It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Miners Safety Laws Dismissed by MSHA and ALJ
It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
MSHA reminds mining industry about miners' right to make hazardous condition complaints, protections against discrimination
MSHA reminds mining industry about miners' right to make hazardous condition complaints, protections against discrimination
It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
MSHA Reminds Miners About Rights to Make Hazardous Condition Complaints, Protections Against Discrimination
MSHA Reminds Miners About Rights to Make Hazardous Condition Complaints, Protections Against Discrimination
It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
It's interesting to me (10 yrs Miner fired for complaining about safety issues; MSHA Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) , that recently Federal court gave a mine superintendent ("Operator"?) a probationary sentence (no lying for 6 months?) for training issues at one mine, and at another mine (#04-00213; rich VICAT/NCC) supervisors and company lawyers can get away with documented "misrepresenting" truth with impunity.
I'm unable to get answers to some important Miner rights questions from my only FMSHRC contact: Docket Officer Jean Ellen, and so I am now asking other MSHA officials to reply.
This Miner (and Miners' Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC's existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA's denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to all Pro Se Miners due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy(based on researching available Pro Se Discrimination cases), MSHA's denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner's Representative (MSHA safety complaint #379110), FMSHRC-ALJ's refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery(multiple official Moves to A.L.J. refused; before the FMSHRC now), MSHA's denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case "protected activity" claims; FOIA Tracking #581386), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners' discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act(6+ officially recognized Moves before the FMSHRC: calling for the ALJ to compel Discovery, exercise some penalization on the Operator for gross non-compliance with Mine Act Discovery provisions & to allow my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b); 8 pages pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started; dated Jan 15, 2006; doc. C attached) ...rejected by the A.L.J.
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I've experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act "rights" of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners' rights exhibited by some prestigious individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it's protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA's losing some of their self imposed "action" limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency. MINERS would like to see the factual statistics of the 289 Discrimination Complaints filed with MSHA since 2009.
Please explain if the "False Claims Act", or cooperation with a Miner's 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome Operator. What protection do you afford Miners from the rich litigious Operator ?
Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner's(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners' Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a "class action" type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: "open meeting" discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, "October 7th, 2010”, “Audio of Meeting”)
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>3 pages document; Motion to FMSHRC dated Jan 14,2011
>20 pages document A; "FMSHRC approved for use" official communication to FMSHRC dated 12-30-07
>2 pages doc.B; my request to ALJ - FMSHRC to "please don't allow any more concessions to NCC" 12-20-07
>8 pages doc.C; pre-hearing official request to ALJ Bulluck (in the court room before hearing started) to use my right to present my case by documentary evidence, 29CFR, Part2700,Subpart G, section 2700.63(b)...rejected by the A.L.J., doc dated Jan 15, 2006
>1 page doc.D; official request for answers on 12-31-07 official motions to A.L.J., doc dated Jan 7, 2008
> 1 page doc.E; official motion for ALJ on 3-25-2008 to exercise measures against NCC for failing to comply with the ALJ's Briefing Order, doc dated April 30, 2008
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to DOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated Feb 6, 2010
> 1 page doc.; FOIA Appeal to SOL (unanswered), FOIA Tracking # 581386, doc dated 5-24-07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)