Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search
:: :: Mining claim forms a problem? :: Add Reply
Unsubscribe From Newsletter

Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, Agent67.
Users active in this forum:
Users active in this thread:

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 29 at 13:36:32 Sat Aug 3 2002)


[ HELP ]

[ Support Forums ]

Quote Code Whisper
Spoiler Image List
Action Bold Italic
Underline http:// E-mail
# http://

:devil: :gonetoofar: :welcome:
[ View All ]

Post Options
Disable Smilies? Disable BbCode?
Control Buttons

billcosta_ricaRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
I have read a lot of things posted by MEG. some are very good with good points. others are just plain BS and sensationalism and not fact. things taken out of context to fit what he is trying to say.

RUSTY_HAPPY_CAMRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
Bill, you may have missed some of the earlier discussions last summer. Hal is deeply involved in our industry and in proving what his research has discovered. He has an on going legal battle with the Forrest Service over the ownership of a claim in Or. During the months of legal briefs that he has filled he has used much of the information that he provides to us. Last summer he and some friends dredged in the wild and scenic section of the Rogue River several times and were approached by enforcement officers. Each time he provided them with the same information that he has provided on this forum. They didn’t like it but he was never stopped or arrested. Hal has stated many times that the information that he provides is not a silver bullet to protect you from prosecution but knowledge to assist you in your attempt to enjoy your mining.
Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
mp3 First hour: http://lamp.revolutionbroadcasting.com/archives/2009090915-00-00.mp3

mp3 Second hour:

Legislative Grants, the Present Grant. *** From Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston RR. Co. v. United States (1875): [T]he rules which govern in the interpretation of legislative grants are so well settled by this court that they hardly need be reasserted. 'All grants of this description are strictly construed against the grantee; nothing passes but what is conveyed in clear and explicit language; and, as the rights here claimed are derived entirely from the act of Congress, the donation stands on the same footing of a grant by the public to a private company, the terms of which must be plainly expressed in the statute, and, if not thus expressed, they cannot be implied.' “It creates an immediate interest, and does not indicate a purpose to give in future. 'There be and is hereby granted' are words of absolute donation, and import a grant in praesenti. This court has held that they can have no other meaning; and the land department, on this interpretation of them, has uniformly administered every previous similar grant. Railroad Company v. Smith, 9 Wall. 95; Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 id. 60 *** *** “In construing a public grant, as we have seen, the intention of the grantor, gathered from the whole and every part of it, must prevail. If, on examination, there are doubts about that intention or the extent of the grant, the government is to receive the benefit of them.” ****** “and, unless there were other provisions restraining the words of present grant, the grants uniformly were held to be in praesenti, in the sense that the title, although imperfect before the identification of the lands, became perfect when the identification was effected and by relation took effect as of the date of the granting act, except as to the tracts failing within the excluding provision.” St. Paul & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. *** [Aside Note: Scope of grant inferred from the term “for other purposes”, big.] *** “"A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A party is, therefore, always estopped by his own grant." Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)” . . . . And much more. I thank you for your continuing support.Behind The Woodshed, we put marks ON the Beast.-Hal Anthony markonthebeast@yahoo.com

Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
Today (Wednesday 09/09) in the first half or so of his shown, Hal Anthony will attempt to explain what his research has shown to be possible problems of filing the pre made (store purchased) mining claim forms and the unknown state and federal servitudes you may be putting upon yourselves.

Hal’s shows time is Monday through Friday noon to 2:00 Pacific time. He can be listen to at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/. Call in # 1 505 715 6522

Hal’s email is: markonthebeast@yahoo.com

MEG…Hal’s defacto publicist.
billcosta_ricaRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
in my opinion after reading megs post for a few months......... they are sitting in there high perch dispensing knowledge to us lowly people below.... they think they are all knowledgeable and we know caca..... phuckem

Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
Spoke to Hal this morning (09/04) and although he would prefer people talk to his shows topic of the day or week in review on Fridays as he will be covering today, and though he is setting next Monday (09/07) up for the full two hours to discuss peoples questions, comments, concerns and apparent confusion on information being posted on the mining forums, he agreed to try and fit in some of your calls relating to that information today.

Hal can be listen to at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/. His shows time is Monday through Friday noon to 2:00 Pacific time. Call in # 1 505 715 6522 or email him @ markonthebeast@yahoo.com

MEG…Hal’s defacto publicist.
Dan_WassonRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
I am pretty sure that MEG is the provider of all of that information in the post.

The way I read it is that the information is the answer, as provided by MEG, to someone else on another forum. Not information being quoted from someone else on another forum.

Pretty sure the first line in the post attempts to explain that. Slap me hard if I am wrong.
Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
I share in part this info asked of me and addressed to a member of another forum on claim filings.

Most forms that are filed have problems.
And each is different.

What you are filing is a Notice of Location.

What you have to avoid in the Notice is accepting obligations that are not part of the grant or anticipate entry under the 1976 FLPMA phrases such as "subject to state law" are tell-tale problems because there is no such requirement under the grant. There are state statutes but those must conform to the "laws of the United Sates". The 1866 act is a law of the United States and congressional land disposal act and no state or agency can intefere. That is not so for administrative entries such as for common materials. The current "book store" forms appear inadequate to Me for the purpose.

You are not just making a "mineral claim". You are claiming a mineral deposit. There is a big difference, even though they all go through the formal requirements for claim under the 1872 Act.

The Notice of Location is a Notice of exclusive Claim of a mineral deposit which enjoys "as patent" rights. As such by this you can readily see any obligation you volunteer in your Notice gives the Notice that you will accept a lesser estate subject to external or state or federal statutes or rules. Such a claim is not "as patent" and is subject to state and federal regulation, such as environmental impositions, bonds and reclamation.

You could take a Book store form as a model and then cut out all the servitudes, then add a couple lines accepting your mineral deposit located and granted in the Act of July 26, 1866. That's what I did initially.
You can get a copy of the 1866 Act at http://www.grantedright.com and look at The Law page. Print out HR 365 and the Hicks case for reference material to carry with you. The first paragraph of HR 365 has most of what you need for a Notice of Location statement. You'll need to add the Legal description to the notice. ..and the other requirements.

I don't want to make it sound complicated because it really isn't. The requirement though to stay true to the act of 1866 is required. It is a simple act but it had far-reaching consequences which we enjoy today. Such as RIGHT of way access in Section 8. This means, if you are prospecting you have right to be in the public land and on the roads. Read the Hicks case for clarification. Notice he was on a "closed" road and had right to be there.

There is an open invitation every First Friday to the SWOMA meeting. One is on for this Friday. We always go over a lot of stuff and people can get help too. A lot of help is on the fly but it seems to work out.

Mineral_Estate_GranteeRe: Mining claim forms a problem?
It would appear right where I have said Geo:

"looking over the LR2000/BLM records listing the status of our mineral estate recordation"

Go look at the LR2000 claims listings.

Mining claims are not seperate in the context of which you seem to speak, mineral deposits are. You need to find the posted discussion on the 1955 Act that has been explained prior...might have been part of the Miner Altercation thread

If you want red meat go to a butcher. I'm attempting to expose how our mineral deposits are being prejudiced by BLM recordation errors, probably intentionally. And this appears to be the fact, because the objective proof is in the LR2000 Database. You decide....it just could mean whether you avoid a notice of non-compliance or not.

I don't understand your question regarding the 1976 act sufficiently to respond to it.


Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
:: :: Mining claim forms a problem? :: Add Reply

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]