Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Amendment10

“We are not looking for Bundyville. We are not looking to challenge anything. We are just holding our constitutional rights and property rights in reserve until we get our day in court,” Barclay said.

He and his partner, George Backes, believe they do not have to file an operations plan demanded by the Bureau of Land Management because they hold the surface rights on the mining claim, Barclay said. The claim has been continuously owned since 1858, predating the Bureau of Land Management’s authority and other mining laws, he said.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article18711264.html#storylink=cpy

So the mining claim predates the BLM by several decades, but the BLM says their paperwork is no longer valid, so we can kick you off it.


11 posted on 04/17/2015 1:57:27 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: tbw2; All
From the Article: "The claim has been continuously owned since 1858, predating the Bureau of Land Management's authority and other mining laws, he said.

To my knowledge, basically the only way that the feds can control land in the USA is by buying it, corrections welcome. And the land must be purchased under the terms of either the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or under the 5th Amendment’s imminent domain clause.

So the first question is this. Did the feds purchase the land in question by paying for it under the terms of the constitutional statutes referenced above, or did they wrongly acquire it merely with the stroke of a pen?

12 posted on 04/17/2015 2:31:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: tbw2

“...believe they do not have to file an operations plan...”

I’m not sure what an operations plan is, but I guess it would be something along the lines of how they will operate the mine, and showing how they will be complying with the existing laws of today. If so - that seems reasonable. (Of course many of the new rules go too far, but they are the rules).

In 1858 nobody cared if your cynanide leaching process dumped straight into the creek. A very poor practice obviously.

I’m very pro mining, and would guess that there is more to this and/or I’m mistaken on what an operations plan is.


14 posted on 04/17/2015 3:16:52 PM PDT by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts It is happening again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: tbw2; redreno; Star Traveler; Jack Hydrazine; Logical me; ModelBreaker; DoughtyOne; Amendment10; ...

Rick Barclay, owner of the mine, is interviewed.

At the 11:30 minute mark he says he wants the oathkeepers there to protect his property to allow him to have due process.

At the end of the video is a website to donate
http://www.oathkeepersjoco.com/

14 Minutes

A New Oath Keepers Stand Off with the BLM? Not quite…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D9LUAS_mWg

Related thread:
UPDATE on BREAKING NEWS: OREGON GOLD MINING STAND OFF WITH BLM….NEXT BUNDY RANCH

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3279214/posts


15 posted on 04/19/2015 5:30:10 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson