Re: latest on Burro Schmidt Tunnel
Posted by Swanlady--About the Jawbone meeting, etc. on July 27, 2004 at 20:01:22:
In Reply to: latest on Burro Schmidt Tunnel posted by baldon on July 14, 2004 at 22:27:13:
I had thought Ed was one of the good guys. I was srongly warned by a mentor, that he is not. Your description of what happened at the last Jawbone meeting, definately indicates he is not one of what I call the "good" guys. What happened at that meeting, is why I have been trying so hard to tell my story along with the Tunnel story. I see them as one and the same, and I thought by now you would, too. Evidentally I failed. So sad, but again I will try. Just imagine a fictitious story for a minute. It may be all fictitious, you decide. 1.The BLM, first runs off the owners and/or the owners caretakers. Congress passed new regulations to keep people from purchasing claims, just to have a summer home. So, the miners or their own caretakers are no longer allowed to live on the claims when they are idle. It is a trespass issue if they do. This is why BLM, can do this. 2.The BLM sends their volunteers to the claims, or knowingly, allows them to be there. Or, the volunteers send themselves, because they work for BLM, they can pretty much do any damned thing they want to do, such as trespassing. The general public goes there also, just to save the property, they say. Soon the property gets trashed daily, and all the property of any significant value is stolen, and the rest left as trash. This is because the owner or their own caretaker is not allowed to be there to prevent the trespassing, vandalism, thievery, or any of the other criminal activity going on there. 3.In the meantime BLM will not allow the owner the right to remove their own structures, when they try to, or even visit the property very long. The owners soon see it is impossible to stay ahead of the public nuisances, that are the cause of their property being in violation daily. The claim violations are caused by the vandals and trespassers, while the claimholders themselves are not allowed to live there. BLM can also, prevent the owners their right to the disposal and removal of their own private structures, by saying they are historic. 4.But, again, the BLM will not allow the owners to be there, to caretake or have their own approved caretaker, that the owners can trust. 5.The only caretakers, the BLM will allow to be present on the claims, are ones BLM picks out, their own volunteers. Why, can their volunteers do it, and not the owners caretaker, or the owners themself, you wonder? The answer is simple, BLM explains to you in their superior,"got you" manner, You "have" to sign the deed to everything you own, over to us, you have no choice. 6.The volunteers are trained by us, work for us, and we delegate BLM authority to them. Once you sign the property over to us, our own volunteers, can use your home, as a summer home, whenever they want to, and so can the Sierra Club, or any other special interest groups, we want to allow to be there. If the claimant refuses to accept BLM's "offer", they like to call it, and refuses to sign, BLM, kindly explains the bottom line to them. You can not refuse to sign everything you own over to Hector Villalobos, at BLM, they tell you. You "have" to sign. BLM explains, we want your property without having to pay you, financial compensation, and we don't intend to, ever. We want it for the publics recreational use, they say. Or, we will just have to take your property anyway, they quickly say smuggly. "How?" you ask. BLM answers we can cite you for violations of 43CFR3809 or 43CFR3715 or cite you for some other violation, like an unsecured building so we can just "take" your property. Since you can not live on the claims anymore, and the volunteers and the public are constantly going way, way, out of their way to trespass, if you secure your buildings one day, surely you do not expect them to stay that way the next day, do you? The "prescence" of a structure on a claim if "personally" owned is trespassing 43CFR3809 and we can cite you for that, also,to get your property, because, you are not allowed by us, to remove your historic structures. You are in the proverbial, Catch 22. We are being pretty generous by even "offering" to take your property off your hands for you, don't you think? Besides, if we suddenly decide they are no longer historic, and bulldoze them down, we can charge you a fortune for doing it, you don't want that to happen, to you, do you? Can you afford $75,000 or more? A quitclaim deed is then shoved under you nose to sign, in this scenario. If you still refuse, you suddenly find yourself slandered, your name and your property name defamed, by a pack of very skillful liars, and no one doubts them, because there are so damned many of them! You suddenly find yourself a BLM casualty story, called the Tunnel, or the White Swan,, or the upcoming property they have on their "next" list. And, they can all laugh about it, at their next steak cookout, while drinking their Alaskan Amber! Now remember this is only my scenario, only fiction??? I am just making up this campfire story??? I am curious if the Bickels were forced to sign, in order to have a caretaker, and if not, why not? Why would it just be some of us, and not all? The law is the law it "should" be the same for all of us! If this story just happened to be true, maybe you could see how it would not work, so easily, without the volunteers. Without the volunteers the property owners might at least have had a fighting chance to save their property. If it were true, that is! Oh, by the way if someone tells you, you had better shut-up, or it will be all over for you, you probably should pay attention. You might end up in the middle of an I.R.S. audit, knee deep in paperwork, just like me. Go, ahead and laugh, out loud volunteers. You have earned it! No, this story is not "exactly" like mine, but sometimes, plans just go terribly wrong, no matter what you do, or how good you are at doing it! Even if you are a bigshot, volunteer.