July 22, 2019 
 Monday 
 
 

Forum
Topic:
Water and Arsenic: which came first?

       

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 ]

 By bluejay

04/05/2011  6:14PM

I just gave Noreen Evans in the Senate from the 2nd District a piece of my mind following a news letter from her reminding the District's voters of all the great things she's doing for us.

I reminded her that she or her staff failed to acknowlege my concerns some months back of the rogue actions that the Water Boards were taking aginst our shareholders.

I suspect I'll never hear from her again. What a waste of time!
 By Michael Miller

04/02/2011  5:01PM

Sierra County refused to pay our invoice for the immediate mandatory reduction in a known toxic discharge-taking place on the Sixteen to One mining claim named Happy Jack. Sierra County said that California’s Water Board refused to pay for remedial work due to financial hardship. We were left in a time sensitive situation and were forced to file a claim for damages before the statue of limitations played a role. The irony is obvious. The hypocrisy of the water agency is apparent. The lack of concern for water quality is clear.

Case management meeting in Superior Court of Sierra County on April 5, 2011. Both Sierra county and the California Regional Water Board, Central Valley in Sacramento are side stepping responsibility for leaking chemically toxic fluids onto the Sixteen to One property.

The irritant with this arrogant under reach by the Water Board and Sierra County towards MTBE’s caused by Sierra County and over reach for native water caused by Mother Nature is that gasoline and diesel have proven adverse effects on water quality while the natural arsenic found in water flowing onto and through our property has never been proven to adversely effect the waters of Kanaka Creek. Gasoline not arsenic is the irritant. Is it just me or do you find this non-sensible?


PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation duly organized in 1911 and existing within the State of California with its principle place of business located in Sierra County, California.
2. Plaintiff MICHAEL M MILLER is an individual and resident of Sierra County, State of California, and is suing herein in his individual capacity.
3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendant SIERRA COUNTY is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a government entity organized and existing within the State of California with its principle place of business located in Downieville, California.
4. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 15, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants.
5. Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Does One through Seven are liable for the acts of Sierra County as its alter ego, because Does One through Seven dominated and controlled Sierra County, treated the property, good will or other assets of Sierra County as their own and failed to follow government formalities. From this point forward, any reference to Sierra County includes Does One through Seven.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during all times herein mentioned each of the defendants was the agent and representative of each of the remaining defendants, in suing the things herein alleged was acting within the scope of said agency, and that each of the defendants is thus jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs.
7. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the owner of mining claims known as the Happy Jack and Happy Jack Extension, located in the Alleghany Mining District, Sierra County, California.
8. Plaintiff MICHAEL M. MILLER is a licensed State of California contractor, Classification A, number 423886, business name Morning Glory Gold Mines.

INTRODUCTION

9. This action is brought, in part, pursuant to the provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code 13000-14958). Plaintiffs seek (1) civil damages and penalties pursuant to Water Code 13002 (e); (2) relief to halt violations of the Porter-cologne Water Quality Control Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean water Act ) 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387; and (3) abatement of an alleged, continuing public nuisance arising from the portal of the Happy Jack mining claim.
10. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, in various times and changing conditions operating pursuant to authority granted by the Porter-Cologne Act with regard to either mine waste or surface water drainage; however at no time prior to the discovery of toxic water from the Happy Jack was plaintiff aware of water contaminated with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) or other fossil fuels on its property.
11. Concern over water contamination caused by the gasoline additive MTBE has raised new questions concerning the desirability of using the additive as a means of producing cleaner burning fuel. MTBE is used by most refiners to produce the reformulated gasoline (RFG) required under the Clean Air Act in portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia. It is credited with producing marked reductions in carbon monoxide emissions; RFG has also reduced the volatile organic compounds that react with other pollutants to form smog. Over the last few years, however, incidents of drinking water contamination by MTBE, particularly in California, have raised concerns and led to calls for restrictions on its use. In March 1999, Governor Davis of California ordered a phase-out of MTBE use in the state by December 31, 2002. Ten other states, including New York, have subsequently enacted limits or phase-outs of the substance.
12. The main environmental risk of MTBE is that it gives water an unpleasant taste at very low concentrations, and thus can easily render large quantities of groundwater non-potable. MTBE is often introduced into water-supply aquifers by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) at gasoline stations. Although USTs are much better constructed now than in the 1980s, accidental releases still take place because of the very large number of USTs. The high solubility and persistence of MTBE cause it to travel faster and farther than many other components of gasoline when released into an aquifer. It is also released when gasoline-containing MTBE is spilled onto the ground. Because it is water soluble, it easily moves through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.
13. Fossil fuels such as diesel and gasoline leaked from underground storage tanks owned and controlled by Sierra County hereinafter referred to as the Alleghany Barn into an abandoned mine working hereinafter referred to as the Happy Jack.
14. The levels of pollutants are greater than what is allowed by federal or state laws as determined through water testing conducted by Sierra County and the Central Region Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB).
15. CRWQCB requires that known pollutants such as those leaked from the Alleghany Barn receive immediate mediation in order to lessen damage to the environment or public health
16. Defendants failed to take meaningful or substantial steps necessary to reduce, contain or eliminate the pollution from the Happy Jack onto Plaintiff’s property.
17. Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc entered into an agreement with Plaintiff Michael Miller to take meaningful and substantial steps necessary to reduce, contain and influence the water pollution.
18. Plaintiff Miller performed such work, which accomplished a significant and substantial reduction in water pollutant discharge according to laboratory tests conducted Sierra County and CRWQCB.
19. On February 2, 2009, Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. filed a “Claim for Money or Damaged Against the County of Sierra” with the County Clerk. On March 4, 2009, the County Clerk notified Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One that the County of Sierra rejected the claim on March 3, 2009. This lawsuit is filed timely according to the instructions of the Notice of Rejection citing Government Code Section 945.6.
 By Michael Miller

03/23/2011  5:07PM

Just talked with Klaus Kolb, attorney for Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc who is defending accusations by water regulators of wrongful behavior . The Attorney General office sent Superior Court of Sierra County a Request for Dismissal of the Second, Third, Fourth and “Fifth Causes of Action in the lawsuit it filed in Sierra County. Again this dismissal is filed without prejudice.(See below)

How should we react to this second request?

The letter to Klaus also says, "Regardless of this dismissal, the Board expects Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. to comply with its obligations under California Water Code and the federal Clean Water Act, including submitting an appropriate report of waste discharge."
 By Michael Miller

03/23/2011  12:17PM

The Attorney General filed a Request for Dismissal of Michael M Miller on March 17, 2011 (copy received March 22, 2011). It asked the Clerk of the Court to "Please dismiss this action without prejudice". No reasons were given. What are your thoughts by the request as to the qualification “Without Prejudice” if any?
 By bluejay

03/22/2011  12:16AM

Does anyone really believe that a group of elementary students would require a milling operation to continue their water testing after the mill was closed, if they had a kid's day in Sacramento and were in charge when the mill shut-down?

Can you just visualize the Water Board telling them all that they had just made a mistake?

Is there any wonder today why students of higher education have little to no regard for authority?
 By martin newkom

03/20/2011  1:44PM

I wonder if it would be beneficial
to file a claim with State Bar
against those CDAA attorneys.
 By Big Al

03/17/2011  11:46PM

Mike, are you familiar with the lawsuit that give us the right to sue the government, Bivens V six unknown agents?
 By Michael Miller

03/17/2011  11:14AM

Friends
I’ve been reviewing my early research and notes shortly after being served the lawsuit initiated by the California Regional Water Board. The research brought up many questions of fact and why the suit was filed in the first place. The California Bar Association and laws require that it is a no-no for lawyers to mislead a California judge (as Gayle Filter, former lead private prosecutor of the CDAA, did here in Sierra County). The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General has a plethora of misleading “facts”, so I continue to be confused why after further review, the referee (the Attorney General) is not eliminating them as evidence and reversing the play of the water agency.

Well, that is not the point of this short note to you, who are developing your judgments about this lawsuit. It is this note that I scrawled in a notebook of legal procedural research. I offer it with humbleness:

Don’t know what to say. Don’t know what to write.
Don’t know what to pay. Don’t know what to cite.
Don’t know what to pray. Don’t know what to fight.
Don’t know how to slay. Don’t know what is right.

Thanks for your interest and ideas are always appreciated. When environmental issues are used to hinder honest work when there is no actual evidence of environmental harm, all of us suffer the consequences of misleading the court or other responsible public servants.
 By Michael Miller

03/15/2011  12:47PM

WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT acts like a rogue elephant too often. The mine is crippled and remains so until the people working in the water agencies honor the laws that birthed their regulations. These people must pay greater attention to the demands upon them as written in the regulations. My dictionary also defines “rogue” as a dishonest and unprincipled person; a trickster; rascal. The 16 to 1 is just one example; however it is not just one simple isolated case.

The roguish behavior of water State employees wants to control everybody and everything. Is it control or wipe out an industry? It is very disturbing. What’s the end game? Is there intent to kill the mine? Water agency people are zealots. Logic and reason don’t necessarily work with zealots. Any movement to stamp out California’s gold mining industry continues with groups as a stated cause. It gives selfish, small mined people a sense of importance, even a sense of power.

The reckless, unlawful and willful legal attack initiated by specific people working for California’s water agencies must cease. The two letters below hopefully will reach responsible managers who will identify and correct those people who initiated legal actions against this old California Company.


California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Date: March 8, 2011

Facility ID: 5A462023001
Invoice Number: WD-0046644

Enclosed is a letter to the State Water Resource Control Board that is self-explanatory.

On behalf of Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. I request that you take all steps necessary to evaluate the above-identified facility’s assigned water classification. If a permit for this property is lawfully required, your agency has assigned the wrong classification.

Please be advised and take into account that there were no inspections of this property for eleven years. In 1998 the milling operation ceased which stopped all waste discharges from the operation. Letters were sent and are in your files requesting that a new classification be assigned based upon the actual situations at the property. No one responded.

Last year I noticed that the classification changed from 2B to 2C without any explanation. The invoice was paid with a declaration that the fee was inappropriately assessed due to the wrong classification. This year another request for payment was sent. It was not paid but a return letter was sent to the billing agent with an explanation and request for a reclassification. No one contacted the Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.

The actions of the Water Control Board have injured this company and continue to cause a loss of money, business opportunities and other related harm. It is beyond the breadth of my mind to understand how and why the California water public agency continues to ignore its responsibility to a California business and the general public. Please send this letter to whoever has the responsibility for establishing the fieldwork to properly classify water regulations in Sierra County. Also, please contact me directly forthwith that this request is in the proper department for review.

Sincerely,
Michael M. Miller, President



State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Administration Services
P.O. Box 1888
Sacramento, CA 95812-1888

Date: March 8, 2011

Facility ID: 5A462023001

Invoice Number: WD-0046644

A Notice of Violation of failure to pay the required annual fee, posted in Sacramento on March 3, 2011, was received today, March 8, 2011. For questions a number was given, 916-464-4612, which I called about 11am today. I left a return phone number, name and Invoice Number with a request for a return call.

There is no violation because the amount cited as past due in not the correct amount of the required fee according to the law. The law requires a fee is set according to standards, which were ignored by the individuals responsible for setting a required fee.
An on site request was sent to the appropriate water agency upon receipt of the invoice. There has been no contact by the water agency to investigate and reclassify the Sixteen to One mine site.

Please acknowledge your receipt of this Notice for Correction and take steps necessary to correct the wrongful classification and subsequent invoice that you write is violating Water Code Section 13261.

On behalf of Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc
Michael M. Miller, President
 By Michael Miller

03/07/2011  3:45PM

“This represents overwhelming indictment of the junk science used to justify nearly two decades of water diversions.” U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, representing California’s 21st Congressional District.

Water concerns, a topic since the 1860’s, will continue in California indefinitely. There are no solutions, only options for control. Smart, dumb, foolish, wise, sensible, ignorant, impractical, magnanimous, selfish, practical, devious, well meaning and evil minded persons are running the water show in our state. Representative Nunes wrote in the Sacramento Bee, “The science used by Delta regulators is so bad that a federal judge ruled against the government in a landmark lawsuit. Yet the environmental left continues to wage a merciless attack on water users – particularly San Joaquin Valley farmers. They are shamelessly using debunked science to advocate the forced retirement of 1.3 million acres of farmland – a land mass nearly three times as large as the state of Rhode Island.”

Farming in the Sacramento Valley has continued in my family for four generations. Now I am a gold miner and producer in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water is a concern. The newspapers don’t have many stories about the issues a gold miner or other natural resource providers face just to operate. California’s proven gold fields are effectively shut down. The gold miners’ numbers are reduced to a faded memory. Will our crop farmers follow the same path towards extinction?

My wonderment about articles like the recent NY Times gold story (The New York Times National Saturday, February 12,2011, page A11) centers on the reporter. Then wonderment moves to the policies of the editorial staff, publisher and finally the principles of the owners. With such inane reporting what is the rest of the paper’s usefulness or credibility? To research, write and publish current stories about the great California Sierra Nevada gold belt and not expose the reader to mining in the Alleghany Mining District is silly to say the least and vacuous to tell the truth. Does a venerable newspaper such as the NY Times condone this quality of story telling?

Mining people laugh or snicker when we read stories in the Times or most publications (story titled, “Old Mines Reopen In a New Cry of ‘Gold!’ ”). Actually we cry silently to ourselves. We are outraged about the latest television assault on our credibility. With the Discovery Channel portraying gold miners and a gold operation in Alaska on national TV as serious, it is no wonder that America is not interested in gold mining. The production of America’s bountiful natural resources located in California and other states is crippled by depictions such as these. So, why are gold miners portrayed as greedy, buffoons or uncaring rapists on mother Earth? How could any serious professional reporter or organization not uncover the Alleghany Mining District during discovery and due diligence? I am baffled. How much did the reality actors get paid for their fictional portrayal of open pit gold mining?

Enough of these questions for now. Solutions are where collective activities must focus. This is just one reason that Original Sixteen to One Mine (by the way, NY Times reporter, this California company is the oldest American owned operation in the US and its premier mine, the Sixteen to One, is the longest operating gold mine in North America. How did you miss it?) struggles to keep its company afloat in an hostile, governmental environment. It is an example of gold mining in the 21st century.

Not all mines are the same and certainly not all operators are either; however, to continually cite ‘potential’, ‘may occur’, ‘could cause’ or other unproven and usually remote or non-applicable negative environmental outcomes from mining are insulting to America. Whatever your philosophical calling, political label, economic prejudice or social outlook may be, those of us who take our work seriously and have the history and knowledge to carryout environmental responsibilities in these blue collar industries of tangible production, think about what you read and hear! Ignorance is the enemy. The pendulum is moving away from reckless account based on fear. Our current situation with unlawful treatment of surface water flowing through our property is an example of willful negligence; however it is willful negligence by our public water control agency.
 By Michael Miller

01/18/2011  12:01PM

A shareholder wrote the PLF suggesting it gets involved in our situation. A case management analyst declined for reason that resembled “boiler plated language”. Following is my response, which was copied to the PLF president as well.

Pacific Legal Foundation January 11, 2011
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, Ca 95834

Dear Teresa Sotelo,

Upon review of the letter you sent to Ren Renzel, your conclusion is actually contrary to the fine policy, goals and work of the Pacific Legal Foundation. The foundation should undertake the matter thrust upon Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. (O16).

Please reverse your conclusion after considering information that you probably did not have.
1. O16 has legal representation. It has answered the complaint filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of California. The foundation is not sought for its representation but for its research and experience as advisors. There will be no client/attorney obligations and a suitable agreement will clarify this point.
2. O16’s legal defense will not be the responsibility of the foundation.
3. The underlying “root” issues advanced by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of California hurt all Californians and have evolved over thirty years of lawlessness between the three branches of our government. A strong case exists that the foundation’s involvement may increase donations to the foundation beyond the actual time spent; witness the behavior of Mr. Renzel, who brought this issue to the foundation, reinstated his support after years of abstinence and also contributed to O16’s legal defense fund.
4. Squashing the misguided claims by the California Regional Water Board, Central Valley Region staff will advance legal precedents that will help the people of California and people and business throughout the United States. The issues claimed by the water agency rock the very foundation of appropriateness for PLF participation.
5. The complaint was filed in May 2009. It has been answered. Admission requests, interrogatories and depositions have taken place. The time for defendants’ effort is at hand. Yes, the State of California is more powerful that O16, another righteous reason for PLF involvement. If this lawsuit remains successfully unchallenged, a great loss to the public’s well-being will follow. The public knows that the overreach of environmental claims of harm have resulted in lessening the quality of life for Californians. The public needs champions to push the pendulum of overreach to the center. Our situation is a prime example of an administrative agency going beyond the underlying legislation that created its very existence. PLF should suppress fear mongering by government personnel and others. Our government must be a leader of ethical business practices. When it goes astray, someone must set it back on the proper path.

I hope the above addresses your stated concerns as to why PLF should not get involved. Following are items that should be recognized so PLF does get involved.

My personal first contact with PLF was about 1978. I was prosecuted twice for misdemeanor infractions and acquitted in the second trial. I paid for the expenses of my defense. The issues were pretended to be environmental. They were not. They were power grabs under the disguise of environmental protection. The game warden and district attorney for Sierra County conspired to abuse the law. It was wrong. It adversely affected the public welfare in Sierra County and California; so I filed a lawsuit for damages, which reached the appellate court. I called PLF but was unsuccessful in getting help to push back phony environmental behavior from our government employees. My contact was Rob Rivett. The game warden was eventually fired for stealing gas and the DA was not reelected in Sierra County.

My second contact with PLF was in 2005, and I spoke with Rob again. The mine, its manager and I (its president) were criminally charged with felony manslaughter after a tragic accident took the life of our friend and fellow miner. The private prosecutors worked for the California District Attorney Association. Gale filter was the leader of four attorneys who infiltrated small northern counties and took over prosecution. A Sierra Court judge set aside the criminal charges, case over. It was not over for my friend and seasoned attorney, George Gilmour. After the dismissal is when I called PLF for help.
The CDAA lawyers broke several laws during their presentation to the Sierra County Grand Jury. George and I, along with the support of everyone who knew the facts of this unspeakable dastardly behavior by officers of the court, filed a lawsuit to expose the lawyers’ behavior and intentions to privatize prosecution and criminalize accidents. (The Grand Jury transcript records it all.) We broke the special privilege of “prosecutor immunity”, won every motion the defense put forth and lost in the Third Court of Appeals based upon the most ridiculous legal nonsense most of us have ever read. The PLF refused to help us with the same reasons you state.

If the practices displayed by the well-respected CDAA were not stopped, the public would be one step closer to servitude without representation under the law. I was unable to convince Rob that withholding exculpatory evidence, committed perjury by a member of the California State Bar, and misleading the court were serious impediments to establishing public well being. (The record supports these allegations.) Mr. Gale Filter is named in a report for prosecutorial misconduct, recently released by the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University (a copy of a newspaper article is enclosed). Gale Filter left CDAA and now is employed by the State of California and the EPA enforcer. He should be disbarred from practicing law in California.

This is my third attempt to engage PLF in legal situations that affect everyone in California. It goes to the heart of the trust we give our three branches of government.
When those trusts are broken, the behavior must become publicly wide spread in order to change the patterns of behavior. Right now poor execution of regulations is hurting the job market, businesses and financial revenue sources for government. Do you doubt these assertions?

In our global economy and market place, domestic production, which means local, is in the public’s best interest. Knowledgeable people recognize the Sixteen to One mine as the leader of principled gold mining in the twenty-first century. Its operation touches three centuries of mining in California. It is the oldest US publicly owned gold mining corporation. It also was established under California law. It has historical value, educational value and economic value for all of us. It is under a ruthless attack and an unlawful one, I might add.

California has one of the worlds most proven gold deposits. It is the 200 mile gold belt in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. It sits under producing for obvious reasons. This is not in California’s best interest, especially for the proclaimed environmental advocates. They just are plain ignorant of the realities of science. Unfortunately, the California water agency that is responsible for administrating the law in Sierra County is failing its duty to the People of the State of California. The personnel may be ignorant but I suspect a small vocal minority decrying gloom and doom as well as spreading fear taints the agency. This is sad. The administration of all regulations must adhere to reality. Public agencies like the Central Valley Water Quality Regional Board must improve its behavior. The loss to California and the nation is too great to ignore.

Well, there is much more but this letter is growing longer than anticipated. Will it be three strikes and we are out? Let’s hope not for the sake of Californians. I am right. We sure could use the talent and resources of PLF to set a government agency back on the right path of protecting Californians. Your foundation will become proud of its support once it explores the issues and helps us defeat this unwarranted power grab.


Sincerely yours,
Michael Meister Miller








 By Rick

01/13/2011  5:25PM

Bluejay,

Whoever you contacted needs to be unseated at the next election.

Please, let's all contact our congression representative of the 4th District.
 By bluejay

01/12/2011  11:13PM

Amen, Rick

It's plainly, tyranny.

I asked my State elected officials for help in this matter and THEY ALL chose to ignore me.

They are all a pack of liars and cheats.

Check this out today from http://www.jsmineset.com:

Jim Sinclair’s Commentary

The unfunded state pension liabilities are $5.2 trillion, twice what they estimate.

States in the present business cannot tax their way out of their deficit and future liabilities. The sovereignty of state will come into question.

Bloomberg estimated 100 to 150 municipalities will go broke. That is very low.

The putts that scream about Europe should take a closer look at this.
 By Rick

01/11/2011  5:23PM

Everyone should be shocked:

The suing party, the Water Board (an insult to water), the plaintiffs, haven't inspected the mine-site for 13 years??????? and yet they proceed to steal private property through a lawsuit???

Mike, knowing that every entry on this forum is probably admissable "evidence" in a litigation, I am completely shocked that they have the BALLS to continue.

Water Board: by 'BALLS' I mean your crushing and completely brash disregard for the very water you pretend to protect...the BALLS I'm talking about haven't been in use since the mine discontinued the milling process.

HOW can an public agency created to oversee water in California blatantly proceed litigation without fullfilling its primary objective? They haven't even gone up to look. They haven't even gone up to measure themselves, despite the mandate that the burden of proof and monitoring water is their responsibility. They have given the middle finger.

Simple, in Statism terms:

1) forget primary objective

2) be corrupt

3) choose political target

4) assume nobody's watching

5) pad your pockets with $$$ you don't have yet and need to find

6) find it in a mine.... ("everyone's against mining, right?")

7) forget #5 which points out the debt which you forget and plan on confiscating anyway

7) call an appointed bench in advance and preparation for appeal, sctatch, scratch....

I could go on and on, but that would give away the defense.

Make no mistake about this: we are witnessing a quasi-governmental non-elected board of purchased a-holes attempting to steal private property. They will not prevail, and will be stopped.

THE TRUTH PREVAILS.
 By Michael Miller

01/10/2011  4:44PM

The following letter was sent September 2008. I never received a response. The next correspondence from the water agency personnel was service of a lawsuit. On May 1, 2009, the People of California via the California Regional Water Quality Board filed a
“Complaint for Damages” in Sierra County. Is this how our administration government is supposed to work? It does not seem legal and after reading legislative matters it isn’t.


Patricia Leary, Senior Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Resolution of Alleged Violation, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc., Sierra County


Thank you for the opportunity to again address the issue of permits for the above California Corporation. Prior to the long sought staff inspection (July 2, 2008), the company asked for a reevaluation of its requirements and classification of its operation in Sierra County. As noted in the recent report, the last inspection of the mine by Regional Water Board staff was November 18, 1997. Due to significant changes in the operation and stated to the Regional Water Board, the reporting requirements were seriously out dated.

This small operating gold mine company spent in excess of $250,000 over the past twenty years on data accumulation, testing and mitigation. The results paint a clear picture that (1) there is no downstream evidence to suggest toxic discharge; (2) the annual water flows are predictable according to the four seasons and weather patterns; (3) the staff has turned a deaf ear to our company’s concerns about the science of this particular mine site as it relates to surface water flows and more. In the process the Regional Water Board has interfered with the company’s ability to operate and stay in business.

In your September 9, 2008 letter, #6 is true because the Regional Water Board staff is so backlogged with work that it could not react to our renewal request in a timely manner.

This Company has a 100-year history and a lifetime of environmental care and conservation. One visual inspection will confirm that California and its public is not threatened by the surface water that flows across the Company’s property. Testing has confirmed that the results are predictable and benign. To state otherwise is scientifically absurd.

Statement can always be misconstrued. For example in the last report under Observations and Comments, the writer reports, “600 pounds of mercury was historically used in the mill.” This is false. The operation is permitted to have 600 pounds on site. The amount is significantly less and it is retorted and recycled. There appears to still be ideas emanating in your agency that have no facts or evidence supporting them.

My suggestion or recommendation is to get some knowledgeable people who have authority to settle this permit process. The alternative is to go into the judicial branch of our government for a decision. This venerable company, which is a very important employer for workers in our region, has no desire to go there. Please reply.

Sincerely,
 By Michael Miller

01/05/2011  4:54PM

In the last newsletter # 53 on December 3, 2010, I mistakenly called the upcoming motion by the Attorney General on behalf of the water agency a “summary judgment”. The pending motion is a summary adjudication and is explained in the following civil code. The newsletter is posted under ‘NEWSLETTERS’ if you want to refresh your memory.

Grounds for and effect of summary adjudication; procedure on motion.

Par. 437c(f)(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause or action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. However, a party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.
 By Rick

01/03/2011  10:53AM

Still on track....

This was always a rhetorical question, of course, to point out that arsenic and water were both around before the Water Board, CDAA and other criminal intents began their systematic attack on free enterprise and freedom, specifically targeting the Original Sixteen to One Mine and also Mike Miller personally by suggesting that somehow the mine and its CEO predated the natural deposits in the Sierra Nevada.

The answer is, by the way, arsenic. As the elements reset their new terrestrial atomic clocks through the differentiation of the planet, water arrived via asteroid and the subsequent chemical reactions to follow. (Incidentally, some comets emit arsenic in mass ejections.)

This, though, seems to have escaped the thugs...which of course makes sense to them, since facts are meerly a distraction when neo-communism and Marxism must prevail... (remember that distruction of history, historical facts and destruction of freedom are right up there at the top of their manifesto.)
 By Tommyknocker

01/02/2011  3:55PM

Sorry, we got off track...
Which came first, arsenic or water

Is it possible to know the answer to that? Maybe from a Geologists or Chemists point of view?
 By Tommyknocker

01/01/2011  6:46PM

Rick,
On a side note to the other part of your last post...I am a weights & measures inspector for a Cen/Cal county & have much contact with "new" citizen business owners in my area like you described. Lets just say I see a lot of them at our local Tea Party gatherings...They are mostly hard working people that have jumped through uncountable hoops to achieve their dreams in America (most are legal residents/citizens) and are now absolutely buried by "fees and permits/costs...they don't get it! They are also the object of extreme racism from other "minorities".
 By Tommyknocker

01/01/2011  6:38PM

Thanks Rick & happy New Year!
I am a prolific letter writer and am good at it. I started when the Ca. Fish & Shame did their EIR for suction dredging back in 1994. Suction dredging used to be my passion (along w/Ca. history) but now it is standing up and fighting for our freedom! I will read the newsletter from Mike again then I'll have some righteous stuff to write to some bureaucrats.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 ]

 

  
 
© 2019 Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.
PO Box 909
Alleghany, California 95910
 

Phone:   
Fax:
E-mail:
 
(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455
corp@origsix.com
 

      Gold Sales:  


(530) 287-3540

goldsales@origsix.com
 



Design & development by
L. Kenez