*Today we pay tribute to a great friend and activist, Mike Adams. He
provided us with great information and a lot of humor over the
years.
Mike passed away in October
of 2016. I'll be attending his memorial today in Fort Jones. He was
a good friend and someone I worked closely with in the tea party
from the time it began. He was a great organizer for the Yreka Tea
Party and the Protect Our Water group in Fort Jones . Mike was
always an unfailing supporter of We the People Radio. This broadcast
was done with my original co-host, Elizabeth Woodward. I hope you
enjoy this blast from the past and learn a little bit about mining
along the way. We'll be back next week with a live broadcast about
the U.S. southern border with the architects of the security plan
and the building of "the wall".
Thanks for listening today and honoring our friend's passing. ~Erin
Miners Get the Shaft
Today's guest:
Michael O. Adams - Dredge Miner
MICHAEL O. ADAMS
Michael
O. Adams comments:
It is clear that these proposed
regulations have been written with a complete disregard to Federal
and State Constitutional protections. Furthermore; it illustrates
your lack of even the most rudimentary grasp of mining law! This is
a clear abuse of power and an abridgment of the “oath of office” to
uphold and defend the Constitution, State and Federal.
This is a clear and prejudicial attempt to placate environmental
interests that have to date, failed to show harm by the mining
community.
These proposed regulations are also, an over enforcement and
misinterpretation of AB120!
AB120 requires that “new regulations fully mitigate all identified
significant environmental impacts”. The draft EIS has failed to
identify any significant impact. Most if not all impacts were
identified as “de minims” or, of little impact. Instead you have
chosen to regulate for “might”, “may” or “could”. This is not in
keeping with the intent nor spirit of the law.
Discussions on our
program today:
Michael's specific comments:
Limits the number of permits to a
maximum of 1,500 annually. This in effect limits the number of
people that can earn or attempt to earn a livelihood via section
dredging. This is an abridgment of our Federal Constitutional Rights
as enumerated under the First Amendment and, California
Constitutional Rights as enumerated under Article 1, Section 1!!
When did the People grant you, the right to regulate what vocation
we work in and how many may work in any particular vocation?
AB120 requires that “a fee structure is in place that will fully
recover all the costs to the department related to the
administration of the program”. To limit the number of participants,
places an undue financial burden on each of the participants. You
are in effect, taxing us out of existence!
ss 228 (h)
Suction Dredge Reporting. To what end will this “report card” be
used? I appears to be an inordinate about of record-keeping. If it
is used or, may be used for any enforcement activity; it is or will
be an abridgment of our Federal Constitutional Rights as enumerated
under the Fifth Amendment !!!!
ss 228 (k) (1)
This section in effect, requires a 1602 permit if we request
permission to use a nozzle larger than 4 inches. The only
justification alluded to in the draft EIS to limit nozzle size was,
a noise ordnance in one of the counties. It is illegal for you to
subject me to an ordnance from another jurisdiction!
ss 228 (k) (E) (3)
Pump screening. No justification has been presented for this
draconian restriction.
ss 228 (k) (1)
Winching, another unjustified requirement of 1602 permit.
ss 228 (k) (1) (2)
Material may only be moved within the the current waterline. No
boulders or other material may be moved outside of the current
waterline. This precludes the removal of locatable minerals from our
claims! This is a regulative taking without compensation and is an
abridgment of our Constitutional Rights as enumerated under the
Fifth Amendment!!
ss 228 (k) (1) (3)
No person shall operate the nozzle of a suction dredge and remove
material within three feet of the lateral edge of the current water
level,.... Why not? Is there no values within that three foot zone?
This is once again a regulatory taking without compensation and is
an abridgment of our Constitutional Rights as enumerated under the
Fifth Amendment!!
ss 228 (k) (1) (3)
No person shall remove or damage stream-side vegetation during
suction dredge operations. So if I step on a blade of grass; I am in
violation of the regulations and am subject to to prosecution? Are
fishermen, rafters and swimmers subject to this same rule? If not,
this is a violation of equal protection of justice
ss 228 (k) (1) (21)
No person shall operate a suction dredge within 500' of another
operating dredge. If an adjacent claim owner is working the lower
section of there claim I can't work the upper section of my claim?
Can you say; an abridgment of our Constitutional Rights as
enumerated under the Fifth Amendment?
ss 228 (k) (p)
Timing of Activity. Active suction dredging operations may only be
conducted between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. I am not a banker nor do I
work for the Fish & Game; why am I limited to an 6 hr day? Another
unreasonable restriction on my attempt to make a living.
ss228.5
River & Stream Closures: This represents a gross taking without
compensation and is an abridgment of our Federal Constitutional
Rights as enumerated under the Fifth Amendment and California
Constitutional Rights as enumerated under Article 1 Section 19!!
Websites and
material mentioned on
today's program:
History of U.S. Forest Service vs
Dredge Miners
www.plp2.org
The Great Global Warming Swindle
(Full Movie)
Most of the problems discussed on We the People
Radio US have to do with laws and regulations driven
by the fear of Global Warming. Watch this video to
help you decide if the public is being scammed.
