May 26, 2017 
 Friday 
 
 

Forum
Topic:
Ideal Time for Facts

       

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 ]

 By Lone Wolf Geologist

09/21/2011  4:59PM

Keep in mind, Judges no longer work for the county, but the State of California.
 By Bigsbkahuna

09/21/2011  4:20PM

Is this why we have 12 to 20 per. Unemployment ?!

In California ?

The Golden State
 By Bigsbkahuna

09/21/2011  4:12PM

Go Mr. Miller

I will read your note to my daughter in the hopes they can get us out of this mess.

Viva California, and it's free citizens
 By bluejay

09/21/2011  8:15AM

During all this, where does Sierra County stand on the State's beating up on one of its resident companies who use to be a significant employer?

I strongly believe the County owes us as a result of the mistake of permitting the State's carpetbagging attorney lynch mob into our backyard.
 By Michael Miller

09/20/2011  12:18PM

The following is for the youth of America

California regulators are suing our corporation to protect their own personal interests. Unknown others are supporting litigation and other forms of interferences to either gain a personal advantage or for their own personal interests. None of these legal shenanigans benefit the public. The California employees who are initiating and perpetuating this particular lawsuit are doing it willfully, which, if supported by evidence, creates personal exposure to monetary restitution and criminal prosecution.

The thread of California Department of Conservation (formerly known as the Department of Mines & Geology) justification extends from a regulation born in legislation of 1976. Surface mines became a public concern when technology, equipment and the miner’s mental capacities to exploit low-grade large surface deposits of valuable minerals expanded. The fears were the surface disturbances after mining would cease. Reclamation became the solution and regulations were the guidelines to solutions.

Over the years the regulations expanded faster than open pit mines in California. The initial permit carried no or low costs; the surface disturbance requiring compliance shrank from 5 acres to a teaspoon of dirt; fees and monitoring increased like feral cats in Alleghany. Eventually, mining in California stopped as the miners and financiers moved to other countries. By the way, other countries have few regulations; therefore if stopping mining in California is a goal of environmental advocates, their approach has failed to protect the earth.

SMARA recognized conditions that existed prior to passing the law. The Sixteen to One sites qualified under this exemption except for a cut and fill bench that was excavated by a lessee after 1976. A reclamation plan was approved by lead agency, Sierra County, and after seven years the cut and fill were approved as reclaimed. A payment (bond) of $5,000 was returned to the Company.

There are widespread problems in California with regulation management. Individuals responsible and accountable to the public are not held accountable up the chain of command for negligence. (In the Executive Branch the governor is chief. In the Legislative Branch our Senators and Assemblymen are top dogs.) We are experiencing the worst kind of negligence by government employees…knowing and willful negligence. If proven, those perpetrators may face criminal prosecution as well.

California legislators and more noticeable all employees working in the Executive Branch are failing the public’s interests , rights and protection as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This lawsuit ignores constitutional rights.

Neither the Department of Conservation nor the State water regulators held a public administrative hearing to discuss and eventually vote on motions affecting the Sixteen to One mine (required). The mine never had the opportunity to face its accusers as required in regulations for both departments. This seems odd. If the charges of wrongdoing were harmful to the public, both agencies failed to act responsibly and in a timely fashion to stop or mitigate the source of the concern.

Both agencies waited years before filing a lawsuit. If the problem was serious, such as killing bugs or fish, why didn’t those responsible for monitoring the reports report the failures to file sooner and help with a solution? A common answer: they do not care about the information in the reports. They care about filing paper and collecting money.

It is the public agencies that are negligent not the Sixteen to One. If anybody failed the public, it is the agencies; however they do not really care about results. In both cases the negligence is gross, knowing and willful. Unfortunately, the prosecutor for both lawsuits is also the enforcer of criminal complaints against those who hurt the People of California. The Attorney General is prosecuting the wrong party. Justice, in our third branch of government, is difficult and costly to attain.

I am trying to stay focused on SMARA (Surface Mining and Reclamation Act) lawsuit as cited by Rick but both lawsuits are similar. The Sixteen to One is an underground operation and has surface improvements (assets) such as roads, buildings and storage sites. Should gold mining cease, these improvements will remain. They are not only assets to the owners, but they benefit the public as well. The Sixteen to One mine is not subjected to SMARA. The government knows this or should have known this prior to requesting the Attorney General to file a claim for damages, which hurt the gold mine operation. Youth of America, the saying is old but true: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
 By Rick

09/18/2011  8:56PM

So far, no one has responded to my question.

I'll cut straight to the issue:

My question regards the lawsuit against our Mine, specifically regarding how ambient arsenic levels in the local water upstream and downstream of the mine remains not only ambient, but also how the thug legal angle falls flat and hence is spurious....

The spurious onslaught has shifted. Since there is no "angle" for them regarding ambient levels of naturally occuring arsenopyrite, the thugs try to re-define the historic nature of this operation:

Hey, guess what??? The Original Sixteen to One Mine is now a "surface mine" !!!

REALLY?????
 By Rick

09/09/2011  9:01PM

In my years being associated with this stellar underground mine, I cannot recall any hint that the original Sixteen to One Mine is a "surface mine", and does anyone ?????

Long ago, mill-processing may have brought under-ground mining rock to the surface, and then all piles were sent down into the mill within hours of being exposed to the surface.

Residual non-baring coarse rock was routinely sorted through the grizzly process. Most of this rock has lined the roads to the portal to support safe travel.

HOW is it possible that the ongoing legal issues concerning Water, in a current outrageous legal action against this mine, is a debate surrounding whether the Original Sixteen to One Mine is a surface mine??????

Outrageous.

Anyone with common knowledge to identify this fraud, I implore you to go on record to decry this onslaught.

I will personally testify to the fact that surface rock has no gold; that never has surface mining been in practice; and testify to this fact ever since the mill was shut down.

If some a-hole lawyers want to suggest that hauling underground rock above the surface for mill-processing (stopped a decade ago) somehow suggest an above-ground mining project today, I will eat a donkey.

And I'll go further: any a-hole state-sponsored lawyer who suggests that a 'surface-mining-operation' exists today and/or since the mill shut itself down, I invite their deposition.
 By bluejay

08/04/2011  11:20AM

Martin

I would recommend going to the website http://www.martinarmstrong.org and read all of his writings. He is the world expert on this subject.

You will be doing yourself a great favor while adding to your over-all knowledge.
 By mnewkom

08/04/2011  10:16AM

What would happen and how would
thing change if our nation went
on the GOLD standard. Will some-
one please answer that?
 By Michael Miller

08/03/2011  10:48AM

Responsible Use of California’s Natural Resources.
Excerpts from a seasoned mining man living in California.

Biggest problem is California society, its culture and actions or inaction. This general statement’s value must identify specifics for any directional change to take place. Instead of gold as the metal of interest, substitute copper. Mankind needs copper to maintain its quality of life or improve the lives of less fortunate peoples. (Some people believe that gold is an unneeded relic.)

An economic copper deposit is in northern California (Plumas County). It sits idle, no action and questionable plans for exploitation. Why?
1. Cost of permitting and ongoing delays.
2. Canadian security laws encourage mineral extraction while US laws discourage mining.
3. Philosophical or attitudinal approach to investment by Americans is short-term. A mine is a long-term commitment. Sacramento is a good example of government paying for votes in the next election. Short-term thinking.
4. Public does not want to be bothered. Not true for small minority that actively oppose mineral extraction anywhere. California is a handy place to live, work and practice their trade.
5. Public lack of understanding history. Apathy. Don’t want to be bothered.
6. Corporate insiders of many exploration companies (officers, directors, geologists) interested in good meals, travel, nice salaries at shareholder expense or hyping stock value. These Canadian companies increase outstanding shares like rabbits create bunnies by diluting shareholder interest via private stock offerings.
 By Michael Miller

05/19/2011  1:25PM

Steve Forbes (see four entries below) opined a return to the gold standard, which cause me to ponder its consequences with 17 questions. I hoped to read your thoughts. I’ll give number 1 a shot. They are tough questions without simple answers. Pick one and offer us your thoughts (answer all if your brain can stay engaged).

1. Advocates have differing motives for advocating gold as a security. Since 1975 guys grabbed gold as a topic to make money selling advice, forecasts, books or articles and speaking engagements. Some have made their living doing this and a few continue today. The gold standard may lessen the unknowns about present and future values of gold. Interest may subside and there goes the advocates cash cow. (Gold investment/speculation history records peaks and troughs and bear markets longer than bull. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s a negative for gold was that it did not produce income as money in the bank produced interest. Therefore, when the pundits saw interest rates rising they shouted that gold was a poor investment.)

During these years I read dozens of gold bugs or nay Sayers newsletters, etc. I also attended conferences in New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Spokane, Denver and San Francisco. True gold miners (producers) were only in attendance at one, a special private two-day event in New York. During the 70’s and 80’s there were thousands of gold companies. Hype reached a crescendo emanating across America. The word on the street was that the best stock return came from exploration companies not gold producing companies. The reasoning was that exploration companies had a terrific upside potential. Once a company went into production, revenue and profit became known. It seems it was easier to hype the unknown over the known.

My answer to number one is “No”. The seventeen questions are listed below.

1. Will gold advocates think conversion is positive for them?

2. For the country?

3. For gold?

4. Who are future gold buyers and why buy (hold) if gold and dollars exchange at par?

5. What happens if the printing presses continue to create paper dollars?

6. Where will the gold be stored?

7. Who will conduct oversight or audits?

8. What is different now than 1933, when FDR’s administration bumped the dollars required to buy gold?

9. Will the government decide it is in its interest to order Americans to “sell” their gold for dollar redemption?

10. Will it be a criminal offense for those who refuse?

11. How is life different today?

12. How are our monetary economics the same?

13. What will a new Gold Standard do for us? For you?

14. Will other currencies float against the dollar or gold?

15. What if the EU or the Yuan ties their price (value) to an ounce of gold?

16. How easy will it be for people to convert their dollars into gold?

17. Or their gold into Dollars?
 By David I

05/14/2011  3:20AM

Our nation was on the gold standard through the 1920's. I Remember spending 3 each 50 dollar gold certificates; which I received from a bank when I cashed a check in 1965. I still have the dinning room set that I bought then.
Our nation is still on the gold standard: a "Federal Reserve Note Dollar" can still be traded for gold sold by the mint, based on 1 troy oz. coin weight.
The value of the dollar has the backing of the gross domestic product, the security of all our commodity wealth, the productive capability of our society, and our national security at arms to protect it.
So if you want gold for your dollars, then buy gold, for in time the mines will meet the demand as the reserve dwindles.
I recommend that folks read the " Sermon On The Mount" by our Lord Jesus Christ, from the Bible. He gave to us the "Lords Prayer": the understanding of this request by man as stated in this prayer: "GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD" is the basic responsibility to the economic well being of human kind to support all of us. It is the need to fill our bellies that drive our economy.
A volume of static gold is still being stored at Fort Knox. That a certain amount of gold is coined and sold to the public at market value in dollars. I think our nation has got it right with the economics of gold and The Federal Reserve Note.
 By Michael Miller

05/13/2011  4:26PM

You don't have to answer all seventeen questions asked two entries below. I'll give it a try next week but come on, give it a shot.
 By David I

05/13/2011  2:09AM

a good book " The GOLD Standard in Theory and History
Edited by Barry Eichengreen

Another good read is
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. " No State shall coin money; emit Bills of Credit; Make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of Debts;".....
The nation is not on the gold and silver standard, but by Constitutional law the States are required to be. This a national issue of Constitutional Contempt.
 By Michael Miller

05/11/2011  4:56PM

Steve Forbes is quoted today as seeing a return to a dollar backed by gold or what is historically called the Gold Standard. He goes on to state the need for, the reasons why and the result of America’s returning to the Gold Standard. We know most of this; however what few ever write about is what this means for gold, private gold holders and how the gold/dollar conversion will actually work.

Since the great majority of people or companies do not have a gold-based investment, there will be lackluster interest in deep analytical study of such a conversion. Will gold advocates think conversion is positive for them? For the country? For gold? Who are the future buyers and why buy if gold and dollars exchange at par?

What happens if the printing presses continue to create paper dollars? Where will the gold be stored? Who will conduct oversight or audits? What is different now than 1933, when FDR’s administration bumped the dollars required to buy gold? And will the government decide it is in its interest to order Americans to “sell” their gold for dollar? Will it be a criminal offense for those who refuse?

In 1971 the gold market began changing. On December 31, 1974 the restrictions were lifter on ownership and price controls. How is life different today? How are our monetary economics the same?

As gold miners (those who find, mine and sell gold) what will a new Gold Standard do for us? It will stabilize the dollar price of our product and I imagine that other currencies will float against the dollar or gold. Or will they? What if the EU or the Yuan ties their price (value) to an ounce of gold? How easy will it be for people to convert their dollars into gold? Or their gold into Dollars?

I’ve been a gold miner, gold producer, an investor and a voracious student of gold for 36 years. I graduated with an economic major from UCSB, familiarized myself with the IMF and Federal Reserve and cannot readily answer these seventeen questions. Will you try?
 By Rick

03/09/2011  9:17PM

[putting Mike Miller's previous post back on top]

read below:
 By Michael Miller

03/09/2011  12:53PM

COURT AFFIRMS FORESTRY’S POSITIVE ROLE IN ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE is a headline in THE SIERRA booster dated March 4, 2011. The decision verifies carbon benefits of active forest management in a strongly worded opinion by Judge Patrick Riley in El Dorado County Superior Court.

Environmental activists challenged 19 timber harvest plans (THPs) and argued that the plans did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because they did not properly or adequately address greenhouse gas emissions from the timber harvesting. Judge Riley disagreed. He said, “In conclusion the court finds all of the issues raised by Plaintiff (CBD) in its opening and reply briefs, whether directly addressed herein or not, are without merit in so far as they contend the THPs involved failed to fully advise the public concerning the GHG issue as well as the entire environmental impact picture and provide a complete and penetrating overview of the environmental and GHG impacts in particular.”

The following quote is the best part of the analysis and why this forest (natural resource industry) decision relates to our gold mining (natural resource production). “This ruling means SPI and other forestland owners can proceed with forest management activities that provide family wage jobs in rural California communities, supply lumber for consumers and conserve forest resources.” Hip, hip, hurray! Hip, hip, hurray for a decision of correct judicial thinking!

The California Forest Association president David Bischel offered, “Efforts by activists to stop timber harvesting and force jobs out of rural California by arguing that forestry harms the environment were soundly rejected by the court. Forestry is the only economic sector in the state that provides a net carbon sequestration benefit, yet taxpayers unwittingly subsidize an endless stream of litigation designed to block it.”

The plaintiff is The Center for Biological Diversity. How and who finances this most likely non-profit corporation? Activists have performed wonderful social, economic and scientific behaviors throughout history. The environmental fear and unscientific banter went too far and became lost in a herd of well meaning people who have been ruthlessly misled. The pendulum swings and it is picking up momentum. Even though, our plight with water regulators from Sacramento needs a broader base of awareness. Help any way you can. Our young men in Sierra County, Yuba County and Nevada County also need “family wage jobs”. Efforts to stop mining in California harms everyone except the handful of activists and lawyers who continue to mislead the public and the governmental employees who carry out the foul repression.
 By Michael Miller

05/22/2010  6:18PM

ARTICLE X of the Constitution of California, Section 2 reads,

“It is hereby declared…the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to the beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable…and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.”

Can any other language and the interpretation thereof be any clearer that this?
DO blue-collar jobs that increase the GDP benefit California?
Are the interests of the people influenced by newly mined gold from California?
Will newly mined gold be beneficial to the public welfare?

If you agree, please feel free to strengthen you beliefs.
If you do not agree with the above, please offer you evidence and explain your opinion and the logic thereof.
 By Rick

05/17/2010  4:50PM

Bluejay points out the no-brainer which somehow escapes the entrenched burocrats: they need funding.

Hmmm....either by confiscatory regulatory intrusion, or by creating a flourishing situation that contributes.

Somehow there is a breakdown in brain-power at the State regulation level, since, as I pointed out earlier under another topic:

A public sector job is dependent upon private sector taxes to exist...initially through taxation, or easier for them, criminally, through un-regulated czar-like water-board-like un-elected boards with no electoral accountability.

Seems like the public sector regulators have fingered it out: they would have to pay 100% of their salaries in income tax to justify their existence (be the accountant for this)...or pull out the red-pen and start fining the private sector. Heck, everyoner hates mines, right?

Target the golden goose. No-one will know, especially with the politics of green-crap so prevelant.

Regulation = feed trough
 By Dave I.

05/15/2010  1:54PM

I like it blue Jay. Write the governor, and an article to the Press Democrat We need to influence public opinion now for the excesses of the government regulation. i can,t do it all my self, even though I try. Keep it up Friend. this Forum is great.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 ]

 

  
 
© 2017 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