statement in law that declares (something) to be free and open IS A GRANT!
2)     And in said grant anything that is declared to be a RIGHT is absolute and could never require a license or a permit!(permission)

Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “


 Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

right
1)      n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference

 GRANT

3Washb. Real Prop. 181.As distinguished from a mere license, a grant passes some estate or interest, corporeal or incorporeal, in the lands which it embraces; can only be made by an instrument in writing, under seal; and is irrevocable, when made, unless an express power of revocation is reserved. A license is a mere authority; passes no estate or interest whatever;

Grant

To give, sell, or otherwise transfer something to someone.

In legal conveyancing, the grant is the means by which a party conveys title or encumbrance. 


 Thanks very much,

Joel k. Farmer