BLM Bundy Ranch Scenario All Over Again? Hopefully NOT – Eric Dubin

Official release of facts pertaining to the Sugar Pine Mine. Statement of owners George Backes snd Rick Barclay:

The Sugar Pine Mine was the first hardrock mine discovered in the State of Oregon and is located on the North Fork of Galice Creek. It was discovered in 1858 by Cassidy, Simms and White, but gained notoriety after the mine was obtained by George and Dan Green in 1876. One of the Green Brothers served as county sheriff of Josephine County and a State Representative. Up until 1900, the Sugar Pine was the most productive hardrock gold mine in Southern Oregon.

Current title to the Sugar Pine Mine originated on February 9th, 1876. It was originally recorded as entry #196 on page 134 of the Mining Record of the Galice Creek Mining District, which is currently housed in the vault of the County Clerk of Josephine County. It was later transcribed into to official Mining Records of Josephine County, in Volume #3, page 76. It has been continuously owned since. The mine has an unbroken Chain of Title that dates back almost one hundred and forty (140) years.

The Sugar Pine Mine is the oldest active mining claim in the State of Oregon.

The title to the Sugar Pine Mine predates the formation of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) by over seventy (70) years, and the formation of USFS (United States Forest Service) by nearly thirty (30) years.

Today, the Sugar Pine Mine also includes several other neighboring claims – the Black Jack Mine, discovered in 1900 by Robert Jackson and Charles Moon, the Oregonian Mine, discovered in 1908 by Robert Jackson and mining engineer Claude Nobel, and the Golden Cycle Mine, discovered in 1920 by John Martin and C.H. Price. Current title to these additional mining claims originates to their discovery dates, all of which also predate the formation of BLM.

Under Federal Law, mining claims which have Chains of Title that predate July 23rd, 1955 have SURFACE RIGHTS, unless the owner relinquished them, or conveyed them back to the government, as outlined in the 1955 Surface Resources Act, also known as the Multiple Use Act.
(30 USC 612)

In November, 1969, BLM was required to obtain a RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT across the Sugar Pine Mine, because the agency DOES NOT have any SURFACE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. See Volume #17, page 461 in the Josephine County Mining Conveyance Records.

BLM claim that they actually control the surface of the Sugar Pine Mine, despite the fact that they have REFUSED to produce a single legal document to prove their SURFACE RIGHTS AUTHORITY when sent a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

BLM have also REFUSED our requests to produce certain documents pertaining to the Sugar Pine Mine that are PUBLIC RECORDS. To date, we have sent fourteen (14) FOIA requests to three (3) BLM offices in the State of Oregon. Despire the fact that they are REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW to produce those records, BLM has NOT complied those laws. They have NOT fulfilled their obligation, under FEDERAL LAW regarding any of our FOIA requests. The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a CONSTIUTIONAL REPUBLIC and a NATION of LAWS. BLM are REQUIRED to follow them, just the same as everybody else in the country is. (5 USC 552)

The reason that we are not vacating the Sugar Pine Mine and are continuing to occupy the mine and have requested protection of our property, despite the Cease and Desist Order from BLM, is because our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights are being VIOLATED. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated.” No person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

We believe BLM are attempting to STEAL our property, under COLOR OF LAW, which makes them LIABLE not only to a CIVIL SUIT, but also guilty of a FEDERAL CRIME. (18 USC 242)

BLM has a long history of BURN FIRST, ask the court later tactics.

Until BLM ceases to DENY our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and allows us DUE PROCESS in court, we are holding our property, in compliance with the law, no different than YOU would if somebody came into your house and claimed THEY owned it, without providing any PROOF.

BLM was sent a LEGAL REQUEST for EVIDENCE of their SURFACE RIGHTS ownership. Instead of simply providing us with their proof, they retaliated against us by sending two (2) Cease and Desist orders. If they had just sent us proof of their control of the surface we would have complied with their request for co-operation. We are asking for NOTHING except our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to DUE PROCESS and for documented proof that they own the surface. We are being DENIED BOTH.