October 21, 2018 

Water and Arsenic: which came first?


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

 By martin newkom

03/20/2011  1:44PM

I wonder if it would be beneficial
to file a claim with State Bar
against those CDAA attorneys.
 By Big Al

03/17/2011  11:46PM

Mike, are you familiar with the lawsuit that give us the right to sue the government, Bivens V six unknown agents?
 By Michael Miller

03/17/2011  11:14AM

I’ve been reviewing my early research and notes shortly after being served the lawsuit initiated by the California Regional Water Board. The research brought up many questions of fact and why the suit was filed in the first place. The California Bar Association and laws require that it is a no-no for lawyers to mislead a California judge (as Gayle Filter, former lead private prosecutor of the CDAA, did here in Sierra County). The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General has a plethora of misleading “facts”, so I continue to be confused why after further review, the referee (the Attorney General) is not eliminating them as evidence and reversing the play of the water agency.

Well, that is not the point of this short note to you, who are developing your judgments about this lawsuit. It is this note that I scrawled in a notebook of legal procedural research. I offer it with humbleness:

Don’t know what to say. Don’t know what to write.
Don’t know what to pay. Don’t know what to cite.
Don’t know what to pray. Don’t know what to fight.
Don’t know how to slay. Don’t know what is right.

Thanks for your interest and ideas are always appreciated. When environmental issues are used to hinder honest work when there is no actual evidence of environmental harm, all of us suffer the consequences of misleading the court or other responsible public servants.
 By Michael Miller

03/15/2011  12:47PM

WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT acts like a rogue elephant too often. The mine is crippled and remains so until the people working in the water agencies honor the laws that birthed their regulations. These people must pay greater attention to the demands upon them as written in the regulations. My dictionary also defines “rogue” as a dishonest and unprincipled person; a trickster; rascal. The 16 to 1 is just one example; however it is not just one simple isolated case.

The roguish behavior of water State employees wants to control everybody and everything. Is it control or wipe out an industry? It is very disturbing. What’s the end game? Is there intent to kill the mine? Water agency people are zealots. Logic and reason don’t necessarily work with zealots. Any movement to stamp out California’s gold mining industry continues with groups as a stated cause. It gives selfish, small mined people a sense of importance, even a sense of power.

The reckless, unlawful and willful legal attack initiated by specific people working for California’s water agencies must cease. The two letters below hopefully will reach responsible managers who will identify and correct those people who initiated legal actions against this old California Company.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Date: March 8, 2011

Facility ID: 5A462023001
Invoice Number: WD-0046644

Enclosed is a letter to the State Water Resource Control Board that is self-explanatory.

On behalf of Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. I request that you take all steps necessary to evaluate the above-identified facility’s assigned water classification. If a permit for this property is lawfully required, your agency has assigned the wrong classification.

Please be advised and take into account that there were no inspections of this property for eleven years. In 1998 the milling operation ceased which stopped all waste discharges from the operation. Letters were sent and are in your files requesting that a new classification be assigned based upon the actual situations at the property. No one responded.

Last year I noticed that the classification changed from 2B to 2C without any explanation. The invoice was paid with a declaration that the fee was inappropriately assessed due to the wrong classification. This year another request for payment was sent. It was not paid but a return letter was sent to the billing agent with an explanation and request for a reclassification. No one contacted the Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.

The actions of the Water Control Board have injured this company and continue to cause a loss of money, business opportunities and other related harm. It is beyond the breadth of my mind to understand how and why the California water public agency continues to ignore its responsibility to a California business and the general public. Please send this letter to whoever has the responsibility for establishing the fieldwork to properly classify water regulations in Sierra County. Also, please contact me directly forthwith that this request is in the proper department for review.

Michael M. Miller, President

State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Administration Services
P.O. Box 1888
Sacramento, CA 95812-1888

Date: March 8, 2011

Facility ID: 5A462023001

Invoice Number: WD-0046644

A Notice of Violation of failure to pay the required annual fee, posted in Sacramento on March 3, 2011, was received today, March 8, 2011. For questions a number was given, 916-464-4612, which I called about 11am today. I left a return phone number, name and Invoice Number with a request for a return call.

There is no violation because the amount cited as past due in not the correct amount of the required fee according to the law. The law requires a fee is set according to standards, which were ignored by the individuals responsible for setting a required fee.
An on site request was sent to the appropriate water agency upon receipt of the invoice. There has been no contact by the water agency to investigate and reclassify the Sixteen to One mine site.

Please acknowledge your receipt of this Notice for Correction and take steps necessary to correct the wrongful classification and subsequent invoice that you write is violating Water Code Section 13261.

On behalf of Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc
Michael M. Miller, President
 By Michael Miller

03/07/2011  3:45PM

“This represents overwhelming indictment of the junk science used to justify nearly two decades of water diversions.” U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, representing California’s 21st Congressional District.

Water concerns, a topic since the 1860’s, will continue in California indefinitely. There are no solutions, only options for control. Smart, dumb, foolish, wise, sensible, ignorant, impractical, magnanimous, selfish, practical, devious, well meaning and evil minded persons are running the water show in our state. Representative Nunes wrote in the Sacramento Bee, “The science used by Delta regulators is so bad that a federal judge ruled against the government in a landmark lawsuit. Yet the environmental left continues to wage a merciless attack on water users – particularly San Joaquin Valley farmers. They are shamelessly using debunked science to advocate the forced retirement of 1.3 million acres of farmland – a land mass nearly three times as large as the state of Rhode Island.”

Farming in the Sacramento Valley has continued in my family for four generations. Now I am a gold miner and producer in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water is a concern. The newspapers don’t have many stories about the issues a gold miner or other natural resource providers face just to operate. California’s proven gold fields are effectively shut down. The gold miners’ numbers are reduced to a faded memory. Will our crop farmers follow the same path towards extinction?

My wonderment about articles like the recent NY Times gold story (The New York Times National Saturday, February 12,2011, page A11) centers on the reporter. Then wonderment moves to the policies of the editorial staff, publisher and finally the principles of the owners. With such inane reporting what is the rest of the paper’s usefulness or credibility? To research, write and publish current stories about the great California Sierra Nevada gold belt and not expose the reader to mining in the Alleghany Mining District is silly to say the least and vacuous to tell the truth. Does a venerable newspaper such as the NY Times condone this quality of story telling?

Mining people laugh or snicker when we read stories in the Times or most publications (story titled, “Old Mines Reopen In a New Cry of ‘Gold!’ ”). Actually we cry silently to ourselves. We are outraged about the latest television assault on our credibility. With the Discovery Channel portraying gold miners and a gold operation in Alaska on national TV as serious, it is no wonder that America is not interested in gold mining. The production of America’s bountiful natural resources located in California and other states is crippled by depictions such as these. So, why are gold miners portrayed as greedy, buffoons or uncaring rapists on mother Earth? How could any serious professional reporter or organization not uncover the Alleghany Mining District during discovery and due diligence? I am baffled. How much did the reality actors get paid for their fictional portrayal of open pit gold mining?

Enough of these questions for now. Solutions are where collective activities must focus. This is just one reason that Original Sixteen to One Mine (by the way, NY Times reporter, this California company is the oldest American owned operation in the US and its premier mine, the Sixteen to One, is the longest operating gold mine in North America. How did you miss it?) struggles to keep its company afloat in an hostile, governmental environment. It is an example of gold mining in the 21st century.

Not all mines are the same and certainly not all operators are either; however, to continually cite ‘potential’, ‘may occur’, ‘could cause’ or other unproven and usually remote or non-applicable negative environmental outcomes from mining are insulting to America. Whatever your philosophical calling, political label, economic prejudice or social outlook may be, those of us who take our work seriously and have the history and knowledge to carryout environmental responsibilities in these blue collar industries of tangible production, think about what you read and hear! Ignorance is the enemy. The pendulum is moving away from reckless account based on fear. Our current situation with unlawful treatment of surface water flowing through our property is an example of willful negligence; however it is willful negligence by our public water control agency.
 By Michael Miller

01/18/2011  12:01PM

A shareholder wrote the PLF suggesting it gets involved in our situation. A case management analyst declined for reason that resembled “boiler plated language”. Following is my response, which was copied to the PLF president as well.

Pacific Legal Foundation January 11, 2011
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, Ca 95834

Dear Teresa Sotelo,

Upon review of the letter you sent to Ren Renzel, your conclusion is actually contrary to the fine policy, goals and work of the Pacific Legal Foundation. The foundation should undertake the matter thrust upon Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. (O16).

Please reverse your conclusion after considering information that you probably did not have.
1. O16 has legal representation. It has answered the complaint filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of California. The foundation is not sought for its representation but for its research and experience as advisors. There will be no client/attorney obligations and a suitable agreement will clarify this point.
2. O16’s legal defense will not be the responsibility of the foundation.
3. The underlying “root” issues advanced by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of California hurt all Californians and have evolved over thirty years of lawlessness between the three branches of our government. A strong case exists that the foundation’s involvement may increase donations to the foundation beyond the actual time spent; witness the behavior of Mr. Renzel, who brought this issue to the foundation, reinstated his support after years of abstinence and also contributed to O16’s legal defense fund.
4. Squashing the misguided claims by the California Regional Water Board, Central Valley Region staff will advance legal precedents that will help the people of California and people and business throughout the United States. The issues claimed by the water agency rock the very foundation of appropriateness for PLF participation.
5. The complaint was filed in May 2009. It has been answered. Admission requests, interrogatories and depositions have taken place. The time for defendants’ effort is at hand. Yes, the State of California is more powerful that O16, another righteous reason for PLF involvement. If this lawsuit remains successfully unchallenged, a great loss to the public’s well-being will follow. The public knows that the overreach of environmental claims of harm have resulted in lessening the quality of life for Californians. The public needs champions to push the pendulum of overreach to the center. Our situation is a prime example of an administrative agency going beyond the underlying legislation that created its very existence. PLF should suppress fear mongering by government personnel and others. Our government must be a leader of ethical business practices. When it goes astray, someone must set it back on the proper path.

I hope the above addresses your stated concerns as to why PLF should not get involved. Following are items that should be recognized so PLF does get involved.

My personal first contact with PLF was about 1978. I was prosecuted twice for misdemeanor infractions and acquitted in the second trial. I paid for the expenses of my defense. The issues were pretended to be environmental. They were not. They were power grabs under the disguise of environmental protection. The game warden and district attorney for Sierra County conspired to abuse the law. It was wrong. It adversely affected the public welfare in Sierra County and California; so I filed a lawsuit for damages, which reached the appellate court. I called PLF but was unsuccessful in getting help to push back phony environmental behavior from our government employees. My contact was Rob Rivett. The game warden was eventually fired for stealing gas and the DA was not reelected in Sierra County.

My second contact with PLF was in 2005, and I spoke with Rob again. The mine, its manager and I (its president) were criminally charged with felony manslaughter after a tragic accident took the life of our friend and fellow miner. The private prosecutors worked for the California District Attorney Association. Gale filter was the leader of four attorneys who infiltrated small northern counties and took over prosecution. A Sierra Court judge set aside the criminal charges, case over. It was not over for my friend and seasoned attorney, George Gilmour. After the dismissal is when I called PLF for help.
The CDAA lawyers broke several laws during their presentation to the Sierra County Grand Jury. George and I, along with the support of everyone who knew the facts of this unspeakable dastardly behavior by officers of the court, filed a lawsuit to expose the lawyers’ behavior and intentions to privatize prosecution and criminalize accidents. (The Grand Jury transcript records it all.) We broke the special privilege of “prosecutor immunity”, won every motion the defense put forth and lost in the Third Court of Appeals based upon the most ridiculous legal nonsense most of us have ever read. The PLF refused to help us with the same reasons you state.

If the practices displayed by the well-respected CDAA were not stopped, the public would be one step closer to servitude without representation under the law. I was unable to convince Rob that withholding exculpatory evidence, committed perjury by a member of the California State Bar, and misleading the court were serious impediments to establishing public well being. (The record supports these allegations.) Mr. Gale Filter is named in a report for prosecutorial misconduct, recently released by the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University (a copy of a newspaper article is enclosed). Gale Filter left CDAA and now is employed by the State of California and the EPA enforcer. He should be disbarred from practicing law in California.

This is my third attempt to engage PLF in legal situations that affect everyone in California. It goes to the heart of the trust we give our three branches of government.
When those trusts are broken, the behavior must become publicly wide spread in order to change the patterns of behavior. Right now poor execution of regulations is hurting the job market, businesses and financial revenue sources for government. Do you doubt these assertions?

In our global economy and market place, domestic production, which means local, is in the public’s best interest. Knowledgeable people recognize the Sixteen to One mine as the leader of principled gold mining in the twenty-first century. Its operation touches three centuries of mining in California. It is the oldest US publicly owned gold mining corporation. It also was established under California law. It has historical value, educational value and economic value for all of us. It is under a ruthless attack and an unlawful one, I might add.

California has one of the worlds most proven gold deposits. It is the 200 mile gold belt in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. It sits under producing for obvious reasons. This is not in California’s best interest, especially for the proclaimed environmental advocates. They just are plain ignorant of the realities of science. Unfortunately, the California water agency that is responsible for administrating the law in Sierra County is failing its duty to the People of the State of California. The personnel may be ignorant but I suspect a small vocal minority decrying gloom and doom as well as spreading fear taints the agency. This is sad. The administration of all regulations must adhere to reality. Public agencies like the Central Valley Water Quality Regional Board must improve its behavior. The loss to California and the nation is too great to ignore.

Well, there is much more but this letter is growing longer than anticipated. Will it be three strikes and we are out? Let’s hope not for the sake of Californians. I am right. We sure could use the talent and resources of PLF to set a government agency back on the right path of protecting Californians. Your foundation will become proud of its support once it explores the issues and helps us defeat this unwarranted power grab.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Meister Miller

 By Rick

01/13/2011  5:25PM


Whoever you contacted needs to be unseated at the next election.

Please, let's all contact our congression representative of the 4th District.
 By bluejay

01/12/2011  11:13PM

Amen, Rick

It's plainly, tyranny.

I asked my State elected officials for help in this matter and THEY ALL chose to ignore me.

They are all a pack of liars and cheats.

Check this out today from http://www.jsmineset.com:

Jim Sinclair’s Commentary

The unfunded state pension liabilities are $5.2 trillion, twice what they estimate.

States in the present business cannot tax their way out of their deficit and future liabilities. The sovereignty of state will come into question.

Bloomberg estimated 100 to 150 municipalities will go broke. That is very low.

The putts that scream about Europe should take a closer look at this.
 By Rick

01/11/2011  5:23PM

Everyone should be shocked:

The suing party, the Water Board (an insult to water), the plaintiffs, haven't inspected the mine-site for 13 years??????? and yet they proceed to steal private property through a lawsuit???

Mike, knowing that every entry on this forum is probably admissable "evidence" in a litigation, I am completely shocked that they have the BALLS to continue.

Water Board: by 'BALLS' I mean your crushing and completely brash disregard for the very water you pretend to protect...the BALLS I'm talking about haven't been in use since the mine discontinued the milling process.

HOW can an public agency created to oversee water in California blatantly proceed litigation without fullfilling its primary objective? They haven't even gone up to look. They haven't even gone up to measure themselves, despite the mandate that the burden of proof and monitoring water is their responsibility. They have given the middle finger.

Simple, in Statism terms:

1) forget primary objective

2) be corrupt

3) choose political target

4) assume nobody's watching

5) pad your pockets with $$$ you don't have yet and need to find

6) find it in a mine.... ("everyone's against mining, right?")

7) forget #5 which points out the debt which you forget and plan on confiscating anyway

7) call an appointed bench in advance and preparation for appeal, sctatch, scratch....

I could go on and on, but that would give away the defense.

Make no mistake about this: we are witnessing a quasi-governmental non-elected board of purchased a-holes attempting to steal private property. They will not prevail, and will be stopped.

 By Michael Miller

01/10/2011  4:44PM

The following letter was sent September 2008. I never received a response. The next correspondence from the water agency personnel was service of a lawsuit. On May 1, 2009, the People of California via the California Regional Water Quality Board filed a
“Complaint for Damages” in Sierra County. Is this how our administration government is supposed to work? It does not seem legal and after reading legislative matters it isn’t.

Patricia Leary, Senior Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Resolution of Alleged Violation, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc., Sierra County

Thank you for the opportunity to again address the issue of permits for the above California Corporation. Prior to the long sought staff inspection (July 2, 2008), the company asked for a reevaluation of its requirements and classification of its operation in Sierra County. As noted in the recent report, the last inspection of the mine by Regional Water Board staff was November 18, 1997. Due to significant changes in the operation and stated to the Regional Water Board, the reporting requirements were seriously out dated.

This small operating gold mine company spent in excess of $250,000 over the past twenty years on data accumulation, testing and mitigation. The results paint a clear picture that (1) there is no downstream evidence to suggest toxic discharge; (2) the annual water flows are predictable according to the four seasons and weather patterns; (3) the staff has turned a deaf ear to our company’s concerns about the science of this particular mine site as it relates to surface water flows and more. In the process the Regional Water Board has interfered with the company’s ability to operate and stay in business.

In your September 9, 2008 letter, #6 is true because the Regional Water Board staff is so backlogged with work that it could not react to our renewal request in a timely manner.

This Company has a 100-year history and a lifetime of environmental care and conservation. One visual inspection will confirm that California and its public is not threatened by the surface water that flows across the Company’s property. Testing has confirmed that the results are predictable and benign. To state otherwise is scientifically absurd.

Statement can always be misconstrued. For example in the last report under Observations and Comments, the writer reports, “600 pounds of mercury was historically used in the mill.” This is false. The operation is permitted to have 600 pounds on site. The amount is significantly less and it is retorted and recycled. There appears to still be ideas emanating in your agency that have no facts or evidence supporting them.

My suggestion or recommendation is to get some knowledgeable people who have authority to settle this permit process. The alternative is to go into the judicial branch of our government for a decision. This venerable company, which is a very important employer for workers in our region, has no desire to go there. Please reply.

 By Michael Miller

01/05/2011  4:54PM

In the last newsletter # 53 on December 3, 2010, I mistakenly called the upcoming motion by the Attorney General on behalf of the water agency a “summary judgment”. The pending motion is a summary adjudication and is explained in the following civil code. The newsletter is posted under ‘NEWSLETTERS’ if you want to refresh your memory.

Grounds for and effect of summary adjudication; procedure on motion.

Par. 437c(f)(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause or action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. However, a party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.
 By Rick

01/03/2011  10:53AM

Still on track....

This was always a rhetorical question, of course, to point out that arsenic and water were both around before the Water Board, CDAA and other criminal intents began their systematic attack on free enterprise and freedom, specifically targeting the Original Sixteen to One Mine and also Mike Miller personally by suggesting that somehow the mine and its CEO predated the natural deposits in the Sierra Nevada.

The answer is, by the way, arsenic. As the elements reset their new terrestrial atomic clocks through the differentiation of the planet, water arrived via asteroid and the subsequent chemical reactions to follow. (Incidentally, some comets emit arsenic in mass ejections.)

This, though, seems to have escaped the thugs...which of course makes sense to them, since facts are meerly a distraction when neo-communism and Marxism must prevail... (remember that distruction of history, historical facts and destruction of freedom are right up there at the top of their manifesto.)
 By Tommyknocker

01/02/2011  3:55PM

Sorry, we got off track...
Which came first, arsenic or water

Is it possible to know the answer to that? Maybe from a Geologists or Chemists point of view?
 By Tommyknocker

01/01/2011  6:46PM

On a side note to the other part of your last post...I am a weights & measures inspector for a Cen/Cal county & have much contact with "new" citizen business owners in my area like you described. Lets just say I see a lot of them at our local Tea Party gatherings...They are mostly hard working people that have jumped through uncountable hoops to achieve their dreams in America (most are legal residents/citizens) and are now absolutely buried by "fees and permits/costs...they don't get it! They are also the object of extreme racism from other "minorities".
 By Tommyknocker

01/01/2011  6:38PM

Thanks Rick & happy New Year!
I am a prolific letter writer and am good at it. I started when the Ca. Fish & Shame did their EIR for suction dredging back in 1994. Suction dredging used to be my passion (along w/Ca. history) but now it is standing up and fighting for our freedom! I will read the newsletter from Mike again then I'll have some righteous stuff to write to some bureaucrats.
 By Michael Miller

12/31/2010  12:35PM

Newsletter #53 is now available to read in full context. The prior posting cut off four pages. Thanks to a reader in Hawaii for bringing this to our attention. To see, go to index on left side of home page:Newsletters.
 By Rick

12/30/2010  5:21PM

TommyK...welcome aboard, and you've hit it on the head of the nail. Our focus is what the hell do we do about it!!!

You posting here is a start. We need to step it up and use everything we can...we are in survival mode.

I'm passing along all I can to every place that will listen. I implore you to do all you can cyber-link-wise, email-wise, word-of-mouth-wise, contact-Congress-wise, ALL we can muster.

This is not an exclusive issue to the Original Sixteen to One Mine. Although I am closely passioned to this particular outrage.

Yesterday I stopped for gasoline at a local stop. Yes, and ethnic owner, like me, although my heritage is highland Scott and his is middle-eastern; we exchanged similar outrages while exchanging commerce:

Me: "I guess the price of fuel is rising."

him: "You cannot believe it, how difficult it is today to simply do business. Just a year ago, all I needed was to buy a lisence to run a business, a simple gasoline station, paying a tax to make a business, which was what we are willing to do. Now I can't believe it!! @$#%^#!!!

"A tax for the gasoline. But now we are talking PERMITS, and when did this become a form of tax???

"Two years ago it was a single permit for the permission to operate a business with gasoline. Now we need to pay for new permits? Why? This is the same operation, and they ask for new permits? A permit for gasoline....a permit for cigarettes...a permit for beer...a permit for food...a permit for underground tanks...a permit for a permit!!! We are being taxed on tax!!!"

Somehow we all need to figure out a way to STOP THIS CRAP!

It may take me, a white guy with a passion for my country, along with a middle-eastern new immigrant gas-station-owning business to stand outside with a huge sign so that the "news" makes a drive-by mention of it; or it may take our Tea Party voices; or it may take a revolution, but I know it will take something.

The boiling point is here.

This Mine, and Mike at it's helm, is one of our focal points. Time to get out of our shells and be heard. Let's stategize and get busy.
 By Tommyknocker

12/29/2010  9:29PM

Howdy all,
Just signed on today but have been watching this tragedy unfold for many years, I am a former resident of Grass Valley (1978-1989). I will support the mine in any way I can. I think we all know that this is not about arsenic, salmon or the blunt nosed leopard lizard. It's about control and money (extortion). No amount of good science or even constitutional law will stop these people in government from pursuing their Marxist agenda. So, which came first,water or arsenic? It doesn't matter to them!
 By Michael Miller

12/22/2010  2:25PM


A Case Management Conference was held in Superior Court in Sierra County yesterday at 1:30pm. On the telephone were Deputy Attorney General Jeff Reusch and Original Sixteen to One attorney, Klaus Kolb. These conferences are required to keep the court informed of progress between the parties. The next one is scheduled for March 25, 2011 at 8:30am.

This conference has been in my mind since the last conference held in September. First, we discussed the California Department of Conservation lawsuit against the company. In September Deputy Reusch and two staff from Sacramento examined the property in Alleghany, took measurements and were to prepare a map of what they observed as “human disturbance”. When the map is prepared, I am to receive a copy to remove areas that do not fall under the Surface Mining And Reclamation Act (SMARA). We have annually reported that no area is subjected to SMARA regulations.

California’s Water Board lawsuit was the next topic. Deputy Reusch said he would file a “summary adjudication “ motion in January. The plaintiff believes that settlement in not an option. Klaus spoke about his attempts to discuss settlement options and said there is some disagreement about the position of the Central Water Board staff. Since I am also named personally as a defendant in the water lawsuit, the Judge asked me if I had comments. Following are my written remarks. I add some spontaneous thoughts during its reading.

“Your Honor, the last appearance we three made in your courtroom resulted in a discussion in your chambers. Mr. Reusch, Klaus Kolb and I were present because of another lawsuit filed on behalf of the People of California initiated by the Department of Conservation. The meeting helped us work together to either reach a settlement or clarify issues, which in the long run will reduce court time. I believe a similar gathering in your chambers may help the opposing parties reach a settlement in this case.

“I recently phoned the Deputy AG and asked for such a meeting. He declined citing his belief and the water agency belief that their case is a slam-dunk. Even if there were interest, legislation forbids any compromise. A serious problem with this belief is the apparent lack of identifying how and most importantly who is driving this action. By ordering a representative from the water agency to come to your chambers accomplishes several things: it streamlines discovery, it identifies accountability, and it identifies responsibilities. While the plaintiff proclaims damages and its inability to talk about compromises due to the “law” or “legislative statutes”, others disagree.

“This lawsuit threatens the very life of defendant, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. Many people are adversely affected right now. The very existence of this lawsuit is causing irreparable damage in that this public company cannot attract working capital to operate.

“A prolonged legal battle is not in defendants’ interest. I must add that is not in the plaintiff’s best interest as well. While the lead agency is the Central Valley Regional Water Board, the lawsuit is initiated on behalf of the People of California. My belief is that the Attorney General of California either does not have adequate information from the water agency staff or he has misinterpreted the data in his possession.”

Unfortunately, the judge denied my request. I wanted to make a record of my repeated attempts to reinstate the policy of due process and avoid a costly and unnecessary trial. This was accomplished. The water agency staff has side stepped due process by filing a lawsuit without setting a public administrative hearing. When all is said and aired, the wrong doer will shift to people who work as public servants in the water agency or even in another public agency.

Mr. Reusch corrected one of my statements. He said his agency never really characterized the concept of mandatory legislation that forbids settlement as a “slam-dunk”. If a battle like this one were not so serious and I had time and money on my side, this would be a whole lot of fun. I doubt that any business operating in California has not had experiences with state agents who failed to exercise their fiduciary duty and responsibility to the people of the great state of California. I have had more than my share.
 By Rick

12/22/2010  12:09PM

I just heard a leading news item regarding misallocation of "stimulous" money within the State of CA....yup, first on the list was California Water Resources Board.
..3x the allocation amount of money was used to "create jobs"....

Mike, we need to look further into this one! First, it may have direct effect on the amount of $ used to pursue their adjenda; second, most obviously, has illegal funding been used to harass the mine???

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


© 2018 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