July 22, 2019 

The Power of Mining Districts


 By David I

04/16/2015  7:27AM

Hi Mike,

Having read your previous letter and comments, I hope you are well. Youare agreat representative for the rights of the miner here in California. The conflicts in court should be done sooner for compliance to the Constitution.
 By Michael Miller

04/15/2015  1:49PM

I looked into the usefulness of restarting the lost organization of the Alleghany Mining District in 1978. I was very excited with the prospect of local control. Its value today is seriously compromised with this language taken from Clark’s text below. Second paragraph: “and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States”. Third paragraph: “This grant from Congress enabled miners in their respective mining districts to regulate their own pursuits subject to the laws of the United States.” The key words are, “subject to the laws of the United States.” Unless I am wrong (and I hope to be wrong) the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which defines the regulatory position for mines, preempts anything authorized in a Mining District.

The strongest law, called “An Act” is not followed today by the regulators, called Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA). Section 4 identifies those mines Congress intended to regulate. MSHA now interprets Section 4 as all mines. This is an unlawful act by federal employees. An Act also qualifies inspectors’ background, experience and training authorized to write citations. Its inspectors do not have these qualifications. They are law breakers. If the Alleghany Mining District, a well-established district that has continued to operate since its inception, could enforce the law under An Act, I would be jumping to activate the process. Below is a recent communication I had with the Federal Review commission. No answer yet.

March 31, 2015

Dear Federal Judge,
There are four Dockets listed in the March 31, 2015, Order of Consolidation Amended Prehearing Order. Two dockets are for Mine ID #04-03065 not Mine ID # 04-01299. These mines are not compatible for a mutual hearing. My employer is concerned about the loss of productive time because of the multiple dockets combined at the last hearing. My memory recalls that all parties realized the difficulties in conducting that hearing.

While I have your ear, my employer has serious concerns about the roles of MSHA inspectors and MSHA management with solicitors: conducting negotiations and hearing attendances. Is this the first time you have heard of this? Too many federal employees involved in carrying out the intent of An Act have lost their way at the expense of those they are required to protect...the miners. Perhaps it is just in the Western District. I don't know what coal or other miners are experiencing. Most of the gold miners and operators in Northern California have experienced awful treatment from those empowered to protect them. This must change in order to implement Section 2 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

My mining experiences predate the legislation that was passed by Congress in 1977. My time in this important industry is also drawing to an end. Those people whom I have never met over the years can readjust the system now operating with serious imperfections. Are you aware of the root causes of malcontent amongst small underground gold miners? If so, what has been reported to you?

My employer, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. is the oldest and longest gold mining operator in America. It offers its assistance in improving the interaction of MSHA and operators. According to the law, "the operators of such mines with the assistance of the miners have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of such conditions and practices (unsafe and unhealthy) in such mines." I agree with the law and pledge to work with people to get our regulators and operators working to carry out Congress's mandate. America needs its natural resource industries to remain free.

Michael Meister Miller
 By Big Al

03/29/2015  10:53PM

The Power of Mining Districts
by Clark Pearson
Director, Northern Office
Public Lands for the People

The 1872 Mining Act was Congressional acceptance that miners can make needful federal rules and regulations governing their activities on federally managed lands. Specifically codified under 30 U.S.C. sections 22 and 28. Section 22 states:

“Except as otherwise provided, all 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 law, and 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.” (Emphasis added.)

Essentially, this is by the miners, for the miners. This grant from Congress enabled miners in their respective mining districts to regulate their own pursuits subject to the laws of the United States. Most of the previous rules and regulations by miners in their respective mining districts were reabsorbed into state law. With the miners choosing to organize the traditional mining districts, they shall have federal supremacy over conflicting state and federal law upon federal lands.

The Mining Districts shall override conflicting state and federal laws that stand as obstacles to the full Congressional objective of the 1970 National Minerals, Mining, Reclamation and Policy Act (30 U.S.C. section 21a) and the 1955 Multiple Surface Use Act (30 U.S.C. 612 sections a - b).
The Mining Districts shall intervene upon the miner’s written request to resolve conflicts that unreasonably interfere with the miner’s right to extract, as defined in U.S. v. Shoemaker. Said in another way, the miners will police themselves, and the Mining Districts will have the first right to mitigate any claim disputes before going to the Interior Board of Land Appeals or any other federal or state court.
The Mining Districts shall be the arbiter of reasonable environmental and safety regulation(s). (See footnote 1.)
And most importantly, the Mining Districts can open the federal land to multiple-use by the public on principles of inclusion rather than the present day exclusions carried out by the extremist environmental lobby groups that work inside and outside all the other various agencies. (See footnote 2.)

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1801, on what constitutes good government.

Miners, in their respective Mining Districts, have the ability to duly elect representatives to make rules and regulations governing their mining activities (customs of miners) in contrast to executive agencies that currently answer to the whims of the President and the bureaucracy. These duly elected representatives will have a proposed term of 4 years such that they will be accountable to their constituents -- the individual miner -- just as it worked in the 1800’s. And quite successfully I might add.

Once the organized Mining Districts take shape, the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) can and will submit to Congress for a budget for the administrative functions and clarifications of the Mining District’s relationship with the other federal and state agencies. The MMAC website will have a resource section which explains what your fundamental rights are as miners. The claim owners in those districts elect all the miners that represent the districts and upper tiers - nobody is appointed.

Presently, MMAC has developed some preliminary guidelines and clarifications (changes to HR 761 rev. 8, and ESA reform) and handed them to the Congressional House Subcommittee on Resources and Minerals. This preliminary notice from MMAC to Congress is open for more discussion but covers and fixes many of the problems the mining industry faces that have hit most miners especially hard. There are severe ambiguities in law that need clarification that stand as obstacles to the accomplishment of the National Minerals, Mining and Reclamation Policy Act of 1970 (codified under 30 U.S.C. 21a).

The MMAC will need the active participation of every miner, every mining organization, every claim holder and any other group that shares the multiple-use principles of our public lands. The tasks before us are for Americans that strive for accountability, self-determination, and for laws that are for and by the people. It could be said that miners can shine the light on the proper role of government in the darkest of tunnels.

Mining District Advisory Council website: http://www.mineralsandminingadvisorycouncil.org/

Ben Franklin once was asked to comment about our newly formed government of the United States of America, and he said, “It’s a republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

Now I ask the miners of today, we have Mining Districts -- can we keep and run them?

1. Before any agency such as EPA, DFG, DEQ, USFS, MSHA can carry out any existing or proposed regulations on the mining community, they must first get approval from the Mining Districts to implement them. (Clarified in modified HR761)
2. Items for example: roads currently closed now will be evaluated by the Mining Districts for determination on leaving them open to the public as intended.

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

(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455

      Gold Sales:  

(530) 287-3540


Design & development by
L. Kenez