Everist v. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Et. Al.

' '
\ \
\ '\
\
David D Everist DATE 2-4-2014
Secretary of mining
for Twin Cedar Mining claim
Mining District Township Unincorporated City
Josephine County Plaintiffs Local Governments
V/S
FILED' t /l FEJ:) 'r.- j (j. _,; Cn lt:DI-. u-'"tJ
- -r J...l _1 _ ... _." f\
lqq
CL
' I I L--J - cu . .- Ob . -
I .
Defendants USDA USFS DONNA MICKLEY USDI BLM DIRRECTOR DAYNE BARRON US
ATTORNEY GENNERAL MR ERIC HOLDER US ATTORNEY S.ADMANA MARSHALL US
ASSNT DOUNGLAS FONG JUDGE PANNER MAGSTRATE CLARK AND UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT CITY OF MEDFORD JOHN AND JANE DOES GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
COMPLAINT FOR NOT DOING DUTIES OF TRUST IN, GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT
COORDINATION WITH MY GOVERNMENTS TO COORDINATE MY GOVERNMENT ISSUES
UNDER FEDERAL LAND POLICY MANGEI\.:f:E:NT ACT USC 43 SEC 1701 ET SEQ AND TO
COORDINATE E.0.12630 TAKINGS IMPLICATION ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED BY
THE AGENCIES THIS COMPLAINT FEDERAL COURT RULE 8.1 ,8.2 LAW REQUIRETO
COORDINATE 8.3 I DEMAND THAT THE AGENCIES . ORDER TO ACT GOVERNMENTS TO
GOVERNMENTS COORDINATION 8.E ORDER SCREAMS OUT FOR COORDINATION FOR
JUSTICE COMFORM TO COURT RULES AND JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT AN ORDER BE GIVE
TO DO DUTIES OF TRUST AS REQIRED AGENCIES TO ACT ON GOVERNMENTS TO
GOVERNMENTS COORDINATION AND COORDINATE WITH ME AND GOVERNMENTS
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FOR ALL THE RECORDERS FROM ALL THE PARTIES MY
DISCOVERY IS AT BOARD OF JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECORDERS FOR
ORDERS SO PARTIES CAN GET THE RECORDERS FROM HEARINGS HELD
..
IMFROMUS PO PUS I .GET FROM MY BROTHER 250$ A MOUTH 182$ IN EBT FOOD CARD
MY GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY YET I NEED TO MINE MY CLAIM SO I CAN FUND MY
GOVERNMENT AND INCORPORATE MY CITY
\
)
n
Secretary ofMining or win cedar Mining Claim Mining
District TOWNSHIP and Unincorporated City
David D Everist
Case 1:14-cv-00199-CL Document 2 Filed 02/06/14 Page 1 of 47 Page ID#: 6
l
David D Everist Date 1-24-2014 9th cir case#13-30355
7 44 7 Thompson Cr Rd
-Applegate Oregon 97530
Secretary of mining for
Mining Claim Mining District
. township and Unincorporated city
Twin Cedar D / -t(_ 0 (' .r_- //] S T/( U C tt r
Notice FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS Brian Butler as a FEDERAL AGENCY YOU OUR
REQIRE TO DO GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT COORDINATION UNDER THE FEDERAL
LAND POLICY MANGEMENT ACT 43 SEC 1701 ETSEQ AS REQUIRE AS AGENCIES
COORDINATE AND AS AGENCIES OUR UNDER E.O. 12630 AS REQUIRE TO BE COMPLETE
THE TAKINGS IMPLICATION ASSESSMENT AS MADATED BY E.0.12630 as agency you get
all parties that name in the recorded to meet me an my government and coordinate meetings as required
by law and force E.0.12630

Secretary of mining for Mining C aim Mining District township
and Unincorporated City Twin Cedar
David D Everist
7447Thompson Cr Rd
Applegate OR 97530
. secretary mining claim
minihg district township
unincor:porated city
/W 'r u. CedGC
Date !-20-2014 BLM # 160574
c c Sat C\'-O
Cjf: _ 5 -e I/ I c- Po- oo
0
I_ fJ/j ( L
1 c I ( (j_ 0 (A r+ q ueo Is f ? ;r (J
! lfePfGc-e'?f Gk
TO USDI BLM DIRECTOR Dayne Barron USDA USFS RANGER Donna Mickey US ATTORNEY
GENERAL ERIC HOLDER US ATTORNEYS. AMANDA MARSHALL US ASSINT ATTORNEY
DOUNGLAS FONG fuis a form thats require for all parties to fell out as it is United States government
form for government agencies to do as a duty TO E.O. 12630
WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION ApriliO, 2013,5:30 p.m.
Anne G. Basker Auditorium
604 N:W. Sixth Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526
APPROVED ON MAY 1, 2013
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AT THE WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION
Present: Simon G. Hare, Chair; Cherry] Walker, Vice-Chair; and Keith Heck, Commissioner; Kim Kashuba, Recorder
These are meeting minutes only. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker's exact words. For complete contents
of the proceeding, please refer to the audio recording.
Pursuant to notice through the media and in conformance with the Public Meeting Law, Simon Hare, Chair called the
meeting to order at 5:30p.m, Items discussed were as follows:
BOARD DECISIONS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS WERE MADE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED
1. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF:
a. Approval of Personnel Action: Position Requisition for Civil Process Server, Sheriffs Office
Sheriff Gilbertson submitted and discussed Exhibit A, Memorandum re Civil Process Server, which explained the need
for this request.
b. Approval of Order 2013-017: In the Matter of Administrative Policies and Procedures for Josephine County
for the Purpose of Conducting Business on a Daily Basis: Section B- Financial/Budget
Commissioner Hare advised that this policy change was enacted to help prevent County liability for contracts it cannot
afford. '
2. REQUESTS/COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
David Everist, Josephine County, submitted and read Exhibit B, "Notice ... ", and briefly described Exhibit C, pleadings from
two Federal Court cases.
Dale Matthews, Grants Pass, alleged discrepancies in Commissioner Walker's motives to serve as a County Hearings Officer.
Jim Rafferty, Selma, asked whether he would be allowed to speak about the levy after tonight's presentation.
Mark Seligman, Selma, spoke in opposition to the proposed levy.
Paul Walters, Grants Pass, spoke in opposition to Josephine County's use of a hearings officer for any purpose.
Jeff Wolfe, Colonial Valley, spoke in favor of politicians who were willing to evaluate new information and alter their positions
when indicated.
Judy Ahrens, Grants Pass, offered a "Reality Check" by reciting economic statistics.
Bill Hill, Merlin, spoke regarding economic realities and in opposition to the levy.
Elizabeth Steiner, Oceanside, CA, commented that the state of Josephine County's Criminal Justice System was causing her to
. question whether to move to the area.
Sandi Cassanelli, Merlin, spoke regarding political signs allegedly on display at the airport.
Rycke Brown, Grants Pass, spoke in favor of Agenda ltein 1 (a), Position Requisition for Civil Process Server.
Board c t i ~ ~ on Agenda Item l(a):
Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve a Position Requisition for Civil Process Server. Sheriff's Office. seconded by
,Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote. motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck- yes. Commissioner Walker- yes and
.::Commissioner Hare- yes One ,original Position Requisition signed and returned to Human Resources.
Board Action on Agenda Item l(b):
Commissioner Walker made ti motion to approve Order 2013-017: In the Matter o(Administrative Policies and Procedures for
Josephine County (or the Purpose of Conducting Business on a Dailv Basis: Section B- Financial/Budget. seconded lzy
Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote. motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck- yes. Commissioner Walker yes and
Commissioner Hare - yes One original Order signed and retained for recording.
Weekly Business Session April10, 2013 Page 2
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Hare briefly described the Consent Calendar items, stating they had been vetted at last week's
Administrative Workshop Meeting.
a. Approval of Minutes
County Administration Workshop- March 7, 2013
Weekly Business Session- March 13, 2013
Legislative Phone Conference- March 26, 2013
General Discussion -March 26, 2013
Staff Meeting- March 28, 2013
County Administration Workshop- March 28, 2013
Board Discussion & Action:
Commissioner Walker inade- a motion to approve Consent Calendar Item 3(a). Approval of Minutes, seconded by
Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck - yes. Commissioner Walker - yes and
Commissioner Hare- yes
4. OTHER:
None reported.
5. MA TIERS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Heck commended the Pregnancy Care Center of Grants Pass for being one of four centers in the nation to
receive accreditation as a pregnancy care center.
Commissioner Walker announced that Hidden Valley High School's chapter of Future Business Leaders of America
(FBLA) won their 12th consecutive 4A State Championship last Saturday. She gave the students public recognition by reading
their names and respective awards into the record (see Exhibit D).
Commissioner Hare stated that a good example of communities coming together was displayed at last night's meeting in
Cave Junction, where solutions to the increasing cost of the County-maintained building there were discussed. Commissioner
Hare also announced that a legislative hearing would take place early tomorrow morning chaired by Doc Hastings (House
Natural Resources Committee), regarding the proposed O&C Trust Jobs and Conservation Act. He encouraged people to go
online and follow the proceedings.
6. PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREE-YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX
Commissioner Hare g!lve a brief introduction to the Presentation, providing a summary of the proposed Local Option Tax
and its goals. Commissioners Walker and Heck provided information on how County fmances and its Criminal Justice System
have been, currently are and would be under the proposed Three-year Local Option Tax. (See Exhibits E and F).
Entered into record:
Exhibit A: Memorandum re Civil Process Server, by Sheriff Gil Gilbertson
Exhibit B: "Notice ... ", by David Everist
Exhibit C: Federal Court pleadings, from David Everist
Exhibit D: Daily Courier article re FBLA team, from Commissioner Walker
Exhibit E: Comparison spreadsheet re Levy Proposal, by Commissioner Walker
Exhibit F: Sample Property Tax Statement, from Commissioner Heck
1
David D Everist
7447 Thompson Cr Rd
Applegate Oregon
of Mining
Twin.Cedar Placer.Mining District
RECIJr13APR 8 9

. o 1:r f'lhlblt /S
BLM#l60-574
case#1; 12-P0-00001-PA
case#CR09-479-MO
NOTICE TO BROAD OF JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USDA USFS USDI BLM
FOR COORDINATION
I demand to coordinate constructive fraud and constructive trust to imposed on all parties list on the
Aow charts as trustee of fraud. I demand an audit and all the records all the interlocking agreements
Transcripts trust and Email of all public private partnerships as agents in agency the plan to merge the
control over People land water property and roy property and your property of Citizens of the county.
In a Public private partnerships to raise revenue by fining the citizens of the county that's owns
property for the enrichment of the public private partnerships. The agents are agents to each other as
Agents
I am seeking an order for all of records transcripts video audio tapes disc and Email Kept at the
COURT of Recorder JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARINGS and meetings. Starting
in Apri12010 are ongoing. I am seeking Order for all records transcripts trust interlocking agreements
and Email from all of the parties ETAL ATAL
Case Law
Porto Rico light andpower
VS Col om C.C.A. 106 F 2d, 345, 354
Mott VS Smith
La App.273 So 2d 675,677
Bailment case law
Simpkins VS Ritter
204 N.W.2d 383,385
Palmer VS Civil Service COMMISSION D.C. 3th
191,fSupp,495,437
Hartford Elec light Co VS Water Resource Commission
169 Conn 89, 291, A 2d 730
Constructive Bailment involuntary
Wentworth VS Riggs 195 APP DN 899, 189 NEB 644,
143 N.Y.S., 955,956
Secretary of Mining from Twin Cedar Placer Mining District
-r-e. LJ- '6-C-c
B. ? flJ. '
......
-.....,-.,
8
Oregon, Cities
Ashland, OR
Beaverton, OR
. Clackanas County, OR
Corvallis, OR
Eugene, OR
Lake Oswego, OR
Uncoln City, OR
McMinnvile, OR
Milwaukie, OR
OR
---'*,._ .......... ... forC4IPllllidl--ptDjlda--
_,..,.,,. __ ,._llndt,_dlm _____ *'thlkorl......., ...
_....._ __
,.,_ Earth--
..
...8llllpllcllm ll'8llled .. rr.trGIII--
Horg8eftfa llr'cllltldalo. II nachJr*-1
rag'*llt .......... a:IM!y.-11> -!he planiL
_.IIIICh ...,..,...,liD hcUIIt her<lfiig papUalbns 11'111> l.lban
-eo tnat natwe can be p..--L.
Department of State, Commerce
(Forest Servfce}
(Fish & Wildlife, Nalional Pari( Service)
'En1iii'Oilmen1al Protection Agency (EPA)

Q

_.
Q
v
National Environmental Policy Act NEPA
Endangered Species Act ESP
Clean Air Act
Equal Access to Justice EAJA
Earthjustice Fast Fads
Did you Jaww? Wflve pwvidedlegal RD coet
to more 111m 1000 climls, from tbe Nalmal Resourtea DdiDse CQUDCil
BD4 the W"aldernesa Society ID c:QIIIIJIDDity-based coalidoos.
Here ue IODie IJ:JOre f8cts about ua:
l'oaodod 1111971 aadlll Sian Club Legal Defense PuDd
cbaDged to l!ar1bju.cil:e in 1997
HoadquaJ:fered ill San l'rallcilco, CA
Number -lSO
Ptaideut: 'Irip Vao Noppeo
<
Case 1:12-po-00001-CL Document 65 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 2 Page 10#: 338
S. AMANDA MARSHALL, OSB #953473
United States Attorney
District of Oregon
DOUGLAS W. FONG, OSB #842195
Assistant United States Attorney
310 West Sixth Street
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 776-3564
doug.fong@usdoj.gov
'r:
.. ,,
' .....
I I '
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1: 12-po-0000 1-CL .

'-ltOJ.3 L
.
Plaintiff,.
. ; . GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER TO
,\ft 1 '
1
f J. 'I ' ' I
. .. , . '; .', .. ,... DEFENDANT'S APEEAL OF
v.
MOTION TO DISMISS
DAVID DUANE EVERIST,
Defendant.
Defendant was charged by Information with Occupying or Using a Residence in National
Forest Land Without Auth?rization in violation of36 C.F.R. 261.10(b), Using or Occupying
National Forest Lands Without an Approved Operating Plan in violation of36 C.F.R. 261.10(p),
Cutting Timber without Authorization in violation of36 C.F.R. 261.6, and Leaving Refuse, Debris,
or in violation of 3 6 C.F .R 261.11. Alf:&re petty offenses punishable by up to 6 months jail
j
and a $500 fine.
Defendant moved to dismiss the Infonnation alleging that his unpatented miriing claim is not
subject to regulation, the Forest Service has no authority to detennine what uses are
"reasonably incident to" mining, and that his mining and incidental activities are not "special
uses" requiring Forest Service authorization (CR 20). The government filed a Response (CR 26)
Case 1:12-po-00001-CL Document 65 Filed 04/01/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#: 339
and Supplemental Response (CR 28), citing controlling authority that defendant's unpatented
mining claim was not exempt from federal regulation, and that the U.S. Forest Service may
reasonably regulate surface use of defendant's unpatented claim. After hearing further argument
(CR 29), Magistrate Clarke denied defendant's Motion to Dismiss (CR 30).
Defendant proceeded with a bench trial and was found guilty ofCount !-Occupying or
'
Using a Residence in National Forest Land Without Authorization, Count 2- Using or Occupying
National ForestLands Without an Approved Operating Plan, and Count 3- Cutting Timber
without Authorization (CR 34 ). Defendant waS sentenced to 30 days jail, with 3 years probation,
$2,050 restitution, and $1,000 in fines, with $800 suspended if defendant complies with his
probation conditions.
Defendant now appeals the denial of his Motion to Dismiss. The government relies upon
the points and authorities stated in its Response (CR 26) and Supplemental Response
1
(CR 28).
It is clear from defendant's previous case, United States v. Backlund (and Everist), 689 F.3d.
986, 991 (9th Cir. 2012), that persons conduc/ihg murlhg activities on unpatented mining claims
in the national forests must comply with regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2013.
.
Respectfully submitted,
S. AMANDA MARSHALL
United States t t o m e ~
Is/Douglas W. Fong .
DOUGLAS W. FONG
Assistant United States Attorney
1
The government's Supplemental Response directed the court to defendant's previous conviction that was upheld
on appeal, United States v. Bac!slund (and fu:mn), 677 F.3d 930 (2012). This opinion was amended and is now
found at 677 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012).
..
-
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
J3
14
15
16
Case 4:12-pa.08162-CRP Document 13 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DJSTRJCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRJCT OF ARIZONA
United States of America No. P0-2012-08162-TUC-CRP
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
Thomas E Tierney
Defendant.
17 Defendant is charged with a criminal misdemeanor for allegedly using National
18 Forest System land without special-use authorization when such authorization is required
19 in violation of 36 C.F.R. 26J .I O(k). (Doc. 1 ). Defendant pled not guilty to the charge.
20 Magistrate Judge Pyle heJd a bench trial on June 21, 2012 and took the matter under,
21 advisement. (Doc. 8). For the reasons discussed below, the Cowt finds Defendant not
22 guilty.
23 Factual Summary from Trial
24 Defendant Thomas Tierney is a prospector who has mined claims in the Huachuca
25 Mountains near Sierra Vista for a number of years. At issue in this case is Defendant's
26 mining of a claim in Ash Canyon. Defendant and the Forest Service disagree as to the
27 scale of Defendant's mining. On at least three different occasions since 2004, the Forest
28 Setvice infonned Defendant through written letter that Defendant's mining of his Ash
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
case 4:12-po-08162-CRP Document 13 Filed 10/03/12 Page 2 of 11
Canyon claim was causing a significant disturbance of surface resources such that
Defendant should be required to file a notice of intent and plan of operations. (Exhibits 8,
9, 12).
Defendant was notified in February 2004, July 2009, and on February 24, 2011
that he needed to flle a plan of operations. (!d.). In the February 24, 2011 letter, the
District Ranger for Sierra Vista stated "I have determined that all mineral activities in
Ash and Lutz Canyons have a potential to adversely impact other surface resources."
(Exhibit 12). Thus, the District Ranger stated that she requires plans of operation for any
mining activities in those areas. On May 3, 2011, Forest Service Officer Barry Sullins
ticketed Defendant for mining his Ash Canyon claim without flling a notice of intent and
plan of operations. (Doc. 1 ). Defendant maintains that his pick and shoveJ prospecting is
not causing a significant disturbance to surface resources and he is, therefore, not
required to file a notice of intent and plan of operations.
Prior to ticketing Defendant, Officer Sullins discussed the impact of Defendant's
mining with Defendant in November 2010. In that conversation, Officer Sullins advised
15
Defendant that if Defendant continued to work his Ash Canyon claim by digging a larger
16 . .,
hole, Defendant would need tO contact the District Ranger and file a plan of operations.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant testified that after he received the February 24, 2011 letter, he stopped mining
his Ash Canyon claim. Officer Sullins testified that Defendant told him that he continued
to mine the claim without a plan of operations because his lawyer told him he did not
need a pJan. Given Defendant's continued mining of the claim subsequent to his receipt
ofthe February 2004 and July 2009letters informing him that he needed to file a plan of
operations as well as his continued mining after his conversation with Officer Sullins in
November 2010, the Court finds Officer Sullins's testimony more credible on this point.
Officer Sullins testified that he ticketed Defendant in May 2011 because
Defendant's mining had caused significant disturbance to the surface resources. Officer
Sullins noted damage to trees surrounding the hole on Defendant's claim. The damage
included several exposed roots of trees, and one small tree that bad been recently sawed
-2-
' "
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
off at the base. (Exhibits 1-7). Defendant testified that he did not cut down the small tree
and to his he had never killed a tree while prospecting. Officer Sullins also
testified that the size of the hole dug by Defendant was evidence of significant
disturbance to the surface resources. Officer Sullins testified that the hole dug was
approximately 10 feet deep by 17 feet wide by 20 feet long. (Exhibit 3). Defendant
described a similarly sized hole, testifying it was approximately 10-12 feet deep by 8 feet
wide by 15-20 feet long, with different depths at different places. Defendant testified that
roots of trees are exposed while be is working a hole but he stated he backfills the hole
when he is finished processing the materials. It was unclear from the testimony how long
Defendant left this large hole without backfilling it. Based on testimony from Officer
Sullins and Defendant, the hole at issue existed in some large size in November 2010 and
still existed, in a larger size, in May 2011 when Defendant was ticketed. Thus, this hole
was not backfilled for at least 7 months. Defendant testified that the hole was eventually
filled during floods after the Monument Fire in the summer and fall of2011.
Discussion
Defendant argues he is not guilty of the charge for three reasons. He contends ( 1)
mining does not require special use authorization; (2) his mining of the Ash Canyon
claim did not cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; and (3) federal
regulations gave him 120 days after he received written notification from the Forest
Service to file a plan of operations.
1. Mining Does Not Require Specilll Use Authorization
Defendant is charged with failing to obtain special use authorization when such
authorization is required .. The regulation prohibits the "[u]se or occupancy of National
Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such authorization
is required." 36 C.F.R. 261.10(k). Many uses of Forest Service )and do not require
special use authorization. The regulation states:
(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources,
except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of
- 3-
' .,..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
roads ( 212.9); grazing and livestock use (part 222); the sale and
disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens,
mushrooms. and medicioai pJantq (part 223); and minBrals (part 228)
are designated "special uses." Before conducting a special use,
individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the authorized officer
and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized. officer,
unless that requirement is waived by paragraphs (c) through (eX3) of
this section.
36 C.F.R 251.50(a) (emphaSis added).
Defendant argues he was not required to obtain special use authorization for
mining activities because uses under "minerals (part 228).. are exempt from the
requirement to obtain authorization. The Court agrees. Based on the plain language of the
regulation, special use authorization is not required for mining activities as those are uses
of Forest Service land under "minerals (part 228)." As such, they are exempted from the
special use authorization requirement.
Defendant is not guilty of failing to obtain special use authorization when be was
not required to obtain that type of authorization for the mining he was doing in Ash
Canyon. While Defendant was charged under subsection (k) of 251.50, the dispute
between Defendant and the Forest Service and the evidence that was presented at trial all
focus on whether Defendant's mining violated subsection (a) of the regulation. That
subsection prohibits:
Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure,
fence, enclosure, communication equipment, .significant swface
disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or
facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved
operating plan when such authorization is required.
36 C.F.R 26l.10(a) (emphasis added). The February 2004 letter from the Forest
Service cited this subsection of the Regulation when it warned Defendant that he needed
to file a plan of operations. (Exhibit 8). Because both Defendant and the Forest Service
focus on whether Defendant's mining caused a significant disturbance of swface
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case 4:12-po-08162-CRP Document 13 Filed 10/03!12 Page 5 of 11
resources, the Court will address Defendant's other two arguments.
2. Defendant Did Not Cause Significant DisturbtDlce Of Surface Resources
At the heart of the dispute between Defendant and the Forest Service is whether
the scale of Defendant's mining activity caused a significant disturbance of surface
resources. Under the federal regulations, before a pers()n engages in any use that might
cause a significant disturbance, that person is required to file a notice of intent. 36 C.F.R
228.4(a). A notice of intent is not required for:
(ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant swface
resoruce disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a
reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which
generally might include searching for and occasionally. removing small
mineral samples or specimens, gold p n n i n g ~ metal. detecting, non-
motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting
of mineral specimens using hand tools;
36 C.F.R 228.4(a)(l)(ii) (emphasis added). A person is required to flle a plan of
operations if his cun-ent use of Forest Service land will cause or is causing a significant
disturbance. The Regulation states:
An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District
Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be
conducted in lieu of a notice of intent to operate if the proposed operations
will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator
also shall submit a proposed plan of operations. or a proposed supplemental
plan of operations consistent with 228.4(d), to the District Ranger having
jurisdiction over the area in which operations are being conducted if those
operations are causing a significant disturbance of surface resources but
are not covered by a current cipproved plan of operations. The requirement.
to submit a plan of operations shall not apply to the operations listed in
paragraphs (a}(l)(i) through (v). The requirement to submit a plan of
operations also shall not apply to operations which will not involve the use
of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or
the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise will likely cause a
significant disturbance of swface resources.
36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(3) (emphasis added).
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant maintains that he is a prospector who uses hand tools and no
mechanized equipment to study mineral samples on his Ash Canyon mining claim_ As
such, he argues the scale of his mining does not cause a significant disturbance of surface
resources and he is not required to file a notice of intent or plan of operations_ The Forest
Service argues the scale of Defendant's mining did cause significant disturbance of
surface resources because roots of trees were exposed, one small tree was sawed off near
the hole dug by Defendant, the size of the hole dug by Defendant was large and the hole
was left unfilled for a number of months causing a danger to other users of Forest Service
property including hikers, Border Patrol agents and illegal immigrants.
"Significant disturbance of surface resources" is not defmed m the federal
regulations. The regulations give the District Ranger discretion in determining what
constitutes significant disturbance_ 36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(4)_ Such discretion, however.
cannot be unfettered. As a matter of due process, a criminal statute that "fails to give a
person of ordinary inteJJigence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by
statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954), or i$ so indefmite that "it
encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions," Papachristou v. Jacksonville,
405 U.S. 156, 162 {1972), is void for vagueness. "The underlying principle is that no man
shall be held criminally resp<insible for conduct which he could not reasonably
understand to be proscribed." Harriss, 347 U.S. at 617.
The Forest Service asserts, in the letters sent by the District Ranger to Defendant,
the District Ranger has full authority to determine what is or is not significant
disturbance. In the February 24, 2011 letter, District Ranger Annette Chavez stated she
has "determined that all mioeral activities in Ash and Lutz Canyons have a potential to
adversely impact other surface resources.'' (Exhibit 12). Based on her detennination, the
District Ranger concluded "an approved Plan of Operations (POO) must be a requirement
for any mineral related activities in Ash and Lutz Canyons, including activities [on
Defendant's mining claims]." {Exhibit 12). The position of the District Ranger that all
mining in these two canyons requires an approved plan of operations is untenable. Such
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
)4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case 4:12-po-D8162..CRP Document 13 Filed 10/03/12 Page 7 of 11
unfettered discretion fails to notify a person of what constitutes significant disturbance of
surface resources_
While the tenn significant disturbance of surfaces resources is not defmed in the
federal regulations, limits of its defmition can be discerned from the uses the federal
regulations usually pennit without a plan of operations_ The Federal Regulation states:
( 1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for:
(i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing
public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System
purposes;
(ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface
resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a
reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis . and study which
generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small
mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-
motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting
ofmineral specimens using hand
(Hi) Marking_and monumenting a mining claim;
(iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface
resource disturbance;
(v) Operations, which in their totality, will not cause sUrface resource
disturbance which is substantially different than that caused by other users
of the National Forest System who are not required to obtain a Forest
SeiVice special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization;
(vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving .
equipment. such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless
those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface
or
(vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for
approval;
36 CFR 228.4(aX1)- Based on these exemptions, the regulations do not usually require
notices of intent or plans of operations for small scale mining_ Removing small samples .
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of minerals, using hand or battery operated tools and even some types of underground
mining are usually permissible without a plan of operations. In contrast, large scale
mining involving mechanized earthmoving equipment like bulldozers and backhoes does
require a plan of operations.
In addition to the regulatory language, Questions and Answers developed by the
Forest Service when it promulgated the applicable regulation address uses in which the
Forest Service anticipated a plan of operations would be necessary and also address the
limits of what constitutes significant disturbance. 70 Fed. Reg. 32713 (June 6, 2005). The
Federal Register states:
As reorganized by the fmaJ rule, 228.4(a) will describe in sequence when
an operator is required to submit a notice of intent to operate before
commencing operations, what operations are exempt from the requirement
for prior submission of a notice of intent to operate, when an operator is
required to submit and obtain approval of a proposed plan of operations
before commencing operations, what operations are exempt from the
requirement for prior submission and approval of a proposed plan of
operations, and a District Ranger's authority to require submission and
approval of a proposed plan of operations before an opemtor commences
proposed operations or continues ongoing operations. This reorganization
parallels the typical progression of mining operations from the least
functions, work, or activities for prospecting or casual use, which would not
normally require prior submission and approval of a plan or operations,
through exploration, wruch often would require prior submission of a notice
of intent to operate, and might require prior submission and approval of a
plan of operations, to development and production, which nonnally would
require prior submission and approval of a plan of operations. These
changes should enhance the final rule's clarity and comprehensibility.
70 Fed. Reg. at32719-32720.
The parties in this case agree that Defendant does not use mechanized equipment,
that his work as a prospector involves a pick and shovel. Defendant is engaging in a
"casual use" as contemplated by the regulations. Such use of Forest Service land would
not nonnalJy require prior submission of a plan of operations. The Forest Service
contends Defendant's casual use has extended outside the contemplated bounds to
constitute significant disturbance and he should be required, unlike most other casual use
- 8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case 4:12-po-Q8162-CRP Document 13 Filed 10/03112 Page 9 of 11
prospectors, to file a plan of operations.
This term, significant disturbance of surface resources, has been included in some
form of the applicable regulation since 1974. 70 Fed. Reg. at 32719-32723. While the
term has never been defmed in the regulation, the Forest Service discussed limits of the
term in its promulgation of the regulation in 1974 and in 2005. !d. at 32723-32724.
Significant disturbance can include operations "for which reclamation upon completion
of that operation could reasonably be required and to operations that could cause impacts
on National Forest Service resources that reasonably can be prevented or mitigated.'' Jd.
at 32724 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Defendant's pick and shovel mining is not an operation that required reclamation
after it concluded nor was there damage to Forest Service resources that could have
reasonably been prevented or mitigated. At trial the Court asked the Government to
identifY damage.that required reclamation. The Government noted the exposed tree roots,
the sawed off small tree and the size of the hole as well as the length of time the hole was
left unfilled. The Government did not identify any impacts on Forest Service resources
such as specific concems for wildlife or specific environmental concerns. The evidence-
presented and highlighted by the Government failed to show a signifiCant disturbance of
resources that would require reclamation. Prospectors dig holes, which in the middle of a
forested area, exposes the roots of trees. That tree roots are exposed for some limited
amount of time is not a pennanent damage of resources or a disturbance that requires
reclamation. Defendant testified that he backfills the holes he digs and there is no
evidence that this is not a true statement. The hole at issue in this case was filled shortly
after Defendant was ticketed. There is no evidence that the small sawed off tree was cut
down by Defendant and Defendant testified that he has never killed a tree while
prospecting. Further, the destruction of one small tree unlikely constitutes significant
disturbance of surface resources.
The size of the hole and the length of time it was left unfilled is also not
significant disturbance. While the hole dug was large and it was left unfilled for many
months, the hole was eventually filled. The Government did not present evidence to show
-9-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reclamation would be necessary due to the size of the hole or the length of time it was left
wrlilled. No evidence was presented that the size of the hole or length of time it was
exposed caused specific damage to Forest Service resources. The Court does
acknowledge the concern voiced by Officer Sullins that the safety of other Forest Service
]and users may be compromised with large, unfilled holes left for months at a time. A
large, unfilled hole could present a danger to hikers, Border Patrol agents and ilJegal
immigrants who may pass through the Canyon. Nothing, however, in the regulation at
issue allows the Forest Service to ticket prospectors for creating a large hole that is
potentially a danger to other users of the area The regulation focuses on preservation of
the environment and Forest Service surface resources. it does not focus on the
safety of other users of the land. Defendant did not cause a significant disturbance.
3. Tire 120 Day Statutory 1ime Dld Not Apply to Defendant
Defendant's fmal argument is that he was not guilty of charge because the
regulations gave him 120 days to file a plan of operations after he received written notice
in the February 24, 2011 letter. Defendant is incorrect on this point When the regulation
was promulgated on July 6, 2005, a person had 120 days from that date to file a plan of
operations to be in compliance with the new regulation. The applicable subsection states:
(b) Any person conducting operations on the effective date of these
regulations. who would have been required to submit a plan of operations
under 228.4(a), may continue operations but shall within 120 days
thereafter submit a plan of operations to the District Raitger having
jurisdiction over the area within which operations are being conducted:
Provided, however, That upon a showing of good cause the authorized
officer will grant an extension of time for submission of a plan of
operations, not to exceed an additional 6 months. Operations may continue
according to the submitted plan during its review, unless the authorized
officer determines that the operations are unnecessarily or unreasonably
causing irreparable damage to swface resources and advises the operator of
those measures needed to avoid such damage. Upon approva1 of a plan of
operations, operations shall be conducted in aecordance with the approved
plan. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply: (1) To
operations excepted in 228.4(a) or (2) to operations concluded prior to the
effective date of the regulations in this part.
- 10-
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36 C.F.R. 228.4{b). This subsection and the 120 day grace period applied only to
people whose use of the land on July 6, 2005, may have required a plan of operations. It
does not apply to Defendant who was notified in February 2011 and ticketed in May
2011.
IT IS ORDERED the Court finds Defendant NOT GUILTY of violating 36
C.F.R. 261.1 O{k).
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2012.
c:%4 (J2 f/:A-
CHARLES R. PYLE ,_
UNITED STArES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
- 11 -
WEEKLY BUSINESS S S ~ I O N April24, 2013,9:00 a.m.
Anne G. Basker Auditorium
604 N.W. Sixth Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526
APPROVED ON MAY 15,1013
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AT THE WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION
Present: Simon G. Hare, Chair; Cherry) Walker, Vice-Chair; and Keith Heck, Commissioner; Kim Kashuba, Recorder
. These are meeting minutes only. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker's exact words. For. complete contents
of the proceeding, please refer to the audio recording.
Pursuant to notice through themedia and in conformance with the Public Meeting Law, Simon G. Hare, Chair called the
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Items discussed were as follows:
BOARD DECISIONS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS WERE MADE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED
I. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF:
a. Approval of County Assessment Function Funding Assistance (CAFF A) Budget
Connie Roach, Assessor, advised that this grant, which is derived from recording fees and delinquent property taxes,
typically represents twenty-five percent of the Assessor's operating budget and enables them to remain compliant with state law
regarding assessment and taxation of a community. Eve Arce, Tax Collectorffreasurer, stated funds from this grant
represented 52 percent of that Department's operating revenue. Commissioner Hare explained how the County's assessment
and taxation systems worked, confirming that of the $62 Million per year collected by the County, all but around $3.6 Million.
was disbursed to 16 other taxing districts. Commissioner. Heck confirmed that the County received no compensation t ~
perform assessment, taxation and collection services for those other districts.
b. Approval of Resolution 2013-029: In the Matter of Participation in the Assessment and Taxation Grant
Connie Roach, Assessor, explained that the Board's approval of this Resolution formalized the County's participation in
this grant program.
2. REQUESTS/COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
David Everist, Josephine County, announced a discovery on his mining claims he considered significant and valuable, and
submitted Exhibit A, courtesy copies of an Order and a Demand to federal agencies regarding his claims.
Jim Rafferty, Selma, expressed concern with the information on the levy mailed by the County because it did not emphasize the
fact that levy monies would be received into the General Fund, where he believed they would be used elsewhere besides the
intended Public Safety Departments.
Mark Seligman, Selma, expressed frustration with the closure of Rough and Ready Lumber Mill and vehemently opposed the
property tax increase proposed by Measure 17-49.
Commissioner Hare advised Mr. Seligman that due ,to his failure to adhere to meeting decorum and refusal to relinquish the
floor after his time was up, he would possibly not be recognized next week to speak at the Weekly Business Session.
Dale Matthews, Grants Pass, discussed the recent posting of political signs at the Airport, questioning the adequacy of security
services there and asking the whereabouts of a silrveillance tape.
Jeff Wolf, Colonial Valley, shared a recent occurrence of a serious crime committed in town where the suspect was cited and
released due to inadequate Jaw enforcement.
Pat Sitze, Grants Pass, suggested the problem with the County's crime rate and state of County Law enforcement was more of a
moral problem than a revenue problem.
Larry Ford, Grants Pass, responded to comments made by Mr. Seligman regarding the recent closure of Rough and Ready
Lumber Mill, alleging that the real reason for the decline in timber products companies was environmental groups who sued
perfectly legitimate timber sales.
Board Action on Agenda Item l(a):
Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve the County Assessment Function Funding Assistance (CAFFAJ Budget,
seconded bv Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck- yes, Commissioner Walker-
yes and Commissioner Hare -yes
Weekly Business Session April24, 2013 Page 2
Board Action on Agenda Item l(b):
Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve Resolution 2013-029: In the Matter o(Participation in the Assessment and
Taxation Grant, seconded by Commissioner Heck . Upon roll call vote. motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck - yes.
Commissioner Walker- yes and Commissioner Hare- yes One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Hare briefly described the Consent Calendar items, stating they had been vetted at last week's
Administrative Workshop Meeting.
a. Approval of Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and Affirmative Action Program
Two original Plans signed; one retained for recording; one returned to Human Resources.
b. Approval of Resolution 2013-027: In the Matter of an Appointment to the Josephine County Library Board of
Trustees. One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.
c. Approval of Resolution 2013-028: In the Matter of an Appointment to the Emergency Medical Services Board
One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.
Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve Consent Calendar Items 3(a) through 3(c) as listed. seconded bv
Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote. motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck- yes. Commissioner Walker- yes and
Commissioner Hare- yes
4. OTHER:
Commissioner Walker advised the Board recently became aware of a grant opportunity for the Public Health Department
that had a very tight timeline and asked the Department's Director, Diane Hoover, to explain it. Diane stated the funding was
available through the Mid-Rogue Foundation to help offset the cost of implementing a certified electronic health record system
that was compatible with Medicare requirements. The grant amount she requested approval to apply for was $14,280, which
would cover the installation, maintenance for one year, and one "lab interface." Diane further advised the foundation
committed to waive training, license and set-up fees.
Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve a Grant Application {or Mid-Rogue Foundation (or the benefit of the
Josephine Coun{}' Public Health Department in the amount o($14,280. seconded by Commissioner Heck. Upon roll call vote.
motion passed 3-0: Commissioner Heck- yes. Commissioner Walker- yes and Commissioner Hare- yes
5. MA TIERS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Hare announced that today was Administrative Professionals Day and the Board very kindly thanked and
praised their staff.
Commissioner Walker, responding to a citizen comment, stated that it was not government's role to police morality;
however it was government's role to attempt to provide a criminal justice system for its community, which was why the Board
was submitting the proposed levy to the voters.
Weekly Business Session was adjourned at I O:IIa.m.
Entered into record:
Exhibit A: Copies of Federal Court pleadings from David Everist
David D Everist
744 7 Thompson CR RD
Applegate OR
97530
RECVD' 13 APR 19 15:0C\JSOC -oRt1
BLM#l60574
Case# 1; 12 PO 00001 PA
Case# CR -09-4 79
ORDERS TO USDI BLM USDA USPS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
AS AGENTS FOR EACH OTHER AS IN AGENCY ETAL ATAL.
I am, my partners are seeking an order for a possessor y warrant for mining claims Twin Cedar Placer
Cat's eye Peak's Placer As takings of my property, my personal property is to be replaced by the USDA
USFS, PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AS AGENTS FOR EACH OTHER as in
AGENCYS.ETAL A TAL. I am, my partners are seeking an order for that USDI BLM to come and
defend grantor, grant, and grantee. I am, my partners are seeking an order for breach of the grant by
USDA USFS, PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERS ETALATAL.I am, my partners are seeking an order for
possessory action against USDA USPS, Public Private Partnerships for the Attack on UNITED
STATES Congress the grantor, grant, and grantee. Case Law of the UNITED STATES HAPPY
CONY ON INS CO VS TITLE INS CO OF MINNESOTA COLO APP 560P 2D 839,842. Mott VS
Smith La APP, 273 So 2d 675,677 UDER LAW 30 USC SEC 26, 28, 53.E.O.l2630 TAKINGS
!
_ ... ,
l
David.D Everist BLM#160574
Applegate Or 97530
of Mining
GCt S(.# j ;) J (__--PCJ- OOl_){;J f:p.
For Twin Cedar Mining District
Notice of Coordination to BOARD OF JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USDI BLM USDA .
usFs ETAL ATALJ6Cto'\ q ,A.ClJq;v::_) Dc>E_S ('..;OrJec n
TO Coordinate Home Rule of Mining District as Twin Cedar Placer is a Mining District. As Mining
Districts created cities of the West, and Mining District are Local Government I David D Everist
Demand to coordinate Home Rule for Twin CeQ.ar Placer Mining District, and other issues ;';:
Notice of a son de tort come soon sooner rather than later for Coordination and cost ofthe time in
billable hours for preparing The son de tort as time cost money.
Yo u ,uC2 [l1 TIL. b -I I- l] +a h
Co ocd,. c\_Ci t LQ L'\ L-
1
'\ -e -<G--f-
1
).[C::2,) 74 L 1\ 7A L
Federal Land Policy Management Act law by US codes are 4f.Gsc sec 1711 ETSEQ and the Nation
Land Forest Management Act by US codes16 USC sec1602 etseq. Federal Rule 43 55990 Nov 29
1978, and 44 Federal Rule 873 Jan 3 1979 Case Law Printz VS U.S. and SECRETARIAL ORDER
3310 Lj t Y? cr:-1; <..CJde t:fdlff'c/ .
cJ I -
, /
"' . ..;
b __. uc.,{ 3

Secretary of Mining David D Everist is the agent
In charge For Twin Cedar Placer Mining District,
The Controlling legal authority for the District
't:
7
;)
Ward, Colorado- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of4
.
Ward, Colorado
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ward (elevation 9,450 feet (2,880 m)) is
a Home'Riile.Municipality.in Boulder
County, Colorado, United The
population was 150 at the 2010 census.
The town is a former mining settlement
founded in 1860 in the wake of the
discovery of gold at nearby Gold Hill.
Once one of the richest towns in the
state during the Colorado Gold Rush, it
is located on a mountaillside at the top of
Left Hand Canyon, near the Peak-to-
Peak Highway (State Highway 72)
northwest of Boulder.
!
i
I
i
l
Contents
1 History
2 Geography
3 Demographics I
4 See also !
5 References .
6 External links
L_ ______________ ,
History
The town was named for Calvin Ward,
who prospected a claim in 1860 on the
site known as Miser's Dream. [
4
] The
town boomed the following year with
the discovery by Cyrus W. Deardorff of
the Columbia vein. Over the next several
decades the population fluctuated,
growing from several hundred to several
thousand before declining once again.
The mines in the area remained
profitable for many decades, with one
mine eventually.producing over 2
million ounces (62 metric tons) of silver.
A post office with the name Ward
District was established January 13,
Coordinates: 404'20"N I 0530'36"W

Town of Ward, Colorado
------------
!----
-Town-
'
i
I
I
Location in Boulder County and the state of Colorado
Coordinates: 404'20''N 10530'36"W
Country
State
County[IJ
Founded
Incorporated
United States
:Z: Colorado
Boulder County
---
1860
June9 1896[
2
1
'
1
-1
i
I
i
----1
l
!
Government
Type
l Area _____ _
Home Rule Municipality[ll
________ j
i Total
Land
Water
0.6 sq mi (1.5 km
2
)
0.6 sq mi (1.5 km
2
)
0 sq mi (0 km
2
)
Ward, Colorado- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 4
! Elevation 9,450 ft (2,880 m)
1863; the name was changed to Ward,
September 11, 1894Yl The city was
incorporated in June 1896. The railroad
reached the area in 1898, arriving over
the Whiplash and Switzerland Trail,
which climbed over 4,000 feet (1,220 m)
from Boulder over the course of 26
miles (42 km). In 1901 over 50 buildings
were destroyed by a devastating fire,
although the profitability of the mines
led to the immediate rebuilding of the
town. The town was largely deserted by
the 1920s, but the construction of the
Peak-to-Peak Highway in the 1930s led
1
Total 150
Density 281.7 /sq mi (112. 7/km
2
)
j ________________________________________
i Time zone Mountain (MST) (UTC-7)
i Summer (DST) MDT (UTC-6)
r---------
ZIP code[3l 80481

'
, Area code(s) 303 :
1------------------------------------------;
FIPS code 08-82735
GNIS feature ID 0178487 ,
(http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f? \
. 1
p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:Ol78487)
t_______________ _ ____________ !
_ View of Ward from below along Lefthand
Canyon Road
to a revival of the town. During WWII the town's year-
round population dropped to four people. Then, in the
1960s, the town's populationjumped from between 10-
20 year-round residents to well over 100 due to the
town's interest to hippies. [citation needed]
The town has several businesses along its main street,
including a restaurant, a coffee shop and general store.
Geography
Ward is located at
404'20''N 10530'36"W (40.072347, -105.510131).[
6
1.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 0.6 square miles (1.6 km\
all of it land.
Demographics
As of the censusPl of2010, there were 150 people, 75 households, and 36 families residing in the town.
The population density was 296.9 people per square mile (114.5/km
2
). There were 82 housing units at an
average density of 144.1 per square mile (55.5/km
2
). The racial makeup of the town was 98.82% White,
and 1.18% from tWo or more races.
There were 75 households out ofwhich 26.7% had children under the age of 18living with them, 34.7%
were married couples living together, 5.3% female householder with no husband present, and 52%
were non-families. 37.3% of all households were made up of individuals and 8% had someone living
alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2 and the average family size
.. was 2.67.
httn I fpn mikinPrli Aro/uriki /W f'A :)/7/2013
Ward, Colorado- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 4
Businesses in Ward
See also
Outline of Colorado
Index of Colorado-related articles
State of Colorado
Colorado cities and towns
Colorado municipalities
Colorado counties
Boulder County, Colorado
Colorado metropolitan areas
Front Range Urban Corridor
In the town the population was spread out with 19.3%
under the age of 18, 5.3% from 18 to 24, 32% from 25
to 44, 35.3% from 45 to 64, and 8% who were 65 years
of age or older. The median age was 43.5 years. For
every 100 females there were 154.2 males. For every
100 females age 18 and over, there were 132.7 males.
In 2000, the median income for a household in the town
was $33,750, and the median income for a family was
$50,313. Males had a median income of $26,250 versus
$28,750 for females. The per capita income for the town
was $14,900. None of the population or families were
below the poverty line.
North Central Colorado Urban Area
Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO Combined Statistical Area
Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
Roosevelt National Forest
References
1. /\a b "Active Colorado
Municipalities" (http://www.dola.state.co. us/dlgllocal_governments/municipalities.html). State of Colorado,
Department of Local Affairs. Retrieved 2007-09-01.
2. /\ "Colorado Municipal Incorporations" (http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/muninc.html). State of
Colorado, Department of Personnel & Administration, Colorado State Archives. 2004-12-01. Retrieved 2007
-09-02.
3. /\ "ZIP Code Lookup" (http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp) (JavaScript!HTML). United States Postal
Service. Retrieved 2008-01-08.
4. /\Eberhart, Perry (1959). Guide to the Colorado Ghost Towns and Mining Camps, p. 100. Denver: Sage
Books.
5. /\Bauer, William H., Ozment, James L., Willard, John H. (1990) Colorado Post Offices, 1869-1989, p. 148.
Golden, Colorado: The Colorado Railroad Museum. ISBN 0-918654-42-4.
6. /\ "US Gazetteer files: 2010, 2000, and 1990" (http://www .census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/gazette.html).
United States Census Bureau. 2011-02-:12. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
7. /\"American FactFinder" (http://factfinder._c;ensus.gov). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
httn)/P.n wikinPcii::t oro/wiki/Wl'lrci C:olor::tcio ~ 7 2 0 1 :1
Ward, Colorado- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 4 of4
External links
Town contacts (http://www.cmca.gen.co.us/Municipality.cfm?MunicipalityiD=226)
CDOTmapofWard
(http://www.dot.state.co.us/App_DTD_DataAccess/Downloads/CityMaps/Ward.pdf)
Ward, Colorado: a slice of Appalachia in the Rockies (http://ward-colorado.20megsfree.com/)
Ghosttowns.com: Ward, Colorado (http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/co/ward.html)
Ward, Colorado, a revitalized gold-mining ghost town (http://wardcolorado.googlepages.com)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward,_ Colorado&oldid=543001530"
Categories: Towns in Colorado i Populated places in Boulder County, Colorado
This page was last modified on 9 March 2013 at 10:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
httn://en.wikinedia.om/wiki/Warcl_ Colorado :')/7/2011

Tradernark -Anlerica
Protecting Your Higl1ts
Referenced Cases, Codes & Statutes
Printz v. US:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=OOO&invol=95-l478
Secretarial Order 3310:
http :I lwww. b lm. go v/pgdata! etc/medialib/blrnlwo/Communi cations Directorate/pub lie affairs/ne
ws release attachments.Par.26564.File.dat/sec order 331 O.pdf
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review- Executive Order

review-executive-order
Questions?
If you have any questions that were not answered during the conference, please visit our website
www.trademarkamerica.org/ What is Coordination?/ Coordination Q & A, and submit your
questions there. We will answer them as soon as possible and possibly post them to our website
if we feel they can be beneficial to others.
ation Prohibited, Contact www.trademarkamerica.org for additional copies 88
David D Everist
Applegate Oregon 97530
Secretary of Mining
A Local Government
Date 9-30-2013 BLM#160574
Case #1; 12-P0-00001 CL-P A
9
1
h circuit court appeals Case#
REQUEST FOR A HEAR ON WRIT HABEPIS
CORPUS AND WRIT OF ARREST CROSS COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES VS David D Everist
CROSS COMPLAINT FOR COORDINATION AND OR COORDINATING
THIS A WRIT OF HABEPIS CORPUS AND WRIT OF ARREST TO BRING FORWARD LAW OF
COORDINATION, AND OR COORDINATING AND FEDERL LAND POLICY MANGEMENT
ACT USC 43 SEC 1701 ETSEQ WHICH REPLACE MULTIPLE USE ACT OF 1955 USC 16 SEC
471 WAS REPEALED AND FLPMA EXCLUDE the USDA USFS OVER VALUEBLE MINERALS
DEPOIST and left the Saving Claw's in under USC 16 SEC 482
AS to My appeal on my cross complaint is to the heart of subject matter as the BOARD OF
JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING COORDINATION UNDER FEDERAL
LAND POLICY MANGEMENT ACT Also known-as FLPMA AND UNDER USC 43 SEC 1701
ETSEQ
As to as local Government having immunity as to my government jurisdiction as Secretary of Mining
USDA USFS HAS NOT RESPONDED USDI BLM IS THINKING IT OVER in defending the grantor
and grantee as trustee and defending grant and My Mining District as having immunity as Local
Government Jurisdiction is Controlling Legal Authority Twin Cedar Mining District, Township and
Unincorporated City is Local Government and Controlling Legal Authority over my jurisdiction of the
valuable minerals deposit as Mining District and Secretary of Mining
Footnote look at Exhibit A 6-19-2013, Exhibit A 4-24-2013 from the record ofBOARD OF
JOEPHINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
David D Everist Secretary of Mining
David D Everist
BLM#l60574
l J - c .. a t Y
Secretary.,ofmining for Twin Cedar Mining District
NOTICE TO BLM DIRRECTOR DAYNE BARRON AND THE CITY OF MEDFORD OREGON
notice in Demand for government to government coordination and notice of a son de tort
. :..
NOTICE to BLM DIRRECTOR DAYNE BARRON TO COORDINATE WHO IS THE TRUST
ADMENSTRAIGHT IS AND HOW CAN I GET IN CONTACT TO THE TRUSTEE OF THE
VALUEBLE MINERAL DEPOIST GRANT
David D Everist Date! 0-30-2013 Docket#R130017736
Case#l.12-P0-00001-CL PA 7 44 7 Thompson Cr Rd
Applegate Oregon 97530 541-531-7273
US COURT OF APPEALS 9th Cir Case# 13-30260
Cross-Complaint against the public private partnership S.OR.E.D.L USDA USFS AND THE CITY OF
MEDFORD ALL OF PARTIES AGENTS IN AGENCY FOR EACH OTHER
The City of MEDFORD OREGON is in a public private partnership with S.O.R.E.D.L and are in
constructive fraud, constructive trust as agent for each other as in agency and is a defendant in my cross
complaint And USDA USFS ARE IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH S.O.R.E.D.L
My discovery to you is in the court of the record the board of JOEPHINE COURT COMMISSIONERS
I Call for Magistrate HABRLACK FOR THE CITY OF MEDFORD to be remove from this case do to
the fact he was my mother attorney and the city of MEDFORD is a parties To my cross complaint
I demand discovery so can call witn,.ess for trial cross exam the evidence
David D Everist
7447 Thompson Cr Rd
Applegate Or 97530
Secretary of Mining
Twin Cedar Mining District
BLM#I60574 R
;566/qf$(

Notice for Imformus Poppas I get 150$ a mouth from my $ a mouth in EBT
And owner in Twin Cedar mining Claim Township And Unincorporated City
In the United States vs David D Everist case# I; 12-P0-0000 1-PA I have been so declare by
Magistrate CLARK And Judge PAMMER
MOTION for discovery on Docket #R 130017736 for all of citation issued at the and place of said
citation violation and there names of these witnesses and discovery the !8lllie of OFFICER 525 and All
report and all records and any others pictures from that time and place
David D Everist
"
Secretary of Mining for Twin Cedar Mining District
MEDFORD MUNICIPAL COURT 411 W. 8th St., Medford, OR 97501 (541) 774-2040
NAME J/d fJV!it'rU APPEARANCE )0 -;)_0-/
(Failure to appear on the above date may re ult in a guilty judgment and a request for suspension of your driving privileges and/or a ..
Additional fees will result if collection action is necessary.)
DOCKET No. rZ I 3 {;() II/ ?<:4 . ...:..n.!.'><q-:. ___ 0'--J L:...t'...:._Y\:::......'trJ.:...: -=- s. s
Date ,1()-:;J/J-/3 0 Trial Reason +-- () J.S Ct'Je. ti
0 .PLEA or 0 FINDING: 0 GUILTY DNCT
.!:/l)"
C1 NOT GUILTY 0 DISMISSED
Fine $ _____ .Suspended $ _____ Restitutidn $ ____ _
Fees: WARRJSUSP $ _____ DSA $ _____ THADM $_---'-___ THRS $ _____ OTHER$ ____ _
Jail I Work Center Days ____ Days ___ Report Date/Time __________ _

Bail=$ ____ Cl Post Bail By ______ 0-Prev Posted COURT APPT ATTY Approved I Denied
0 Investigate deferred sentencing agreement option
0 Continue existing deferred sentencing agreement
OCONTINUED _______
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. ___ tf 0 +,. t:Jl )j 'flt? /'C-d -
REFERREDTO: . @'f- -t?:r let-{ r-'----'-0---"-B_e_;_tt_e_r_C..,..h"'-o-i-'-ce_s __ :-.....,
0 Theft Program- CityHall,_411 W. 204 Phone
0 Work Alternative 0 CommuJ1iiy Service 1101 w. Main St., Medford . . . .
IMPORTANT- IF YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE YOU MAY
BE ELIGffiLE FOR A COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY. BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF YOUR
RIGHTS REGARDING COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS. THE JUDGE WILL ADVISE
YOU OF ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS IN COURT.
--- PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION---
1. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TOT ALK TO AN ATTORNEY.
2. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND YOU ARE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE ONE MAY BE APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO REPRESENT YOU. TO APPLY FOR A COURT
APPOINTED ATTORNEY COMPLETE THIS FORM AND PRESENT IT TO THE JUDGE WHEN HE CALLS
YOUR NAME.
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MEDFORD
COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF OREGON
CITY OF MEDFORD, )
)
)
)
)
)
FINANCIAL
OltBER: APf@IHTIHG lt'flf8R:UE Plaintiff,
vs.
fverls +
Defendant,
Docket# R \ 3 00 I 7 7 3 lp
rl c) -f. ; G e :r M Po f"'"M Ll s;
FoffJo S
I Feftucst the Cottrt to appcim: G9Wlsel te wpressat m.s is this matt0r-ati submit the following financial statement:
Employer n 0 n

Wages/welfare/unemployment(NET per month)
Other(spec;_fY). /5S j 9<./"f.i--\ $_____ $'-------,,----
You =f'...,J,,f E $ I 0 <Jcj :I. J. '(;" "f {:'(0 hz io \'Q t {. :t ( [','i;J Q /)r_';--,
Your phone number:_________________ '"U(j ./
Family Assets: a <J'I
Cash on Hand $ Tools, Eqpt. $ . Other $ "-..)
Bank Account $ 0 Guns $ Tax Refund=-s-=D:-ue ___ _
Land $ M,l-. 'tl; 1'!j? Jewelry . d U C $ \)
i 1,9-=9 +-rof1 Lf2S/{2t-&iA
1
,
Value (}\' i'( -1. $ C i!Q'i--1\ flGW .,. Owed ---=::: $ VfCJ""t
1
(
with: J,. h 0 r+. . . . . .,_ l cr Vo (?" . -
.:.!- UM b d r. t-o (,.-Ll S 0_Si/'lf r4 ,,
Real Property Owned:

Value . ' . ..;;: wed '-"""t $ Ca /.q
Mortgage with: y I a }.o/'j it i-,. m 0 c ij q t e. Cl)' q
Number of Dependents: Age: Relationship: Age: Relationship:
-----
Age: Relationship: Age: Relationship:. ____ _
I MVI SENTENCED Qt.q CHitltelE, I AfHtt:E TO REPAY IRE COS IS OF MY COtm:'f MPOFNTIID ATI9WFY
tts PA1t'f tlf' MY sENTENCE. ..r
0
c1 Pi' __s c.c u
7
o" tu r cJ
I swear that the foregoing Financial Statement is true. False statements carry a maximum penalty of five years imn sonrnent e'[1
and/or $2500 fine. C 9 C/f.
X oe t-v\ etud. . a- . ..
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to be?reme by the person signing this Affidavit as Defendant this day of
______ __, 20_.
Deputy Court Clerk. ________________ _
ORDER
+A.e. lvlfJ skiP
On the basis of the foregoing Financial Statement, Ciey 's Pablic Defender is APPROVED DENIED te=epPiiseft+.ea:iEl
in all f!MCet:dings 1e!Miflg te the itbi'He ehMge HfliBss etBBf\'J'isB JClicvcd by this CeHF(
Dated this __ day of. _____ _, 20_.
Municipal Court Judge
r
/
/
David D Everist
Secretary of mining
for my Twin Cedar mining
claim Mining District,
township, Unincorporated City
Date 1-8-2014
This to Formally Request for Completion of a Takings Implications Assessment Under
Presidential Executive Order #12630
USDA USFS RANGER DONNA MICKLEY USDI BLM Director DAYNE BARRON OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA US ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC
HOLDER US ATTORNEYS. AMANDA MARSHALL US ASSISTANT DOUGLAS FONG US 9th
cir COURT APPEALS CASE 13-30260 THIS CASE IS PENDING And decisions on case #Cr 09-479
and case# 1 :12-P0-00001 CL PA are Takings of Livelihood and abduction offreedom,takings of
personal private property and a takings of my use and enjoyment thereof My Mining Claim ,Mining
District, Township, and Unincorporated City with out just compensation
The purpose of this letter is to REQUEST A FORMALLY that list above names agency has taking
implications requiring assessment and complete a takings assessment and assess the economic effect or
potential effect that list above name federal decision will have on the private property,private property
rights of the owners investment back expectation of the owners David Everist and partners of the
valuable minerals deposit land grant and trust Twin Cedar Mining Claim Mining District Township and
Unincorporated City
1. Background
On March 22 1988 President Reagan sighed in to law President Executive Order
12630 (E.O. 12630) That E.O. which has not altered of reversed required all Federal agencies to
analyze the effects or potential effects of their action, decisions or regulations on the economic value or
the use and enjoyment ofthe personal private property though the completion of takings implications
of assessment (T.I.A.) NOTE that although through the completion ofT.I.A. Where it is require all
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO COMPILE TO THE E.O. 12630 UNDER THIS ORDER AND LAW AND
5 TH ADMENDMENT TO US CONTITUTION as be just compensation for my rights AS A
TAKINGS of My Personal Private Property livelihood and freedom by the USDA USFS BY
ABDUCTION and use and enjoyment of my Mining Claim Mining District Township and
Unincorporated City
1 of5
f
!
;
(
\ '
invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a
taking for which just compensation is required.
E.O. 12630. (Emphasis added). See also First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale u. County of Los Angeles, 107 S.Ct. 2387 (1987) (Reaffirming the
Constitutional right granting compensation to a private property owner for a
governmental regulation that deprived that owner of the reasonable economic use of his
property, even though the depravation or taking was only temporary), and Nolan u.
California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987) (Requiring that governmental
land use decisions or regulations be narrowly focused on the public benefit as compared
to the necessity of the taking of private property).
In order to assist the federal agencies in the implementation of the President's
Executive Order, the U.S. Attorney General has promulgated "Guidelines for Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings," issued June 30, 1988 (Attorney
General Guidelines). Additionally, the Department of the Interior also issued guidelines
implementing the Executive Order entitled "Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines to Evaluate Risk and Avoid Unanticipated Takings for the U.S. Department
of the Interior," issued March 29, 1989 (Interior Department Guidelines).
The purposes of these guidelines are two fold. First, they define the
administrative, regulatory and legislative policies and actions that are subject to
evaluation through a TIA. Second, these guidelines provide a basic, uniform framework
for federal agencies to use in their' internal evaluations of the takings implications of
agency actions. In other words, these duly promulgated agency regulations mandate the
steps that federal agencies must follow in the completion of their TIAs.
II. Necessity of Completion of a Takings Implications Assessment
Under E.O. 12630 and implementing f_( Cj!ame of federal
agency) must complete a TIA which .the effects that cj1 (describe the
federal agency decision) will have on ( Ndescribe the private property; private-.
property right or investment backed expectafions that are effected). Under authority of
the Executive Order and implementing guidelines, a TIA must be completed if the
following conditions are met:
1. That the federal agency's decision is included is included within the
President's Executive Order.
Under the Attorney General Guidelines, any proposed actions, decision,
program or regulation that does not fall withing one of the exceptions
named in the Guidelines, must be accompanied by a TIA. These
exceptions include, in general, (1) programs that reduce federal
restrictions on the use of private property, (2) trust property and treaty
negotiations, (3) seizures of property connected with.federal civil or
F:\USERS\VICKV\FORMS\TLU Page2 of 5
military law enforcement, (4) preliminary plans and studies which neither
physically occupy nor invade private property, nor purpose to regulate
private property, (5) consultation programs with state government on
state land use activity, (6) policies or actions regarding military property
being taken by eminent domain (7) formal exercise of the power of
eminent domain, (8) military and foreign activities, and (9) activities
connected with pending, imminent or completed litigation. Attorney
General Guidelines, ILB. All other federal proposed actions, decisions,
programs or regulations, including temporary decisions, are included in
the President's Executive Order.
The same mandate for the completion of a TIA for all actions that may
effect the value of private property is found int he Interior Department
Guidelines. The only exceptions to this rule are, in general: (1)
governmental actions to which the private property owners have
consented, but only to the extent of that consent, (2) regulations or
permits authorizing the possession, transportation or use of migratory
birdS or wildlife, (3) the listing of threatened or endangered species or the
issuance of biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act but
only in cases where the listing or opinion either governs the use of federal
lands only, or proposes alternatives that have been accepted by the private
property owner, and (4) the denial of permits to import or export species.
Interior Department Guidelines, Appendix IV. Again, all other federal
actions, decisions and regulations require the completion of a TIA.
Because this decision does not fit within any of these-exceptions, a TIA
must be completed for GC1 f> I (describe the federal decision, action or
regulation).
2. That the federal administrative agency making the decisions is included in
the Executive Order.
;.
E.O. 12630 applies to all agencies and departments within the Executive
Branch of government. Because the < r ~ r P \ (name of federal agency) is a
department within the Executive Branch, it is included in the Executive
Order.
3. That the private property, private property rights and investment backed
expectations are protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
There are several types of private property protected by the U.S.
Constitution and included in E.O. 12630. Private land held in fee simple
ownership is private propertY. Physical improvements to both private
property and leased land are private property. In addition, federal leases
f:IUSERS\VICKYIFORMSITIA.2 Page 3 of 5
.,J.:
'\
and permits are equivalent to private property in those cases where the
value of the lease or permit is so closely tied to the value of the private
property that any reduction in the value of that lease does, in fact, reduce
the value of the associated private base property.
Private property can also include private property rights. For example, the
right to the full and uninhibited use of private property is a property right.
The right of maintaining the full economic value of private property is a
property right. The right to free and unencumbered transferability of
private property is a property right.
Additionally, the Executive Order and implementing guidelines provide
protection for "investment backed expectations." The Attorney General
Guidelines state:
To the extent reasonably possible, an agency should examine the
degree to which the proposed policy or action will interfere with
reasonable investment-backed expectations of those. private
property owners affected by the proposed action, even if such
expectations are not formally recognized as property interests under
the generally applicable law.
Attorney General Guidelines V.D.2.c.
Under these Guidelines, therefore, the private property, ;.rivate property
rights and investment backed expectations including
0
&t I (describe
private property, private property rights and investment backed
expectations being effected) are being effected by this decision.
4. That private property, private property rights and investment backed
expectations are being taken.
There are three types of final decisions, regulations or actions, covered by
the Executive Order that can effect the value of private property, private
property rights and investment backed expectations. These include
decisions or actions allowing physical occupancy of the property, physical
invasion of the property, and/or regulatory takings.
Physical occupancy or physical invasion means just that, the physical use
of private property. On the other hand, regulatory takings are defined as
regulations which will or may affect the value, use, or transferability of
private property, private property rights and investment backed
expectations.
F:\USERSIVICKY\fORMS\llA.l Page4of 5
Because this federal agency is effecting private property, private property
rights and investment backed expectations Oil> P \ (describe how the
federal action is effecting your rights) a TIA must be completed.
Several additional facts about E.O. 12630 must also be noted. First, Presidential
Executive Order 12630 requires that a takings implications assessment be completed for
all regulations that will or mav effect the value of private property. The exact effects of
the federal decision do not have to be proven in order for a private party to request the
completion of a TIA.
Second, the Executive Order and related Supreme Court cases also apply to
. situations where the taking is only temporary. Therefore, the fact that the takings is not
permanent or that it only occurs at certain times of the year does not effect the fact that
a TIA must be completed.
Third, one of the values of the TIA iS to report to federal decision makers the
takings implications of their actions prior to the making of the final decision. This is
important in assuring that these decision makers have all the facts before a decision is
rendered. Therefore, a TIA describing the economic effects the private property, private
property rights and investment backed expectations must be completed before a final
decision can be reached.
In conclusion, although Executive Order 12630 does not stop federal agencies
from taking private property, E.O. 12630 does require that agency decision makers
consider the takings implications of their actions on private property rights and place a
monetary vaiue on those implications. If the federal decision remains unchanged and
private property rights are taken by federal agency action, decision, or regulation, the
property owner must be justly compensated for his losses as mandated by the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Pagesof 5
Home
-n ...
the Site
FR Listserv
'-., ..
FR
Contact ps
.:::.
Selected Electronic
Dockets
Regulatory Agenda
Executive Orders
Current Laws
and Regulations
U.S. Environmental PToteetlon Agency
Federal Register Environmental ...
Documents
Recent AdditionsJContact Us 1 Print Version Search:'--------- I!El
EPA Home> Register> Executive Orders >Executive Order 12630- Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
/
Executive Order 12630 -- Governmental Action
and Interference with Constitutionally ProtectE
Property Rights
[Federal Register: March 15, 1988 (Volume 53)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 8859]
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12630 of Mar. 15, 1988, appear at 53 FR 885!
1988 Comp., p. 554, unless otherwise noted.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United Sta1
America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasor
with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposec
Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for tt
Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose.
(a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property:
be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the f
exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying
compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decision
however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by tl
Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on
constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions 1
not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking
which just compensation is required.
(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government requ
government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulato1
legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments an1
agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should
in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.
(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertakin
reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the
constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undu
inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful governmental action. In furthe1
the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principles stated
and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive dep<
or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise takir
action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than
1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no
than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to r
fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order:
(a) "Policies that have takings implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed Feder
regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or c
Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as r
regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requiremen
limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners o
property. "Policies that have takings implications" does not include:
(1) Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modif)
regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in
preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for
or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5} Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local I
planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating
property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal g ~
department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local autl
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Fede
property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereUI
not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of tt
Amendment.
(c) "Actions" refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comme
proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or F
governmental actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy st<
or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does
include:
(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in
preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for
or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local I
planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating
property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal g ~
department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local autl
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Fede
property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereu1
but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
Sec. 3. General Principles.
In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive der
and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:
(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligatic
imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carryi
governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undw
additional burdens on the public fisc.
(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion or occu1
private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its"
use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a tc:
even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use or value, oro
separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if the action constitu
taking is temporary in nature.
(c) Government officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting p1
health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude by courts before their actions are
considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purp<
insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the pre
of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and
substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the hE
safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety puq
(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays ir
decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being h
takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compem
due if a taking is later found to have occurred.
(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid
whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whethe
underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of
compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on tl
value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on t1
fisc.
Sec. 4. Department and Agency Action.
In addition to the fundamental principles setforth in Section 3, Executive departments an<
agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when impler
policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department ~ agency requires a private party to obtain a permit ir
undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imp
the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the u ~
action; and
(2) Substantially advance that purpose.
(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the res
imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contribute
overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress.
(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making p
that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the compl
the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary.
(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protect
public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal delil
documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
required:
(1) Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety
created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
(2) Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of prot1
public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
(3) Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private pror
not disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall risk; a1
(4) Estimate, to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the eve
court later determines that the action constituted a taking.
In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an
emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of
emergency action.
Se.c. 5. Executive Department and Agency Implementation.
(a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be
responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that e ~
or agency.
(b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the
implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in l i g ~
identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of
Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified ar)d di
in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the
Congress, stating the departments' and agencies' conclusions on the takings issues.
(c) Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regL
against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pendin!
including the amount ofeach claim or award. A "takings" award has been made or a "taki
claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just
Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such award
in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to tt
Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.
(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office oi
Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awa1
just compensation entered against the United States for takings, including awards of inter
well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S. C. 4601.
(e)
(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General sha
to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executi
departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirem
stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Bu
shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are prop
accounted for in agency budget submissions.
(2) In addition to the guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney GE
shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Ore
applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the sp
obligations of that department or agency.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review.
This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch,
not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law t:
against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
[EPA Home I FR Home I Comments I FR Search ]
Notices for 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
EPA Home 1 Privacy and Security Notice 1 Contact Us
Last updated on Monday, February 7th, 2005
URL: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo12630.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
REGULATORY ACTION ALERT
Title: lRIN:
Type (check one): ANPRM NPRM Final Other J CFR citation:
Bureau: I Contact: I Phone:
Anticipated publication date:
What problem will this rulemaking address? Describe the authority and need for the rule and why
rulemaking is preferable to non-rulemaking alternatives.
Is the rule expected to be controversial? _ Yes _No. Explain.
Explain potential importance/interest to industry, interest groups, and/or specific states/regions, and list
potentially interested organizations.
Check all that might apply:
_ Appropriate for negotiated rulemaking _ Significant effect on small entities (Reg. Flex. Act)
_ Economically significant (E.O. 12866) _ Unfunded mandate of$100 million or more (2 U.S.C.
1501)
_ Otherwise significant (E.O. 12866) _ "Takings implications" assessment (E.O. 12630)
_ Major (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.; Congressional _ Federalism assessment (E.O. 12612)
review)
_ Information collections requiring OMB approval (Paperwork Reduction Act). If collections already have
OMB approval give: Approval number Expiration date
Other potentially affected Interior Bureaus/Offices:
Other potentially affected Federal/State agencies:
Describe steps you are taking to consult with affected Bureaus, agencies, or other interested organizations.
1/14/98 #3206 Replaces 11/19/86 #2717

Everist v. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Everist v. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

' '

You might also like