Update on the BLM putting up no “vehicles allowed” signs on the access routes to mining claims in the desert”
I spoke with the BLM again today and provided them with several very important court cases which show they cannot lock and block mining claim owners from their claims and cause an “undue burden” or “materially interfere” with a mining operation. There is another issue which plays prominently into this, RS2477. RS (revised statute) 2477 was passed by Congress in 1976 and stated any roads in the public domain were to remain open if the roads predated that date (1976). This particular statute was challenged recently in Utah and brought before the Utah Supreme Court. They upheld the statute and the roads must remain open.
Back to the desert…….So allegedly, they had a solar project, found some turtles in the area and relocated them to these folks claims. Thousands of club members access these claims. Seems a self-caused dilemma. Then, they unilaterally decided to just close the roads without public comment, notifying the property owners or even talking to any members of Congress…I know because I’ve spoken to the Congressional district members and even called a Senator today. The man I spoke with at the BLM was the actual person in charge and also the one who physically put the no vehicle signs up. He is also the man who told me yesterday that they don’t have to follow US Supreme Court decisions. Let that sink in for a moment, he said they don’t have to abide by Supreme Court Decisions. I’m sure you folks will have plenty of comments on that one……
Couple of things, I have spoken at length with the Sheriff’s department and they were, as you can imagine, quite surprised to hear the BLM Manager state they do not have to follow Supreme Court rulings. He also volunteered to go knock on the door of the BLM Manager and explain property rights to him on our behalf. I have respectfully declined this offer right now and told him I am trying the diplomatic route and hope the BLM Manager comes to his senses or the legal department goes “whoa there Sparky, you can’t do this” and this all goes away. The cases (Steve Hicks V US being the most prominent and applicable) I provided have been forwarded to the legal department at BLM and they have agreed to give me an answer by Monday, in writing.
There are a few surprises I am not going to mention in here right now, but one involves the Trump Administration and three personal letters I received from them today. Yes, one of them was actually signed by our President. The other two are basically this BLM Managers boss’s boss’s boss.
For those thinking of attending the Barstow October Fest Outing we are hosting at Slash X, we will be mining, we will be accessing the claims, and I will be the very first person to drive past their no vehicle signs. We have some in the media we’ve already reached out to who are very, very interested in this story and we will have a camera crew filming any interactions if there are any between AMRA and the BLM. This will not be a last-stand, scream or yell at the BLM fest. This will be me getting illegally cited for standing up for property rights of the miners, taking this through the legal system and setting….once again, case precedent. It will be professional, polite and we ask that of you if you attend.
This is not a question of “if” the miners have a fundamental right of access, the only question is why the BLM refuses to recognize that fundamental right granted by Congress.
More to come on this next week.