This is the September 20th, 2009 Tesoro Broadcast

Labels: caballo mountains, cia, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, power of attorney

We are moving ahead with the taping of the Zonge Engineering tests. We are going to be over to the site next week with the film crew that is going to be filming Zonge Engineering conducting more tests for us. The results are going to be posted on youtube/tesorodelalma and this website as well

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

OLD people have problems that you haven't even considered yet!


An 85-year-old man was required to have a sperm count as part of his physical exam..

The doctor gave the man a jar and said,'Take this jar home and bring back a semen sample tomorrow.'

The next day the 85-year-o ld man reappeared at the doctor's office and gave him the jar, which was as clean and empty as on the previous day. The doctor asked what happened and the man explained, 'Well, doc, it's like this:First I tried with my right hand, but nothing. Then I tried with my left hand,but still nothing. Then I asked my wife for help. She tried with her right hand, then with her left,still nothing. She tried with her mouth, first with the teeth in, then with her teeth out, still nothing. We even called up Arleen, the lady next door and she tried too, first with both hands, then an armpit, and she even tried squeezin' it between her knees, but still nothing.'


The doctor was shocked! 'You asked your neighbor?'

The old man replied: 'Yep, none of us could get that jar open.'

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, gold, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

Here is some food for thought. Donald Tangwall who steals two trucks of ore out of twelve truck loads. Gordon Walters refuses to file criminal charges against Tangwall for the Theft of those two trucks. The Investors pay Gordon $60,000 to pay Tangwall for hauling the ore to Virginia City, Montana. Tangwall sues Gordon for $75,000. $60,000 for the use of his dump truck and frontend loader and $16,000 for the two truck loads of or that he stole. Tangwall through some other people is trying to sell the bags of ore that was on the two trucks for $500,000 per bag. Now Tangwall is trying to cause some real trouble because Gordon showed Tangwall some documents while they were in Roundup, Montana that Tangwall figured out that there is $1.7 trillion dollars in buried treasure in the Caballos in New Mexico. So now he is trying to get to the treasure and he trying to do it by not following the law and trying to scare everyone that he can. He needs to learn something about mining law and the rights of the active mining claim holders.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming

we have decided to post the court docket involving Richard Sanders also know as Robert Snyder. This is the same guy that has been making threats concerning my life on the orders of Gordon Walters. Copies of all the threats have been sent to the FBI in Billings, MT. Sandra Klein has acknowledged receiving them from me. Sandra Klein is also the FBI agent in charge of investigating Gordon Walters as well as Donald Tangewall.

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, caballo mountains, FBI, Federal Court, government, mining claim, New Mexico, nick fleming

It has come to our attention that Gordon Walters has had a group of investors at his place in Arrey, New Mexico. We are going to re post the final judgement against Gordon Walters from Montana. Anyone that invests with Gordon Walters is going to lose their money. He owes me $100,000 and he owes another investor $900,000 and has made no move to even pay it back. He has been hit with a lawsuit for about $75,000 He also has been served with a cease and desist not once but twice. He has no mining claims or even a mining permit. He is even taking what they are calling grubstake ore from a mining claim that does not belong to him. He is even trying to get the Mexicans who are working for him to over stake the claims so that he can take the so called Grubstake ore. Years ago which we have filed at the Courthouse in T or C a document which clearly states that we own 50% of the mineral rights concerning Bob Grantham's ranch.

Donald Tangwall is posting no trespass signs all over the Grantham ranch which he doe not have the authority to do. He is trying to purchase the mineral rights under Bob Grantham's ranch. He is even going around threatening valid mining claim holders that he is going to order them off their claims because he owns the claims. It is very clear that he does not know anything about the mining laws. We have posted four court orders that have gone against Donald Tangwall and no one seems to be paying attention especially the BLM on both Gordon Walters and Donald Tangwall.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, caballo mountains, gold, government, mining claim, New Mexico, nick fleming, Rocky Mountain Mining Compact, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

If you are mining the rivers and creeks in California you should pay attention to this bill

Nick


SENATE BILL No. 670
Introduced by Senator Wiggins
February 27, 2009
An act to add Section 5653.1 to the Fish and Game Code, relating to
dredging, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 670, as introduced, Wiggins. Vacuum or suction dredge
equipment.
Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge
equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state
without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Under
existing law, it is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in
areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of
vacuum or suction dredges. A violation of the permit requirement is a
misdemeanor. The department is authorized to close areas otherwise
open for dredging and for which permits have been issued if there is an
unanticipated water level change and the department determines that
closure is necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources. Existing law
requires the department to adopt regulations to implement certain of
the vacuum or suction dredge equipment requirements and authorizes
the department to issue regulations with respect to other requirements.
Existing law requires that the regulations be adopted in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental
impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or
approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to
adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that
effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things, certain
types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by
public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service facilities
necessary to maintain service.
This bill would prohibit the use of any vacuum or suction dredge
equipment in any river, stream, or lake until the director of the
department certifies to the Secretary of State that (1) the department
has completed an environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction
dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court in a specified
court action, (2) the department has transmitted for filing with the
Secretary of State a certified copy of new regulations, and (3) the new
regulations are operative.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.

Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1. Section 5653.1 is added to the Fish and Game
Code, to read:

5653.1. (a) (1) The program of the department governing the
issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment
is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code) and may proceed only if the department has
caused to be prepared, and certified the completion of, a
programatic environmental impact report on the project.
(2) The issuance of permits pursuant to Section 5630 is not a
ministerial act pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code), and permits shall not be issued by the department
pursuant to the program when a subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report is required to be prepared and certified
pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
(3) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is
declaratory of, existing law.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 5653, the use of any vacuum or
suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state
is prohibited until the director certifies to the Secretary of State
that all of the following have occurred:

SB 670 — 2 —

(1) The department has completed the environmental review of
its existing suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the
court in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California
Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior
Court Case No. RG 05211597.
(2) The department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary
of State pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a
certified copy of the new regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter
3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, whichever occurs first.
(3) The new regulations are operative.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
The Department of Fish and Game is issuing permits for the
operation of vacuum or suction dredging equipment in violation
of a court order and the California Environmental Quality Act and
threatens water quality and at-risk fish and other species.

Labels: California, government, nick fleming, Senate

I want to re clarify something about the ownership of the home that Gordon now lives in. Gordon paid $175,000 for the home that he is now in, in Arrey, NM. It was purchased out of the $900,000 that one investor gave to him and that investor does not live in Texas. In fact that investor has sent to Gordon by certified mail and FedEx a demand for payment. The certified mail was not signed for but the one by FedEx was signed for. We know for a fact that no one from Texas paid for the home that Gordon lives in.

It has also came to our attention that the BLM has had people in the Caballo Mountains resurveying Bob Granthams property. There has been a dispute as to the mill site that used to be where the Sanders Brothers worked. They flagged the corners and told Sonny Riggs that if the flags are moved they were going to arrest him.

From what we also understand that Donald Tangwall was present and tried to get the BLM to change the flags. Donald Tangwall must still be trying to rip off Alma Grantham.

We also know that Gordon told Tangwall that he was being pressured to file a criminal complaint against Tangwall for theft of the two truck loads of ore that went to Sandy, UT. One of the trucks stayed in Sandy, UT and the other went to Virginia City, MT to salt a mine that belongs to Roy Moen. Then when all the pressure was being put on Gordon to file the criminal complaint the truck from Sandy, UT showed up at Tangwalls wife's flower shop in Roundup MT. Pictures were taken and forwarded to Sandra Klein the FBI agent in charge of the Walters and Tangwall saga.

Then Tangwall goes back to Roundup, MT and unloads the truck, because Gordon told him that he was being pressured to file the criminal complaint. A funny thing happened Gordon never filed that criminal complaint.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, government, New Mexico, nick fleming

We have more information to post about the Gordon Walters and Donald Tangwall saga but I have not been given the ok to publish it just yet.

We have posted some new photos on http://photos-by-nick.com

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, gold, government, nick fleming

This is the final order and summary judgment on Gordon Walters issued on October 30th, 2008. As of this date there has been no response from Gordon Walters. Some time ago we stated that Gordon Walters has Camera's set up around his house there in Arrey, NM because he fears for his life. Gordon has friends of his send me threatening emails which have all been forwarded to FBI Agent Sandra Klein for bringing his frauds to the public knowledge.

What may not be know is that Gordon Walters also carries a pocket pistol which he does not have a license to carry a concealed weapon.

I am getting ready to go to Mrytle Beach, SC for a treasure expo. While I am getting death threats from Gordons friends does not mean that I have to lock myself up and not go out in public as Gordon Walters is doing. Gordon Walters is so afraid that he will meet someone that he has harmed. The old saying of what goes around comes around is very true.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, government, New Mexico, nick fleming

Here is the Order from The Appellate Court of Illinois Second District concerning Donald Tangwall for eavesdropping. Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

We have decided to post Gordon Walters New Mexico address here so that those that Gordon owes money to will be able to find him. All he did was change States he went from New Mexico to Montana back to New Mexico. His address is Gordon A. Walters
120 Sugar Sand Rd.,Arrey, NM 87930 Mail Box 502.

There is one thing that I think that we should all agree with and that is there is no use for people who prey on anyone. There is so much information on the Internet concerning Gordon Walters and Donald Tangwall that the average person can check and see for themselves that these people are crooks and if you have any information concerning them. You should contact the FBI in Billings, Montana Agent Sandra Klein.

We have posted this address so that the people that Gordon Walters owes money to can have some place to serve him if they want to collect the money that he owe them. We do not recommend that anyone pay him a visit. You have to understand that we have posted an order from the court in Roundup, Montana where Gordon and his wife have a judgement fo $1.3 million dollars to which he has made no move to pay. He just moved back to New Mexico where he thinks that they will not be able to reach him.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, government, New Mexico, nick fleming

This is the order that was issued by the Hon. Randal I Spaulding, District Judge of the Montana Fourteenth Judicial District Court Musselshell County. In this ORDER you are to find the following "Mr. Donald Tangwall may no and shall not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by filing any pleadings, appearing in any Court of this State, otherwise engaging in the business and duties and performing such acts, matters, and things as are usually done by an attorney at law on behalf of any of the CORPORATE, PARTNERSHIP, OR TRUST ENTITY...." This statement was stated three times through out the order.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, government, nick fleming

The Hard Rock Mining Bill H.R. 699 is still in committee and may just die there. But there are some items that is contained in the bill that the BLM is already putting into practice. There is one thing that we know from our dealings with the BLM and that is that they do just what they want to do because they believe that they can get away with it. They hold meetings between themselves with no one keeping a record and they make decisions that are based upon those meetings. When you try to find out what took place they can't tell you because they have no record. It kinda of reminds me of what is called a cirle jerk. They spend a lot of time in misdirection and are never straight forward. That is why in most cases that you have to take them to Federal Court. I have been told more than once that a Writ of Mandate is no good by the BLM. But I am being told that by a clerk that knows nothing about the law and is repeating something that they have been told to discourage people. But I do know for a fact that if a writ is issued the BLM willl do as they are instructed. I know because we have done it. We are making progress and we are a lot closer than we were 15 years ago when we got started.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, Federal Court, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

It is becoming very clear that Sonny Riggs has introduced Alma Grantham to a very dangerous person named Don Tangewall. Don Tangewall may be trying to do some estate planning for Alma since her husband has passed away. Donald Tangwall like Richard Sandars aka Robert Snyder is a person that likes to make threats. Donald Tangwall has been know to make threats about shooting people if they don't go along with him. Here is a guy that has been accused and arrested for rape on two different occassions (run Donald Tangwall in the search engine and they will be there). His rap sheet is over two pages. The FBI has stated that Donald Tangwall is a person of interest. Now Donald Tangwall is running around with Sonny Riggs and trespassing on mining claims that are not under Sonny's control. They have hired security to do what is uncertain. Sonny's mining permit has been pulled so he only is leasing Franklin #1 and #2. He can not mine the claims because he does not have a mining permit. The permit that he did have only allowed him to remove 250 tons. Now he can't even do that. Gordon Walters was working under that same permit. Only Gordon has moved about 400 tons to various refinerys. So if Sonny does not have a active mining permit at this time then Gordon who was working under that permit can not remove any ore at all. Plus Gordon does not have a mining claim or mining permit. So how is it that Gordon is being allowed to have the five mexicans working for him to remove ore, let alone put a shovel in the ground with out a mining claim or mining permit.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

Here is a news article that is in the May Edition of Lost Treasure -- Nick

TRUTH or CONCEQUENCES, NEW MEXICO, - For 16 years Nick Fleming, president of the U.S. treasure recovery company, Tesoro Del Alma, Inc., has been in an ongoing battle over a fortune in treasure that he discovered in a New Mexico cave in April, 1994, at a site now known as TDA-6. The treasure trove contains Spanish made dore´ bars assayed at 60% gold, 20% silver and 20% other. At the time of discovery, Fleming paced off the size of the hoard to be “approximately five feet high, thirty feet wide and fifty feet long, stacked similar to a pallet of bricks,” according to the company’s Website. After years of legal battles the courts have upheld that Fleming does own the treasure, so the question is how to bring the hoard to the surface in a manner consistent with BLM regulations.



With that yet to be worked out plenty of others who know about Fleming’s treasure, and who for years have been keeping an eye on the site are now coming out of the woodwork as if in a Hollywood western. According to Fleming one crooked Montana speculator has already fleeced investors out of over $1 million in some bogus mining deal in the Caballo Mountains that is completely unrelated to the TDA-6 recovery project. But in the past Fleming warns, similar scams have involved con-artists claiming to represent Tesoro Del Alma, or the TDA-6 site.

Then there are the desperate claim jumpers who at the time of this news release are currently attempting to tunnel into the cave to steal Fleming’s treasure. Reports that the claim jumpers have armed themselves and are using explosives illegally to develop their tunnel have been largely ignored by BLM officers in the Truth or Consequences BLM office. They claim the tunnel being built may sit on private land that is adjacent to BLM land, according to Fleming. So for now it seems unlikely that BLM officers will get involved.



Unfortunately that leaves no law enforcement to protect the legitimate business interests of those who have been lawfully working on the TDA-6 site, (which sits on BLM land) from those who seek to get rich quick by any means necessary. In the past Fleming has had his life threatened and gunfire has erupted at this site before, leaving those who are working within the scope of the law to stand alone against those who opt to operate outside of the law. When multi-millions if not more are at stake, the possibility of an Old West showdown in the Caballos becomes too real of a prospect. Its long overdue for the U.S. government to take steps to ensure this area is secure and to allow Tesoro Del Alma to recover its treasure in a manner described by law.

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, government, Lost Treasure Mag., New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

We have been getting email from people that have been seeing a truck and armed guards running around the Caballo's. It turns out that the armed guards are part of a security company that was hired by Don Tangwall. Don Tangwall has been running around with Sonny Riggs. Since Bob Grantham has passed away Sonny Riggs and Don Tangwall have been running around like they own the mountains. They have been trespassing on other people's claims and they are being very open about what they are trying to do. Sonny Riggs mining permit has been pulled for failure to file a mining plan as well as moving mining monuments. Tangwall does not have a mining claim anywhere in the Caballos nor does he have a mining permit or mining plan. His sole purpose for being in the Caballos is to steal treasure from any ones claim that he thinks he can get into without doing the proper work.

From the looks of it Alma Grantham is allowing Sonny Riggs and Don Tangwall just to do anything that they want. So Sonny Riggs no longer has a mining permit, Don Tangwall does not have a mining claim or a mining permit, Gordon Walters does not have a mining claim or a mining permit. Yet they are all digging without what they are required to have by law.

Interesting state of affairs.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tesoro del alma, treasure

We were advised that there were some individuals that were trying to highjack the news. We do know that there are some people that do not care for what is being said here in this part of the website. We have Richard Sanders aka Robert Snyder and Gordon Walters. We have laid out the case against Gordon Walters and the scam he has been pulling on individuals that he has gotten to put money up for his scam project. If you have any questions as to the what Gordon Walters is doing please contact FBI Agent Sandra Klein in Billings Montana phone: 406-248-8487 or 406-443-3617 As far as the $1.3 million dollar judgment against Gordon Walters and his wife contact the Assistant Attorney General Roberta Cross Guns in Helena, Montana Phone 406-248-8489

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, gold, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

Here is part 2 Nick

Major Mining Legislation After the 1872 Mining Law

In 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act removed oil, gas, oil shale, phosphates, sodium, and certain other minerals from the claim-patent system of the 1872 Mining Law and set up a system of leasing in which the federal government retains ownership of the leased lands. Coal, which previously had its own claim-patent law (the 1873 Coal Act), was also included in the 1920 Leasing Act. After 1955, common variety minerals such as sand, stone, gravel, cinders, and pumice were sold under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. A strong push for an all-leasing system developed during the 1930s and 1940s, but no such legislation was enacted.

As mentioned, acquired federal lands were never subject to the General Mining Law. The Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 authorized the leasing of leasable minerals in some acquired federal lands. The Reorganization Plan of 1946 (no.3) and earlier acts authorized the leasing of hardrock minerals on acquired forest lands.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, Wilderness Act, National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) addressed environmental protection, multiple use, and management of federal land generally. By imposing new requirements on agency actions, and by withdrawing some federal lands from development, these acts have affected mineral development under both the leasing system and the Mining Law claim-patent system. The Mining Law contains no direct environmental controls.

The evolving leasing system and later withdrawals of available lands from hardrock exploration and development diminished the amount of lands under the Mining Law authority. For those hardrock minerals that remain under the Mining Law, however, the claim-patent system is essentially the same as it was when the law was enacted.

Critics argue that the West is now developed and that the 1872 Mining Law is obsolete and inconsistent with other federal natural resource policies. Supporters maintain that the combination of leasing for some resources and a claim-patent system for others works well and should be maintained. The National Mining Association (NMA) states that the "existing law more than adequately meets the four criteria essential to any mineral tenure law": free and open access to explore for minerals on unappropriated public lands, exclusive exploration rights, the right to develop the valuable minerals discovered, and security of tenure.

When oil shale was transferred from the 1872 claim-patent system to the leasing system in the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, a large number of existing unpatented oil shale claims were continued under the terms of the 1872 Mining Law. In a 1986 court case, a district court reached a controversial finding that these claims were valid and could be patented if claimants had made $500 worth of improvements on the land, even if the statutory $100 annual work requirement had not always been fulfilled.

Legislation to resolve oil shale issues was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). This law offers general and limited patents based on the status of the application at the time of enactment. Limited patent holders will receive title to the oil shale only and are required to post a reclamation bond or financial guarantee. Patent fees remain $2.50 per acre.

Beginning in FY1995, Congress has enacted (in the Interior appropriations laws) a series of one-year moratoriums on the issuance of mining patents. For FY2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113, §312) essentially retained the mining patent moratorium contained in previous appropriations laws. The FY2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-291, §311) also contained a one-year extension of the moratorium on mining patents.

Analysis

Claim-Patent System: Pros and Cons

The right to enter the public domain lands and prospect for and develop minerals is the feature of the claim-patent system that draws the most vigorous support from the mining industry. Modern hardrock mineral exploration requires a continuous effort using vast tracts of land and sophisticated and expensive technology. Industry officials argue that being able to obtain full and clear title to the land enhances a company's ability to bring an economic deposit into production; financing the project, for example, may be more feasible. They contend that restrictions on free access and security of tenure would curtail exploration efforts among large and small mining firms. In their view, the incentive to develop would be lost, long-run costs would increase, and the industry and the country would suffer.

Mining Law critics consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly owned resources because of the absence of royalties and the small charges associated with keeping a claim active and obtaining a patent. They maintain that although such generous terms may have been effective ways to help settle the West and develop minerals, there is no solid evidence that under a different system minerals would not be developed today. They also believe the current system, by conveying title and allowing other uses of patented lands, creates difficult land management problems through the creation of inholdings, and that current law does not provide for adequate protection of the environment.

In the claim-patent system, mineral claims may be held indefinitely without any mineral production. In some instances, claimed or patented land has been used for purposes other than mineral development. Once lands are patented to convey full title to the claimant, the owner can use the lands for a variety of purposes, including non-mineral ones. However, using land under an unpatented mining claim for anything but mineral and associated purposes violates the Mining Law. Critics believe that many claims are held for speculative purposes. However, industry officials argue that a claim may lie idle until market conditions make it profitable to develop the mineral deposit.

Another issue surrounds "discovery" and "prediscovery protection." The law requires that "no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the mineral within the limits of the claim." If a discovery is made and a valid location established, the claimant has a valid possessory right against all other parties. One purpose of the discovery requirement was to help reduce speculation. However, demonstrating discovery of a valuable mineral deposit may require considerable time and effort on the part of a prospector. The prospector may find indications of a deposit, but demonstrating its value may involve exploration over a large area and drilling and analyses of core samples to define the quality and extent of the mineral. Typically, in practice, the federal government has allowed claims based on general indications that a mineral deposit exists, and required proof of discovery only upon application for a patent unless circumstances warrant full proof sooner, e.g., mineral claims in sensitive areas.

The industry has indicated it wishes to avoid major challenges to the principle of free access and the right to obtain a patent. The industry generally opposes placing hardrock minerals under a leasing system because this would give the federal government discretionary control over development, impose royalty payments, and retain government ownership of surface and/or mineral rights.

Past Amendment Proposals

Proposals to amend the 1872 Mining Law have fallen under the following broad categories:

Modify the claim-patent system to retain the patent feature, but require payment of fair market value for all or part of the value of the land. The Government also would collect some percent of the value of mineral production as royalties.
Convert the claim-patent system to a permitting system, and prohibit further patenting. Advocates of this proposal argue that a permitting system would be effective in achieving a fair market value return to the federal Treasury for public lands. This system would collect royalties and add new environmental standards to mining operations. Mineral industry supporters, on the other hand, contend that the Department of the Interior is already overburdened with the current leasing system and that comprehensive hardrock mining reform would only add to its inefficiency and ultimately increase costs through royalty and rents.
Continue the current claim-patent system, but with some amendments. Proposed changes have included eliminating the distinction between lode and placer claims, imposing a time limit within which claims must be developed, expanding the size of a claim, providing better prediscovery protection, and opening more public lands to mineral exploration.
The Clinton Administration's Call to Eliminate Subsidies

The Mining Law currently allows a claimant to produce minerals without a patent and without paying royalties or rents to the federal Treasury. This can be considered a subsidy because the miner does not pay for a factor of production -- i.e., land and mineral resources. By contrast, royalties are paid to the federal government for oil and gas leasing on federal lands, and non-federal land owners (e.g. private and state owners) typically receive a royalty from those who produce minerals on their lands. Also, if the claimant patents the surface and mineral estate for the $2.50 or $5.00 per acre, this too can be considered a subsidy because the claimant is paying less than fair market value for the surface and mineral estates. Various tax incentives, such as the percentage depletion allowance (a tax deduction for the depletion of a mineral resource) and "expensing" (writing off in the year of expenditure) the costs of exploration and development, have been characterized as subsidies to the industry as well.

Eliminating some of the natural resource subsidies, in the Clinton Administration's view, would have been one way to increase revenues to the Treasury and help ensure a fair return to the taxpayer for the development of public lands. In its FY2001 budget request, the Clinton Administration proposed charging mining companies a 5% fee on net smelter production from hardrock mining on federal lands. The Bush Administration has not made a similar proposal in its FY2002 budget request.

As has been previously noted, the original intention of the Mining Law was to develop the nation's minerals and to develop the West. Proponents of retaining the current system contend that an incentive still is necessary for those who take substantial financial risk to develop a mineral deposit. Mining is a capital-intensive process that often takes years of development before minerals are produced.

Imposing royalties, increasing holding fees, and repealing the percentage depletion allowance would have some impact on domestic hardrock mineral production, but the level of any production decline attributable solely to new fees is difficult to estimate. The mining industry generally has opposed legislation to repeal the percentage depletion allowance. The elimination of some incentives to the industry would come at a time when the West is already developed (an original goal of the law) and mineral/metal demand is relatively good. However, prices are fluctuating, and the mining industry is looking outside the United States for lower-cost deposits. Also, several mineral-producing nations are rewriting their mining laws to attract more U.S. and western investment. Some U.S. deposits are becoming much less competitive with foreign deposits. Any new cost increases in one area, without cost reductions in others, may make U.S. mineral deposits less competitive or uneconomic.

Of the many issues surrounding the Mining Law, at least three are of perennial concern. One is whether the government should receive a fair market return from public domain hardrock mineral dispositions. A second issue is concern about environmental protection, and the third involves withdrawals of federal land from mineral exploration and development.

Fair Market Value

Many believe that the federal government does not receive fair market value for land transfers under the Mining Law. It receives no royalties or rents from mining activities conducted under the law. In addition, the $2.50 and $5.00 per-acre price for clear title to the surface and mineral rights has not changed since the law was enacted. The per-acre price appears to be based on the value of Western farmland and grazing land before the enactment of the law in 1872.

Determination of fair market value of mineral bearing lands is complex because many geologic, engineering, and economic factors must be considered, and fair market value determinations typically are controversial. According to a 1989 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the fair market value of mineral-bearing lands is substantially more than the $2.50 and $5.00 per acre that a claimant pays for patenting a claim. GAO estimated that, for 20 patents it reviewed, the federal government had received less than $4,500 since 1970 for lands valued between $13.8 and $47.9 million.

The GAO appraisal method, however, was criticized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in a May 1989 Report to the Secretary of the Interior. The GAO report obtained information on land values from BLM, Forest Service officials, and local real estate brokers. GAO's estimates were based on recent sales of comparable land, not the value of the land at the time claims were patented; much of the land may have had very little value at the time it was claimed or patented. BLM argues that sales of adjacent tracts that either have no mineral development potential or are sold for mineral rights alone cannot be used to establish fair market value of the surface of patented mining claims and that data on comparable sales are rare.

A general indicator of the value of the land is the value of the minerals produced. The Department of the Interior (DOI) estimates the value of hardrock mineral production on federal land at $.99 billion for FY2000, a decrease from an estimated $1.8 billion in FY1993. The decline can be attributed in part to a reduction in the value of mineral production from the federal lands because of acreage conveyed out of federal ownership through patenting, according to a BLM representative.

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, New Mexico, nick fleming

There are some things that treasure hunters have to understand. If a cache is found and you try to dig it up and get caught you will run into all types of problems. The big one is treasure hunting without a permit. To get a permit can be a rather long process or it can be a short process. By that I mean that after you have ran all of your tests and the test results shows you that there is metal then the BLM will go in and conduct tests as well. If there is something there then that is when the problems begin. If the Government runs test and they come up with nothing then they will issue a permit and let you dig to your hearts content. But it they find that there is something there then they will do everything within there power to prevent you from getting the permit.

In order to dig you must also have a mining claim. Once you have a mining claim there are certain things that you would be allowed to do according to the mining laws. So you have to do your homework you have to find out if where you believe something is. You have to search the mining records to find out who owns the claim. You can file a lode claim and a lode claim takes precedent over a placer claim.

If you do not have a mining claim and you are digging then you can go to jail. Take for example Gordon Walters there in the Caballo Mountains in New Mexico. He owns no mining claims, has no permit to dig, does not even have a mining permit. The permit that he was working under belongs to Sonny Riggs. Sonny Riggs mining permit is in the process of being pulled for various reasons. A check with the BLM will clearly show that Gordon Walters can not do anything in the Caballos except drive around. So how is he getting away with what he is doing it is because the BLM is failing to do their job. The BLM will come after you and I, but they will let a CROOK DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, FBI, gold, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

We hope that you find this helpful Nick

IB89130: Mining on Federal Lands

Marc Humphries and Carol Hardy Vincent

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

May 3, 2001

CONTENTS

SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Background
The Claim-Patent System
Major Mining Legislation After the 1872 Mining Law
Analysis
Claim-Patent System: Pros and Cons
Past Amendment Proposals
The Clinton Administration's Call to Eliminate Subsidies
Fair Market Value
Environmental Protection
Federal Land Withdrawals
Legislative Activity
The Mill Site Debate
Surface Impacts of Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands
Patent Moratorium
Reform Proposals
Footnotes
SUMMARY

The General Mining Law of 1872 is one of the major statutes that direct the federal government's land management policy. The law grants free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or "locate") a claim on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and may be "patented" to convey full title to the claimant. A continuing issue is whether this law should be reformed, and if so, how to balance mineral development with competing land uses.

The right to enter the public domain and freely prospect for and develop minerals is the feature of the claim-patent system that draws the most vigorous support from the mining industry. Critics consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly owned resources because of the small amounts paid to maintain a claim and to obtain a patent.

In addition to the general issue of whether to reform the General Mining Law, two recent issues also have been controversial and might be addressed by the 107th Congress. One involves mining millsites. At issue is whether the General Mining Law limits claimants to one millsite of no more than five acres per mining claim, or whether multiple millsites are allowed. In 1997, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior ruled that only one millsite of no more than five acres is allowed per claim. The 106th Congress provided a two-year exemption from the Solicitor's opinion for mines with approved plans of operation, operations with plans submitted prior to the Solicitor's opinion, and patent applications grandfathered as part of the 1995 mining patent moratorium (P.L. 106-113).

A second issue involves the Clinton Administration's revisions to the regulations governing hardrock mining operations on federal lands (43 CFR 3809), which took effect January 20, 2001. The new regulations authorize BLM to deny mining operations if they would result in "substantial irreparable harm" to significant resources that cannot be mitigated, and make mining operators more responsible for reclaiming mined land. On March 23, 2001, the Bush Administration proposed suspending the new regulations and reinstating the previous ones, until a review of the new rules is completed and a decision is made regarding them. The suspension is intended to allow BLM to address legal and policy concerns that have been raised before implementing a new regulatory program. The BLM has requested public comment on its proposal through May 7, 2001, and anticipates publishing a final rule in July. The current regulations remain in effect until the Bush Administration publishes a final rule.

The 106th Congress prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from using funds to revise hardrock mining regulations except to make changes "not inconsistent with" law and a report of the National Research Council (P.L. 106-113, P.L. 106-291). The Clinton Administration asserted that the revisions were "not inconsistent" with the report, but that interpretation has been controversial.

The 107th Congress also may consider extending the moratorium on the issuance of mining patents, whereby new mining patents generally will not be issued, but grandfathered applications will be processed. Most recently, Congress retained the mining patent moratorium for one year (P.L. 106-291).

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On March 23, 2001, the Bush Administration proposed suspending the regulations governing hardrock mining operations on federal lands (43 CFR 3809) that took effect on January 20, 2001, and reinstating the old rule. The suspension is intended to allow BLM to address legal and policy concerns that have been raised before implementing a new regulatory program. The Bush Administration anticipates publishing a final rule in July.

On March 15, 2001, a bill was introduced (H.R. 1085) to make permanent provisions of law requiring an annual maintenance fee of $100, and a one-time location fee of $25, for each unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site located under the general mining laws. The measure also makes permanent provisions of law establishing a moratorium on mining patents (to take title to public lands) for mining or mill site claims except those filed by September 30, 1994, and meeting certain requirements. On January 22, 2001, a bill was reintroduced (S. 115) to disallow the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock mines located on lands covered by the general mining laws or patented under these laws.

Another issue that remains controversial stems from the 1997 ruling by the Department of the Interior's Solicitor limiting each mining claim to one 5-acre millsite. Congress enacted language (P.L. 106-113) to provide a two-year exemption for mines with approved plans of operation, operations with plans submitted prior to the Solicitor's opinion, and patent applications grandfathered as part of the 1995 mining patent moratorium.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Background

The purposes of the 1872 Mining Law were to promote mineral exploration and development on federal lands in the western United States, offer an opportunity to obtain a clear title to mines already being worked, and help settle the West. The Mining Law granted free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals on open public domain lands, and allowed them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or "locate") a claim on the deposit. A valid claim entitles the holder to develop the minerals. The 1872 Mining Law originally applied to all minerals except coal.

Public domain lands are those retained under federal ownership since their original acquisition by treaty, cession, or purchase as part of the general territory of the United States, including lands that passed out of but reverted back to federal ownership. "Acquired" lands -- those obtained from a state or a private owner through purchase, gift, or condemnation for particular federal purposes rather than as general territory of the United States -- are not covered by the 1872 Law. Some public lands may be withdrawn or closed to mineral entry.

The 1872 Mining Law was one of the primary forces behind the development of mineral resources in the West, along with the industries and services that supported mineral production. Major hardrock minerals developed in the West include copper, silver, gold, lead, molybdenum, and uranium. During the 19th century, major mining districts for silver and gold were developed under the Mining Law in Colorado, California, and Nevada. Early in the 20th century, there were major developments of porphyry copper in Arizona. Large molybdenum and tungsten deposits in Colorado were also developed. The Mining Law continues to provide the structure for much of the Western mineral development on public domain lands. Western mining, although not as extensive as it once was, is still a major economic activity, and a high percentage of hardrock mining is on public lands.

The Claim-Patent System

After a prospector has conducted exploration work on public domain land, he or she may locate a claim to an area believed to contain a valuable mineral. Under legislation initially enacted by the 102nd Congress (P.L. 102-381), claimants must pay an annual maintenance fee of $100 per claim to hold a claim on public land. This superseded a previous requirement that $100 of annual development work be conducted per claim. Most recently, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1999 (P.L. 105-277) extended the maintenance fee through FY2001 at $100 per claim or site. There is also a $25 location fee for first-time locators to locate and record a claim, as initially required by P.L. 103-66 and subsequently extended through FY2001.

For FY2000, the maintenance and location fees generated an estimated $23.9 million in revenue, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This reflects a significant decrease from $30.7 million for FY1995, the first year that both fees were collected. It is a more sizeable drop from the peak of $35.9 million for FY1997, largely due to a decline in gold and copper prices since that time.

Once a claimed mineral deposit is determined to be economically recoverable, and at least $500 of development work has been performed, the claim holder may file a patent application to obtain title to surface and mineral rights. A patent is not necessary to develop the minerals within a claim. Beginning January 3, 1989, a fee of $250 per application plus $50 per claim within each application has been required. If the application is approved, the claimant may purchase surface and mineral rights at a rate of $2.50 per acre for placer claims and $5 per acre for lode claims. A placer deposit is an alluvial deposit of valuable minerals usually in sand or gravel; a lode or vein deposit is of a valuable mineral consisting of quartz or other rock in place with definite boundaries. (Source: Dictionary of Mining, Mineral and Related Terms, Bureau of Mines, 1968.) A placer claim is usually limited to 20 acres but a lode claim may be slightly greater than 20 acres. While these per-acre fees were substantial when the Mining Law was enacted, claimed land and minerals now far exceeds these amounts in value.

The following provisions currently apply to claims:

There is no limit on the number of claims a person can locate.
There is no requirement that mineral production ever commence. (1)
Mineral production can take place without a patent or revenue payments to the federal government.
Claims can be held indefinitely with or without mineral production, subject to challenge if not developed.
Most of the current mining activity and mineral claims under the Mining Law are in Nevada, Arizona, California, Montana, and Wyoming. Of a total of 235,948 mining claims as of the end of FY2000, approximately 45% were in Nevada alone and another nearly 35% are in those other four states. According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the number of claims declined from about 1.2 million claims in FY1989 to 294,678 for FY1993. Many claims were dropped as a result of provisions of law charging a $100 per-claim annual maintenance fee to hold a claim. The number of claims subsequently rose to 324,651 in FY1997, reflecting the relative strength of the gold and copper industries. The number of claims has fallen to a low of 235,948 for FY2000, reflecting a decline in the gold and copper industries and, according to a BLM representative, changes in public land policy that significantly lengthened the time it takes in practice to get permission to mine.

Only a small percentage of claims are ever patented, totaling about 3.3 million acres from 1867 through 2000. This represents approximately 1.5% of all public lands patented; most public lands have been patented under homestead entries, statehood grants, railroad grants, and other non-mineral public land laws. It is not required to patent a claim to mine a deposit, and a great deal of mining activity is currently taking place on unpatented claims. However, patenting a claim gives the holder legal title to both the surface and the minerals.

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, gold, government, mining claim, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

From what we have been able to learn about some of the current things that Gordon is doing on a mining claim(s) that he does not own. We would like to state the following:

1. Gordon Walters does not have a mining claim anywhere in the Caballo Mountains.
2. He claims to own 6 mining claims which is not the truth.
3. The claims that he claims to own are Franklin #1 and #2, Link 1, 2, 3, 4.
4. Sonny Riggs had the mining permit for Franklin #1.
5. Gordon was removing ore from what is suppose to be Franklin #1.
6. Gordon's name is not found on any mining claim as a lessee.
7. The Contract that Gordon claims to have with Sonny has not been recorded at any Government office or county courthouse.
8. Gordon has signed agreements stating certain things that just are not true.
9. Gordon was part of a scheme with Donald Tangwall where two trucks were stolen with one truck being still in Utah and the other truck went to Virginia City, MT to salt a mine that Roy Moen has for sale. This we got from a reliable source.
10. Gordon has taken funds under false pretenses with the intent to defraud every and anyone that is dumb enough to not check him out.
11. Gordon has even made promises of percentages to have Richard Sanders aka Robert Snyder to threaten me to keep me from talking with the authorities and posting the information about what they are doing.
12. Gordon is in the process of installing cameras around the house that he got under false pretenses because he does not feel safe or he might be thinking that one of his investors may be after him. This information came from someone that does not care for Gordon Walters or the Sanders Brothers.
13. Gordon Walters, Roy Moen, Donald Tangwall, Richard Sanders AKA Robert Snyder are nothing more that a gang of crooks who sole intent is to defraud.
14. Gordon thinks that no one is watching him going after the treasure that he believes is located on a claim that the does not own or is a lease holder, he also thinks that the BLM is afraid of him and can not touch him.
15. Gordon has received over $1,500,000 USD at the last count since the $1.3 million dollar judgment was handed down against Gordon in Montana.
16. Gordon is about to get a big surprise.

If anyone that is reading this has had any business dealings with Gordon Walters, Donald Tangwall, Roy Moen, Richard Sanders AKA Robert Snyder they should contact FBI Agent Sandra Klein at the Billings, MT. Phone 406-248-8487

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, Department of Justice, dore', FBI, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

This is Part 2 of the article that we posted yesterday.

Private Ownership of Minerals and Severance of Surface and Mineral Estates
Except in the West, most mineral rights are owned by fee (private) landowners. Even in the West, there is significant private ownership of minerals. Public land disposal statutes prior to the Stockraising Homestead Act of 1916, 43 U.S.C. § 299, provided for a reservation to the United States only of certain minerals or did not provide for a reservation of minerals at all. While one might expect that rights granted under statutes enacted in the early 1900s would have been resolved long ago, it was not until June 1999 that the United States Supreme Court determined that the reservation by the United States of coal in patents issued pursuant to statutes enacted in 1909 and 1910 did not include coalbed methane. Additionally, other minerals passed into private ownership under railroad land grant statutes. Although acquisition of mineral land except coal and iron land was prohibited, lands encompassed by railroad land grants sometimes were found later to contain minerals.
When selling railroad grant lands, railroads frequently made a practice of reserving the minerals. Severance of mineral ownership from the surface estate by other landowners through reservation in deeds is common as well. Ambiguities concerning mineral reservations has been the source of much litigation. The mineral estate is sometimes then further divided by conveyance into undivided fractional interests. Severed minerals are real property and usually are conveyed by mineral deed.


Obtaining Mining Rights on Private Land
Privately-owned minerals typically are leased by companies seeking to develop them, sometimes with an option to purchase. Mining leases tend to have quite a long term -- 20 years generally is the minimum. Some leases have a stated primary term and are extended by mining operations or production, while others have a fixed term and are renewable. There is no standard form of mining lease for fee property, and the terms and conditions of mining leases vary greatly. Provisions of particular importance in negotiation or review of a mining lease include:
Mineral(s) covered by the lease, those reserved by the lessor, and provisions relating to conflicting development;
Term of the lease;
Production royalties payable to lessor;
Minimum royalties, if any, payable to lessor, and crediting of minimum royalties against production royalties;
Restrictions on mining methods allowed; and
Provision that requires the lessor's consent in connection with assignment or sublease.

Surface Control
Historically, disputes between surface owners and mineral developers have been governed by the common law doctrine of "reasonable surface use." The doctrine allows a mineral owner or lessee or use a reasonable amount of the surface to develop underlying minerals, because without such access severed minerals have no value. The mineral owner's use of the surface is limited by a reasonableness standard, and does not allow damage of surface improvements through negligence or surface-intensive uses such as strip mining without compensation of the surface owner. Express provisions in the patent or deed under which the surface and mineral estates were severed may alter the mineral owner's surface use rights. Several state courts have modified the reasonable use doctrine to require that mineral developers accommodate existing surface uses, and some states have limited the common law doctrine by statute. States also have varying statutes protecting the surface owner from certain damages relating to mineral development, such as subsidence.
If a mine or related facilities are to be located on land with private surface ownership, the mineral developer typically acquires surface control by purchase or lease. Open pit operations, in particular, require use of large areas for roads, mining, stripping, disposal of waste rock, and low-grade stockpiles or heap leach operations. However, even an underground mine can require significant surface use for an ore treatment plant and other facilities needed for mine operations.


Mine Development
Mine development is a long-term, expensive undertaking, and often the company that undertakes the initial exploration is not the one that ultimately develops a mineral deposit. Following prospecting and activities such as regional reconnaissance, a spot check of promising geological situations in published literature, submittal of a proposal by a prospector or geologist, or a decision to restudy an old mine or mining district, a small area is selected for detailed exploration. A company typically seeks to secure control of mineral rights as soon as possible after an area has been selected for exploration. Various geological and geophysical exploration methods and exploration drilling then are used to determine if the ore target is present and to obtain an idea as to its size and grade.
After it becomes apparent that an ore body is present, a feasibility study (a review of costs and potential earnings of the proposed mining project) is prepared. Assuming that the feasibility study shows that an acceptable rate of return can be expected from the mine and a decision to develop the property is made, capital for the mine is generated internally by the company, obtained through outside financing, and/or obtained from another company that desires to participate in the project.

The development stage of the project typically includes further drilling to more clearly define the grade, volume and geology of the ore body. Site preparation is dependent upon the mining method to be used. Construction of a mine plant, ore treatment facilities, roads, rail spurs and other facilities needed for the particular operation also must occur before production can begin.


Mining Agreements
Many western states have statutory provisions governing the joint ownership and working of mining properties. The mining partnership, a special type of partnership, has developed in connection with mineral development. Several states establish by statute the elements of a mining partnership and the consequences of creating one. While mining partnerships often are created by written agreement, there has been substantial litigation over the creation of a mining partnership by implication.
The most common form of agreement between companies planning to jointly explore for and develop minerals is a mining joint venture -- a form of mining partnership. Such agreements provide for joint ownership by the participants of the mineral property that is the subject of the joint venture, joint operation, and an agreement to share profits and losses. Mining joint venture agreements typically are based on a model form agreement known as Form 5 (or more recently, Form 5A and Form 5A LLC) developed by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation with substantial industry participation.


Title Examination of Mineral Properties
Most title insurance policies except minerals, and it therefore generally is not possible for a lessor or purchaser of mining property or its lender to obtain title insurance. Instead, evidence of ownership is established through an attorney's title opinion. If mining claims or federal mineral leases are involved, the title opinion is based not only on an abstract or examination of the county records where the property is located, but also the records of state office of the Bureau of Land Management.

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

For those that are interested this is a very good article that has been written about minerals and mining law by Jeanine Feriancek of Holland and Hart LLD

To many people, the laws governing exploration for minerals on public domain lands and leasing of federal minerals may seem arcane. The principal means of acquiring mining rights on federal lands is location of mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. That statute, enacted when the West was being settled and federal policy encouraged disposal of public domain lands, still governs the location of metallic minerals such as gold, silver, tin and copper, as well as other minerals including uranium, building stone other than common varieties, and even diamonds. Mining rights relating to fossil fuels such as coal, fertilizer minerals such as phosphate and potash, and chemical minerals such as sodium and sulphur on federal lands are acquired under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. This article summarizes some of the significant provisions of those laws, touches upon leasing of minerals on state lands, and discusses private ownership of minerals and obtaining mining rights on private lands. Other topics covered include surface control, mine development, mining agreements and title examination of mining property.


Mining Law of 1872
Location of mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-42, is a self-initiation system under which a person physically stakes an unpatented mining claim on public land that is open to location, posts a location notice and monuments the boundaries of the claim in compliance with federal laws and regulations and with state location laws, and files notice of that location in the county records and with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mining claims can be located on land as to which the surface was patented into private ownership under the Stockraising Homestead Act of 1916, 43 U.S.C. §299, but the mining claimant cannot injure, damage or destroy the surface owner's permanent improvements and must pay for damage to crops caused by prospecting. Discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, as defined under federal law, is essential to the validity of an unpatented mining claim and is required on each mining claim individually. The location is made as a lode claim for mineral deposits found as veins or rock in place, or as a placer claim for other deposits. While the maximum size and shape of lode claims and placer claims are established by statute, there are no limits on the number of claims one person may locate or own. The Mining Law also contains provision for acquiring five-acre claims of non-mineral land for millsite purposes. A mining operation typically is comprised of many mining claims.
The holder of a valid unpatented mining claim has possessory title to the land covered thereby, which gives the claimant exclusive possession of the surface for mining purposes and the right to mine and remove minerals from the claim. Legal title to land encompassed by an unpatented mining claim remains in the United States, and the government can contest the validity of a mining claim. The Mining Law requires the performance of annual assessment work for each claim, and subsequent to enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §1201 et seq. , mining claims are invalidated if evidence of assessment work is not timely filed with BLM. However, in 1993 Congress enacted a provision requiring payment of $100 per year claim maintenance fee in lieu of performing assessment work, subject to an exception for small miners having less than ten claims. No royalty is paid to the United States with respect to minerals mined and sold from a mining claim.

The Mining Law of 1872 provides a procedure for a qualified claimant to obtain a mineral patent ( i.e., fee simple title to the mining claim) under certain conditions. It has become much more difficult in recent years to obtain a patent. Beginning in 1994, Congress imposed a funding moratorium on the processing of mineral patent applications which had not reached a designated stage in the patent process at the time the moratorium went into effect. Additionally, Congress has considered several bills in recent years to repeal the Mining Law or to amend it to provide for the payment of royalties to the United States and to eliminate or substantially limit the patent provisions of the law.

Mining claims are conveyed by deed, or leased by the claimant to the company seeking to develop the property. Such a deed or lease (or memorandum of it) needs to be recorded in the real property records of the county where the property is located, and evidence of such transfer needs to be filed with BLM. It is not unusual for the grantor or lessor to reserve a royalty, which as to precious metals often is expressed as a percentage of net smelter returns.


Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. , the Bureau of Land Management grants leases for development of deposits of coal, phosphate, potash, sodium, sulphur and other leasable minerals on public domain lands and on lands having federal reserved minerals. The Mineral Leasing Act establishes qualifications for mineral lessees, sets out maximum limits on the number of acres of a particular mineral that can be held by a lessee, and prohibits alien ownership of leases except though stock ownership in a corporation. While all federal mineral leases require the payment of annual rentals and production royalties to the United States, the terms and conditions of the leases vary. For instance, phosphate and potassium leases have indeterminate terms subject to readjustment of the lease terms and conditions at the end of each 20 years, while sodium and sulphur leases have an initial term of 20 years subject to the lessee's preference right to renew the lease at the end of the initial term and every 10 years thereafter. BLM regulations for most types of leases set out minimum rentals and royalties, thus allowing BLM to increase the rentals and royalties periodically for new leases and when existing leases are readjusted or renewed. Assignments and subleases of federal mineral leases must be approved by BLM.
The statutory and regulatory requirements relating to federal coal leases differ somewhat from those relating to other solid minerals. The coal leasing provisions under the Mineral Leasing Act were substantially amended when Congress adopted the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. The amendments were enacted in response to the small percentage of federal coal leases that were in production at that time and to the widespread speculation in federal coal leases that was occurring as investors waited for their undeveloped leases to increase in value. Federal coal is leased competitively, in infrequent lease sales held by BLM. Prior to a sale, BLM determines the fair market value and maximum economic recovery of the tracts offered for lease. No bids lower than the fair market value are accepted. Coal leases provide for the payment of annual rentals, and of a royalty of not less than 12% of the value of coal removed from a surface mine of 8% of the value of coal removed from an underground mine. The terms of a federal coal lease are subject to readjustment at the end of the first 20-year period of the lease and, if the lease is extended, at the end of each 10-year period thereafter. The 1976 coal lease amendments require lessees to have deposits in production in ten years or forfeit the leases and lose eligibility for additional leases. Coal leases can be combined into "logical mining units" for more efficient development. Coal mining operations (on both federal and private lands) are regulated by the Office of Surface Mining or federally approved state OSM offices under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §1201 et seq.


Leasing of Minerals on State Lands
States follow differing procedures for granting mining leases covering state school lands and other state-owned lands, and for approval of transfer of such leases. Information relating to royalties payable under state mineral leases, assignment forms and fees relating to transfers of interest in state mineral leases can be obtained by review of state regulations and consulting the applicable state agency.

Part 2 Tomorrow

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, General Services Administration, government, mining claim, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

Well some very interesting things are starting to come out about the ore that Gordon Walters sent to Virginia City, Montana by Donald Tangwall and Trickle Down Trucking. The original story that was told by Gordon Walters to the investors was that when the first truck got to Roy Moen's refinery in Virginia City, Montana that within 10 days after that the investors would start seeing a return on their money. When the ten days was up Gordon Walters came up with a new story and that story was that Roy told Gordon that there had to be 250 tons on the ground before his refinery would start processing the ore. Ten trucks were sent to Roys refinery in Virginia City only to have Gordon come up with another story. He showed assays that showed 43ounces per ton. The investors put up more money, then he needed a home in Arrey, New Mexico for $200,000 which we are finding cost $175,000 for the home on two acres. Then he had to have a crusher that was to cost $60,000 located somewhere in California. Then he need $40,000 to transport the crusher to New Mexico, said the he paid Roy $25,000 to process the ore, he also gave Sonny Riggs $20,000 to purchase the claim where the ore was being mined. Then Tangwall made a deal with Sonny Riggs and Bob Grantham to dig a hole there where the Sanders Brothers blew up the tunnel but the stalls.

Now it is turning out that the ore may never have shown up in Virginia City or Roy may have switched it. The drums that are suppose to contain metal from the ore from New Mexico now contains no gold so where did it go?

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, gold, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

I always find it a mystery as to why all the different Governmental agencies and State agencies that visit this site what they are looking for or trying to find. The BLM spends the most time, then there is Fish and Game. There are different military branches as well. There is NASA, there are even some that are connected to black opps groups. These agencies seem to forget that I capture every IP address that visits this site and how much time they spend on it as well. I would like to believe that there are some people that work for these Government Agencies are interested in the story that has been going on for about 15 years. Sometimes I get a little leery when the state law enforcement agencies pay us a visit considering that there is nothing illegal on this site. I do know because I have proof that the BLM in Las Cruces does put out misinformation concerning me and my claims. They have gone so far as to just outright lie. Special Agent Steven Cedarwall (BLM) went so far as to tell me that I could not put a shove in the ground on my own mining claim. But I do believe that we got around that because according to the mining law I have every right to take samples and other things to prove that there is an ore body on the claim.

We are going to be sending the Government Mineral Surveyor over to the Tesoro Claim to survey and mark the five acres for the permit to disturb five acres. Then Zonge Engineering is also going back over to run some test to follow the ore.

Then we will see if the BLM will give me a five acre disturbance. We will see if I am going to have to take then to court again.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, zonge

The BLM is flying Helicopters over the Caballo Mountains there in New Mexico. They are flying at as low as 100 feet and as high as 300 feet. They actually are not suppose to be below 1500 feet. They are suppose to fly at 1500 feet above the highest point which 100 to 300 feet is not the case.

When I left the New Mexico on the 23rd of December, 2008 the government actually had two government vehicles scan the trucks I was in. One was a van and the other was a pickup. They did the scanning in Arizona. It must be remembered that they do not cause anyone any problems if there is nothing there. There are various Governmental agencies that visit this website first thing in the morning and the last thing at night every day. But these Government agencies do nothing to keep the Las Cruces BLM in check. I have had and I have copies of letters that were written by various BLM officials out of the Las Cruces office where they just flat out lie and misrepresent the facts.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

I have been asked numerous time why I filed the treasure trove claim. In all the research that we did we found that the following:

1. After location of the trove you should know if it is on private property or public domain lands.

2. After you have ran all your tests then you have to file documentation that clearly states that you intend to recover the trove so that means filing paperwork at the county courthouse. If on public domain lands then you have to file a mining claim as well.

3. Filing the treasure trove at the county courthouse protects the treasure from anyone else that may be wondering what to do next. The dimensions of the claim should also be the same as the mining claim.

4. Then file a mining claim. The Government does not recognize Treasure trove claims. (The Government has never contested our treasure trove claim and now after almost 15 years they can not do it now).

5. You have to be able to protect the claim to establish ownership.

6. The government every year confiscates treasure because because treasure hunters do not want to take the time to it right. By doing it right it may take a little longer but in the end it is yours.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

We get emails from people that want to invest in Tesoro Del Alma all the time. I do not personally get involved with the investment end that is handled by our attorney in Omaha NE and his name is Jack Chapman. The only signature that will appear on a contract for us is our attorney and no one elses.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, investments, Jack Chapman, New Mexico, nick fleming

Because we capture the IP address of everyone that visits this site it is very interesting to see what government agency visits us on a regular basis.

LAX.dcmdw.dcma.mil (Defense Contract Management Agency)
146.129.243.45 (King County Gov)
128.20.140.139 (Headquarters Usaisc)
75-144-6-137-Pittsburgh.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (Indiana Planning And Development)
host194.piercelaw.edu (Franklin Pierce Law Center)
128.158.243.38 (National Aeronautics And Space Administration)
w3gw.BSS.BOEING.COM (Hughes Electronics)
152-131-9-8.sac.net.va.gov (Department Of Veterans Affairs)
cache4.nccr.epa.gov (U.s. Environmental Protection Agency)
mailsvr.doj.state.or.us (State Of Oregon)
kc.co.kern.ca.us (Tw Telecom Holdings Inc)

Nick

Labels: government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

We have just learned that the Dore Bars that were in a Texas Bank in El Paso under the custody of the BLM were sold and the funds were kept by the U.S. Government. The agreement between the Government and us was that once the bars from the treasure were recovered and the assays matched then the Dore Bars were to be turned over to us. We have individuals that work for the Government who keep us advised as to what the Government is doing and they did not feel as if the Government was doing the honorable thing by living upto their word. I can only say that the Government is the biggest thief there is. The BLM is the group that could care less about any agreement that they make. If we did the same thing that Government does we would be in jail.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, General Services Administration, gold, government, NASA, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

We hope that everyone had a safe and fun weekend. We want to thank everyone that have visited our website and have found it informative. We have been through a lot at the expense of a lot of ignorant government employees that work for the BLM in Las Cruces, New Mexico. They make up their own laws to cover their own ass in the hopes that they can scare people into giving up. The BLM policy is not law and has no binding effect on anyone. In the case of the BLM office in Las Cruces, New Mexico a lot of the employees there are treasure hunters themselves and would love it if we just went away or died. They manufacture a lot of misinformation in the hopes that you will just believe them because they are the government. The Mel Fisher case is the case law that is now used covering treasure. The United States Supreme Court has basically stated that the treasure belongs to the finder. Which is in line with the common law. Since there is no statutory law covering treasure the BLM has no authority to sieze any treasure so long as you have your bases covered. Once you have all the paperwork done there is nothing that the BLM can do except standby and watch. People have to get out of the idea that that the government is their friend, they are not and they will do everything that they can to prevent you from recovering your treasure which they admit they have no jurisdiction over. There is one thing that you have to remember the government does not fight you if it is not there.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, General Services Administration, gold, government, Las Cruces, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

I have been getting a lot of questions as to how to make the Government (BLM) comply with their own rules and guidelines. The answer is very simple it is called a Writ of Mandate filed in the United States District Court in whatever jurisdiction. It will make the Government (BLM) do what they are suppose to do or a Federal Court will make them do it.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

For those of you that have not figured out how to get to the old site. You have to go to where it states MORE INFORMATION and click on PREVIOUS SITE that will take you to where the test results, plot, lode claim, treasure trove claim, etc. We have provided this information to protect ourselves from the BLM and other government agencies. We hope that you find this information interesting and informative.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, General Services Administration, gold, government, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma, treasure

Here it is November 11, 2007 and the year is almost over. During this time of the year we should stop and count our blessings and look forward to a new year which is not that far away. Everything slows down this time of the year because we all start thinking about our families and the family events that take place this time of the year. The first thing that I would like to have everyone know is that we are in the process of checking out the Benah Group who are in the process of over claiming various mining claims. We have heard a lot of stories from them being a black-ops division of the United States Government to members of the various government agencies that are claiming various properties so that when the Government annex's the BLM land then they will have claim because all of the mining claims will not be honored only the claims by the Benah Group will be honored. I am including an article the was email to me that I thought this group would find interesting.

GOLD%20VS%20U.S.%20CURRENCY.doc

Let me say this I am for anyone that can legally beat the Government on anything. The Government has far to much power and cares to little for you or me. If you like the above article please feel free to let me know.

Have a good and safe holiday time and as more information becomes available concerning my treasure project I will let you know.

Nick

Labels: blm, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tda-6, tesoro del alma

We have just received a notice from the BLM stating that they do not recognize treasure trove claim and that they are getting a lot of requests. What the BLM fails to state is that when we started this we did so under 40 USC 310. Then we found a inter-office memo between the BLM and the GSA which states that the GSA is to get 50% of any treasure recovered on BLM land.

What they fail to also acknowledge is that in one Federal Court action that we filed in Alb. New Mexico we presented the memo to the court and the BLM stipulated that I owned the treasure and they were not going to argue that issue any more. We have been fighting the BLM Office in Las Cruces for over 14 years and we always take them to court to get what we want. They have a big problem when they are taken to court and that is that if they object to what we are doing concerning the Treasure and how we are going to extract it, they would have to admit that they are in fact treasure hunters as well and we do know that some of the officials that work in the Las Cruces Office of the BLM are in fact treasure hunters.

Nick

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, General Services Administration, gold, government, New Mexico, nick fleming, tesoro del alma, treasure

Many people have asked about the status of our ongoing battle with the BLM office out of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Perhaps out of all the bits of evidence for a major treasure find, this one stands out the most. Many of you may be questioning the validity of this site, this story, and this treasure. If you need further proof, then ask yourself this question:

Why would the BLM expend time and resources attempting to block the recovery of something that wasn't there?

A statement from Nick Fleming:

"We are planning in the very near future to be going into Federal Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico to get an injunction against the BLM office in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The injunction will block any further problems with the Las Cruces BLM office who believe that they are the only ones that can allow us to take the treasure trove out of the ground. The Las Cruces Office of the BLM has been fighting us tooth and nail to prevent us from recovering the treasure trove, under the auspice of jurisdiction and red tape.

The court action will be bring out facts that the Las Cruces Office of the BLM is in fact on a treasure hunting trip. Several years ago they ran tests on the Tesoro Del Alma site and told us that we had in fact found the treasure and that was when our problems with the Las Cruces BLM started. The Las Cruces BLM has tried everything within their power to prevent us from recovering the treasure and they have even allowed other people to try and over ride our claim which we have continued to pay the mining fees on and have them paid upto date every year as is evidenced by 10 years of claim filings exhibited on the web site pages."

Labels: blm, bureau of land management, government, jurisdiciton, nick fleming, red tape, tesoro del alma, treasure