The Whole Story

What's Going On in Galice - The WHOLE Story...

Good question! Glad you asked.

Since there's such a huge amount of gossip, disinfo, misinfo, and conspiracy theory pertaining to the Sugar Pine Mine situation out in Galice, we, the owners of the mine, thought we'd tell you ourselves, the absolute FACTS of the case.
 
This is the WHOLE story...
  • 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. Despite 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.


The Owners, Sugar Pine Mine
Galice, OR.

22 comments:

  1. http://thediggings.com/mines/ormc20079

    It looks like there were 7 quit claim deed transfers since 1971.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, I think the mine in questions is this one:

    http://thediggings.com/mines/ormc20078

    You can see that the actions table goes back to 2/9/1846 and there are a lot of "DECISION/NOTICE" actions consistent with discussion that things started becoming an issue in 2012:

    http://thediggings.com/mines/ormc20078/actions

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, Diggings,

    In order to understand what any 'action' pertains to, you must have the BLM's publication 'Action Code Number Guide.' Most of the time, an 'action' is just somebody filing a piece of paperwork, like a quit claim or a small miner waiver or such.

    We'll be publishing many of our records here on the site for all the world to see - and there's a LOT! We're planning on having the whole history of the mine here, so everybody can see just how important this mine is.

    BLM wants this mine. They cannot have it. They will not have it. There is no judge on this planet who could possible overlook the mountain evidence we have in our possession (and in several locations - incase anybody is wondering! LOL!)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed! Looking forward to seeing the details behind the public records. Is ORMC20078 really the claim in question? Best of luck!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Best of luck to you folks in protecting your property and Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    BLM Tyranny? Not on OUR watch!

    - A Florida Oath Keeper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your support, Florida! We appreciate it!

      Delete
  6. Based on the documentation provided, it looks like you're trying to steal public lands. Your "chain of title" claim is specious; did you get that opinion from a licensed attorney? Please let us know who is representing you.
    The BLM is not trying to "steal your land". It's not your land; it's public land upon which you are working an unauthorized mine. All you have to do is file a plan of operation and provide a financial guaranty to provide for the cost of any damage your operation might do to the surface. Why do you think that you don't have to follow the same laws that all the other miners follow? Why are you above the law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Joel,

      Thank you for your comment and your interest in the Sugar Pine Mine.

      The Sugar Pine Mine is NOT an unauthorized mine.

      We're not trying to steal public land. We're not above the law. BLM are acting OUTSIDE the law. We are acting according to the Surface Resources Act of 1955. We follow the law. BLM do not. WE control the surface. BLM is not recognizing OUR rights.

      BLM have NO AUTHORITY over a mine which has surface rights and therefore we are NOT required to file a plan of operation under 43 CFR 3809. Familiar with it?

      Have you seen the chain of title? BLM hasn't, so unless you went and researched through the tens of thousands of pages of county records and Mining District ledgers and got each document individually like we did, then you haven't seen it either. BLM do not have these records. Mining claims used to be filed with the Mining Districts and the County.

      Our legal representative is not your concern.

      A little bit of advice - you should ALWAYS consider the source of ANY information. I'm sorry that you are being misled and lied to by an agency that is out of control. I'm even more sorry that you unquestioningly believe them.

      Feel free to ask more questions. We are completely transparent. Why don't you ask BLM the same questions, that is, if you really are interested in who is telling the truth and who is lying.

      Delete
    2. Is this connected to that guy on the Bid Dawg claim (no longer under that title) that insisted on muddying up the creek just around the corner past the forks on the N. Fork?

      Delete
    3. This is the Sugar Pine Mine, not the Big Dawg. And no, this has nothing to do with Cliff Tracy. You heard anybody mention the Big Dawg of Cliff Tracy? Why would you ask that? (It's OK, we know why.)

      And regarding your other comment, which you deleted -

      "Did you submit a viable plant to realize its value, or are you just looking to grandfather it more?" ( posted by 'brian' on May 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM)

      I assume you meant a 'plan.' No, Brian, we did not submit a Plan of Operations, since we have SURFACE RIGHTS. Under the Surface Resources Act of 1955, the Sugar Pine, being nearly 150 years old, controls the surface. BLM have no authority over the Sugar Pine to require a Plan of Operations.

      Delete
  7. The Department has the authority to open and close areas to mining locations. When lands are opened, they are subject to the mining law as it exists. them. When they are closed no one can even stake a claim on To allow mining claims to be located and then to judge them on standards other than those set up by the Congress and the Supreme Court is administrative legislation. If we are to adopt the philosophy that any department of government is to be vested with such vast powers, then it should be done by an act of the Congress and not by administrative decision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comment, James. Unfortunately, the powers that BLM were given have been abused and they are no longer operating under the government of this country - they are bordering on sedition.

    BLM do have the authority to withdraw claims, but they must put the claim through validity and give the miner the opportunity to prove discovery. They can't just withdraw a claim for no reason. But they do. Like I said, they're not operating under the laws of this land. They are drunk with power.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for standing up and demanding your rights be respected. We are in this mess because so many people gave up their rights and now no one knows what they are. It seems that many people are happy with their slavery. I am an Oath Keeper and I support this activity 100%. If it wasn't for your request for help and all those pictures of the guys with the guns, no one even know this is happening. People criticize this action but do not realize that this has happened lots of times before, and no one heard about it. This is getting peoples attention. This is also saying that we will not be stomped on.

    Again, thank you for bringing these activities to the publics attention.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for your support, Precinct 11! And thank you for your service too.

    It was never our intention for the focus to be on the Oath Keepers protecting the mine and our rights - but the media ran with it and unfortunately they don't care about the actual reason they are there. Most media outlets are still calling this a dispute over mineral rights. Several rabid, sociopathic, mentally ill, so-called journalists are using this in an attempt to connect it with issues and causes it has nothing to do with and nobody here subscribes to. (If you think I'm talking about you, then you need intervention - seek help immediately!)

    It's just a sad fact that BLM are intoxicated by their own powers and right now they are akin to insurgents. They are flouting the laws of their own government and acting outside their authority.

    Another unfortunate circumstance is the fact that the mine happens to be in Josephine County. Mention our county's name to a lawyer anywhere in this state and watch him guffaw with laughter. It's a joke. The corruption here is staggering. We've had one decent local politician in our entire history...she was recalled. Naturally. Can't have any of that constitutional for-the-people stuff going on - not in THIS county! Heck, no.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Happy new year. Hope the mine is still in operation and I'd love 2 get an update...

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is one of those situations where the people are absolutely right with proof to back it up and the government is wrong. Plain and simple. It's your land...private property....top to bottom. Defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Appears to be PUBLIC land on which a mine is operating.
    There is a chain of paper , which needs to be examined by the appropriate Court and Judge, and both parties, the so-called mine, and the BLM, must await that event.

    Fact that BLM, USFS, Atomic Energy Comm, USDA, and gosh knows how many other Agencies were established after the mining began is meaningless. American Indian tribes and "ownership" existed long before the US of A, but that does not nullify the existence and laws and constitution of USA.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andy, I refer you to a document entitled the Surface Resources Act of 1955.

    Please read the following documents before commenting further -

    Surface Resources Act of 1955

    And the following codifications of said act -

    30 USC 613 through 30 USC 615 (Codification of the Surface Resources Act.

    FSM 2813.13A (Claims which are verified as being valid prior to July 23rd, 1955 - Forest Service Manual)

    CFR 3714.3 (Codification of the Surface Resources Act)

    But you won't, will you? You don't care about what the law is, and you don't care about anybody's rights or the Constitution. And clearly, you have no idea what Public Land actually means either. It's not what you think or want it to be. Never will.


    ReplyDelete
  16. Unknown,

    Nothing has changed. The Bureau of Land Management still has not completed our FOIA requests and their internal Administrative Court (not a Court of Law,) IBLA, still refuse to make a ruling in the case.

    ReplyDelete

We thank you for your comment. Come back again soon!

- The Sugar Pine Folks.