Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewthread?forum=2&thread=795
Powered By BbBoard - http://bb.bbboy.net

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
23:08:20 Thu
Apr 9 2009
Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Down Load and listen to this:

http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/?page=viewarchive.aspx%3fid%3d629

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 517 — Mining and Mining Claims
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/517.html
517.133 Interfering with a mining operation. (1) As used in this section, “lawful mining operation” means any small scale mining operation that is in full compliance with state and federal laws.
(2) A person commits the crime of interfering with a mining operation if the person intentionally:
(a) Interferes with a lawful mining operation; or
(b) Stops, or causes to be stopped, a lawful mining operation.
(3) Interfering with a mining operation is a Class C misdemeanor. [1999 c.354 §6]

Note: See note under 517.120.



tenderfootminer
23:33:38 Thu
Apr 9 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Us miners need to keep in mind when on a claim we dont own the land.In my area there are gates to state land and miners who get ugly when hunters/campers come down the old trails and use state land.I have several claims and understand not wanting someone to mess with my equipt. but feel some of us have forgotten its mineral rights we have. alot of the hunters in our areas are just good ole boys enjoying there hobbys just like us and I have found them to be good company.....just my opinion....ws

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
14:22:58 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
"Us miners need to keep in mind when on a claim we dont own the land."

Where does it say that??? The LAW says otherwise.

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
16:11:49 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I would ask that anyone believing in what the Forest Service and BLM tells you about not having the right to the property of your mining claim go and read the Disclaimer posted on the agencies' web page...or just read it from here: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Myth.html

Note: The Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife...are all members of this union: IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature; Eco/Spiritual practices, a United Nations Cancer on American soil…an international anti private property organization.


kringle_mining
17:05:29 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Not Alaskan law nor the BLM lands in Alaska. Tenderfoot is correct. Claim holders have rights to mineral extraction only, and rights to the privaleges and protections given the miner in the permitting process.

A patent holder is the exception.
Fight your legal battles within the constraints of the law.
I do agree that we are a republic M.E.G.. but you really need to tone down your goose stepping.
Kringle

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
19:18:01 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
krinkgle, The Mineral Estate Grantee has AS patent rights as long as he/she have a valid mineral operation.

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
19:31:56 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Again I ask, Where does it say that??? The LAW says otherwise.

Zooka
19:55:37 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
MEG, you are incorrect.
Whatever "LAW" you are referring to, the actual law of the land as written by the legislatures, enforced by the cops, and interpreted by the courts, is different. That is the legal process; laws are written, and then interpreted by courts, and then re-written, and re-interpreted. The law constantly changes and evolves.
One great example is what the Constitution says about US currency - it has to be silver and gold. That is the ultimate written "law " , but that section is pretty much ignored in actuality.
Banging a drum about some alleged "LAW" that you interpret to give you more rights than the legislatures, courts and law enforcement acknowledge you to have is just an invitation to trouble, and a fight you aint gonna win. Move on to something more productive, is my suggestion.

kamikaze1a
20:02:54 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I wonder what brought about the confrontation? It would appear that it was about them being on his claim BUT the release did not actually say that. For all we know, they were doing some wrong or assaulting the miner...

tabwyo
20:29:51 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I was prospecting in National Forest land last summer looking for a place worth filing a claim on. I had the propper permits, was within the season and abiding by all DEQ & NFS regulations. And I was still harassed by granola chomping hippies. But their threats of physical violence stoped when I took of my jacket and they saw my holstered 357 and shoulder holstered 38 snub. Then they hightailed it and got a park ranger. Who inspected my operation, permits (including my concealed weapons permit) and was satissified after asking a couple questions. Then informed the "huggers" I was well within my right to be there prospectin. If somebody wants to have a beef with you they are most likely not going to be disuaded by your LEGAL right to be there. Most of those idiots are flat ignorant when it comes to the actual law that it's almost worthless arguing with them.

I don't condone lethal physical recourse unless I am in position to recieve injury myslef. But I am not past lobbing two rounds over somebodies head if they are trashing my property.

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
23:29:44 Fri
Apr 10 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
This pertains only to those public domain lands subject to the Grant Act of 1866.

This does not include state lands, although Oregon State statute recognizes a presumptive trespass regarding mining claims which is enjoyed only by a property right, not a permission.

Tenderfoot if your claims are on state land this does not pertain to you. If your claims are on the public domain subject to the grant, by your statements, you profess absolute ignorance of the law and your rights and entitlements so it does not surprise Me that you respond as you do....this sort of ignorance is rampant in the mining community. In either case you are in no position to characterize my information as advice or force it where it doesn't belong to demean me.

Kringle, thank you for the clarification. But as far as the land subject to the grant Tenderfoot is wrong.

Zooka..... by "some alleged law", What do you think allows you to enjoy the mineral estate in the first instance? If there was not law what was it the appellate court used to find Hicks 2002 not guilty of trespass when he was using a "Closed" Forest Service route? on a Plain Error review no less..... And Hicks just won again in 2009. Here's the actual law on the books: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Law.html

Ignorance may be bliss folks but it is no way to protect your property rights. Whining about the "actual law of the land as written by the legislatures, enforced by the cops, and interpreted by the courts, is different" is not law where it is contrary to the law.

"Mineral rights are ownership in land, and therefore Lewis is a landowner. See, e.g., United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyo., 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938) (with respect to question of ownership, “[m]inerals ... are constituent elements of the land itself”); British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of State of Mont., 299 U.S. 159, 164-65, 57 S.Ct. 132, 81 L.Ed. 95 (1936) (finding a mineral estate an estate in land); Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. State, 125 Mont. 258, 234 P.2d 452, 453 (1951) (“[l]ands as a word in the law includes minerals”). We need not decide whether the term “landowner” as it is used in Forest Service regulations and orders always includes owners of mineral estates. Here, the government conceded at oral argument that Lewis is a landowner under the terms of the closure order before us and thus exempt from this closure order. " Hicks 2002.

kamikaze1a Here is more info on the Miner Altercation. Off-Roader Shot by Miner
One Account http://www.zukikrawlers.com/showthread.php?t=23638
or here for two more sources of explaination:
http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/Behind_the_Woodshed_Week_In_Review_Special_Interest_Altercations

There is more information coming about this matter. A local Mining Association may be getting involved to help the miner out, if it can. ... And they aren't helping because the miner does not have any property rights or entitlements as so many ignorantly profess, I can assure you.

And I suggest, before any one here believes they know so much or enough to mischaracterize the information I offer or let the ignorance of their rights lead the discussion, or by past attempts at defense based upon faulty premises, or as defended by attorney most of which don't have a clue about the Grant of 1866, let me bring in some more independent opinions to see what they have to say to conclude Mining Claims Are Private Property Of The Highest Sense.

This possessory interest entitles the claimant to "the right to extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the United States." Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).

The holder of a claim supported by a discovery need not seek patent; his unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory right. 30 U.S.C. § 39; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 86 (1985).

Federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

Even though title to the fee estate remains in the United States, these unpatented mining claims are themselves property protected by the Fifth Amendment against uncompensated takings. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (1963); cf. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 766 (1876); U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 107, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 1799, 85 L.Ed. 2d 64 (1985); Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981); Rybachek v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 222 (1991).

Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation. See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., supra.

"Uncompensated divestment" of a valid unpatented mining claim would violate the Constitution. Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981).

A valid location, though unpatented, is a grant in the nature of an estate in fee and if such an estate is taken by the United States, just compensation must be made. See U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330.

A (unpatented) mining claim has been "perfected" where, assuming the performance of the requisite acts of location and recordation, a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit has been made within the physical limits of the claim. See, e.g., United States v. Mavros, 122 IBLA 297, 301-302 (1992); United States v. Nickol, 9 IBLA 117, 122 (1973); Clear Gravel Enterprises, Inc., A-27967 (Dec. 29, 1959).

"When the location of a mining claim is "perfected" under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state; and is "real property", subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court. The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

The claimant has the exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the locations, but the United States retains title to the land. 30 U.S.C. § 26, 35; Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349 (1919); Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445; California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 575, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1422, 94 L.Ed. 2d 577 (1987); Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).

So if someone has a better proof than this I'd like to see it....Don't attack Me with your continuous ignorance regarding the property, rights, and entitlements of the Mineral Estate Grantee. You unsubstantiated opinions do nothing for the community but waste our time and misinform us....bring your proof, not your weaknesses.


tenderfootminer
00:49:33 Sat
Apr 11 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
:confused: did I just get barked at???:confused:

JOE_S_INDY
02:17:20 Sat
Apr 11 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Hey there Walt!

Yes, I think you were barked at! It sure did sound like barking!

Joe

RUSTY_HAPPY_CAM
03:34:39 Sat
Apr 11 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Guys Time out. I would like to think we are all on the same side here and we are defiantly a minority. We sure don't need to be fighting among ourselves. Joe you and Hal Anthony are the only two that I have met personally and I feel privileged to know you. I have great respect for the others that I have met through the forum. Most of you have enlarged my mining horizons. Hal has opened a real can of worms with his research into our problems with mining law. Sometimes he comes off a little strong, but he has spent a lot of time on this project and really takes it to hart. Most of the stuff he has brought up goes against what we have always been told. But does that make it wrong? I don't have the legal knowledge to answer that question but I am sure glad he has brought it up. I don't know know what I will do with these facts, but you can bet I will file them away for future thought.

LipCa
03:38:54 Sat
Apr 11 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Can't say much for the the attitude, but there appear to be a lot of court cases that stand behind the miner and his "ownership" of the minerals.....

BC_Redneck
17:37:31 Sat
Apr 11 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
The miner has one right,been there done that and the courts agree,the land is public the dirt is yours..as long as they aint diggin they aint doing anything wrong.

I had an issue with some people on quads in the area and when the law was involved all that could b done was reporting them for riding in a non designated area (we have areas for riders). they were cought and charged for trespassing because of the area and also chrcged for damages to private property(goverment owned),

the officer i had spoke with during this time also said to me that he understood that as the claim owner on the property i have the right to remove some trees if they are obstruting my search,,those trees are now spread out around my claim about 2 feet off the ground and blocking all access !!!

Jim_Alaska
00:49:35 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Sorry folks, I have been away from home travelling for testimony before the California Dept of Fish and Game Commission hearing on our petition to shut down the Karuk illegal salmon fishery. (our petition was denied)

I only have computer access when I stop at someone’s house that has a computer, so my presence on the forums is spotty until I get back home.

I just wanted to speak a bit to the issue presented by Hal Anthony and replied to by Joe_S_Indy. I know both men as personal friends and have great respect for each one’s wisdom and expertize in their own specific sphere of mining issues.

Joe has a heart of gold and has, over the years, been more than willing to share his knowledge and experiences with all who ask. His contributions to this and other message forums is invaluable.

I have worked on property and mining rights issues with Hal and he has opened a whole new area of understanding for me due to his dilligent research and understanding of law and the meaning of words.

On the issue of the Mineral Estate Grant, he has uncovered what could very well be the very tool that we, as miners, have been lacking for these many years. He is presently working with and consulting for Jerry Hobbs and Clark Pearson of Public Lands for the People, who have both come to a better understanding of the immense power of this Mineral Estate Grant.

Knowing both Joe and Hal as I do, I am convinced that any seeming differences that they may have put forth here are totally due to the unique character of the Internet; It has within itself the unfortunate consequence of the written word coming through on the other end in a manner quite different from what was intended. We cannot see facial expressions or body language and can only rely on what we see typed out.

As I said, because both men are a known commodity to me, I feel sure that any differences and/or misunderstandings could be entirely dealt with by better communication on a personal level between them both. If given a chance, I believe that both men could become fast friends that would have the potential to benefit everyone they come in contact with once each comes to a full understanding of the capabilities and motivation of the other.

Joe constanly goes out of his way to help anyone he can, he has a unique gift of understanding a given situation and then putting his brilliant mind to work to solve a problem, or impart advice on any subject that he has experience with.

Hal is on a crusade to help miners and other property owners realize the potential they have with a proper understanding of how they got where they are and what tools are at their disposal to remedy the injustices we are beset with today. He has helped me immensely with our battle for miner’s rights and provided volumes of information that cannot be disputed by agencies, lawyers or legislators.

OK, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Oh, did I say that I hate southern California? I travel down here only because I have to. If I had a choice, I would rather stay home....:confused:

JOE_S_INDY
03:52:00 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Well Jim,

Mr Anthony (Hey, we have a name now!) never identified himself, qualified his abilities or explained what his premise was. He chose, instead, to act in a condescending manner with us old dirt miners (and one sharp 'ole Texas lawyer). If he had not been so brisk with us we would have, most certainly, welcomed his insight.

Given the absence of those qualifiers, and 'the attitude', he fell into the often seen pattern of just another dogmatic fanatic on a personal crusade.

Dismissing, off hand, any views other than his (ill defined ones) was really irritating. What would most folks think if I pointed to The Constitution and curtly stated "Just read that and you'll understand everything about blah, blah, blah" ? Most would consider my haughty manner to be really offensive too, right?

To complicate this entire gumbo is some page 3 news item over a no-information-about-it, shots fired, confrontation. Mr Anthony appeared to support armed defense of "Off the Wall" and undefined "Rights" rooted in "Mineral Estate".

I have a real problem with that.

To sum up Mr Anthony's presentation - he sounded like one of those lunatic, militia fanatics that I fervently wish would just go away - very far away.

Now, I tried to be tolerant. Some of his earlier postings here on the AGF didn't "come through" - and I, as a courtesy, even sent a PM to "Mineral Estate Grantee", explaining the lack of success with the postings. Not one word back to even just say "Thanks" - as a common courtesy. No one is that busy.

Then his postings were repetitively posted on two other forums (that I know about) - with identical reactions there. (You might wish to read 49er Mike's posting on his forum).

Now, we all want to, and do, learn an endless variety of things here. We all try to keep a fairly open mind on mining, laws, and who-knows-what other related things.

All we require, as a minimum, is mutual civility - right?

Joe

LipCa
14:38:34 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Jim,
I didn't know you were going to Southern Ca.?
I thought you were going to Lodi which is still in Northern Ca.....

Jim_Alaska
15:21:47 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Yes Joe, you're right about his abilities and premise not being fully explained. That's why I said that if you got to know each other better I believe things would become much more clear.

Hal has not done forums before a month or so ago and is not real savvy about the little nuances of forum etiquette. He spends more or all of every day in intensive research and trying to get his message out. It is important to listen to his broadcasts for anyone wanting to get a real handle on what this mineral estate is and who Hal Anthony is also.

Jim_Alaska
15:24:02 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Harry,

Yes the hearing was in Lodi. But I also agreed to pick up a dredge and some mining equipment for a friend a little farther south.

I also figured if I was going that far south I should visit with my son who lives just south of Irvine, so that's where I am until tomorrow.

LipCa
19:15:17 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
now i'm feeling sorry for you..grin

Jim_Alaska
19:25:24 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Thanks Harry. Isn't it ironic that someone would travel 900 miles one way to get to a place he hates? :confused:

If it weren't for my son and his family living here, I would never come down here at all. Nothing I want here and nothing here that wants me except family. :devil:

rlh1946
19:40:25 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
well Jim we all can`t live where we want some one has to live here in "BAKERSFIELD" :welcome:

Jim_Alaska
19:45:24 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I didn't know you lived in Bakersfield Rich.

I came right through there and would have loved to stop and visit for a few minutes.

rlh1946
20:36:15 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
yep I married a native bakersfield girl, back in 1970 we moved away following work, an moved back here 1987.

LipCa
20:50:00 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I have relatives in Bakersfield(Old River) and make it down there twice a year. I fact one time at the end of next month:mad:

mefolkes
21:48:53 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Jim, you have a very valid point, and the outlook of a peacemaker. But I still have to side with Joe. Mr. Anthony came across as an extremely grumpy and tone-deaf bongo player who couldn't understand why he wasn't welcomed onstage during a performance of Beethoven by the Philadelphia Symphony.

My own sentiments fit more the peacemaker mode than the confrontational mode, and I'm willing to bury the hatchet, as long as it isn't buried in my noggin. So if this personal friend of yours now understands forum etiquette and is willing to respect the opinions of others, I will welcome him as a friend.

I still think Mr. Anthony's ideas are preposterous. He needs to make a cogent and calm presentation and try to persuade us, not insult and browbeat us.

This enormous body of evidence that Mr. Anthony claims to have uncovered smells of the attitudes of ranchers holding BLM grazing permits. Those permits specifically state that they are not exclusive and that other users not interfering with the permitee's grazing livestock and private possessions have open access. But many ranchers treat the BLM land under permit as they would private land that has been fully leased (under far higher payments). I am one of many hunters, fishermen and rockhounds who have been threatened with arrest, threatened with injury or death, harassed and had vehicles vandalized and equipment confiscated by aggressive grazing permit holders without a legal leg to stand on. As an American, I refuse to let a bully take away my rights, either in domestic or international situations.

I look forward to Mr. Anthony returning here with a civil attitude and respect for other participants. An open mind on his part would also be welcome. Despite your description of him as brilliant, he could still be dead wrong, and I, who am often described as brilliant, will not blindly accept what is shoveled at me. I look forward to a placid discussion of the issue.

Jim, again I thank you for serving in a thankless position. At times I think that you are a greater treasure than that yellow metal we all seek.

Jim_Alaska
22:56:16 Sun
Apr 12 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Thank you mefolkes. Some of what you said reinforces some points I was trying to make.

This is strictly my own guess, but I think that Hal has so much time into what he does that once he has published his points in his postings where you get to listen to the live show, he is loathe to spend time trying to type it all out.

The shows really do put the whole concept into perspective. You can go back in his archives and listen to the very first ones.

For just one example, you spoke of grazing rights, and said, "Those permits specifically state that they are not exclusive and that other users not interfering with the permitee's grazing livestock and private possessions have open access. "

Unlike that situation, the Mineral Estate grant is not a "permit" it is a "law" and specifically states that we have the "exclusive" use of the surface.

Miners really should take the time to read the grant, it is long, but well worth the read if you want to know what the Congress granted us in 1866, and understand the power we have if we will use it.

sawmill
04:37:54 Mon
Apr 13 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation

Just a reminder, We are talking about the US government
right? Basically the same folks that made hundreds of
treaties,and grants of land and rights to dozens of Indian
tribes.
According to history and records,they didn't honor too
many of their grants for those folks either. So just how
much is a government grant really worth?

How long would it take to land in court or possibly jail,
mining on a piece of federal land,without a notice or
Plan of Operations?

I wish anyone that wants to tackle the rights thing
good luck,and will be the first one to cheer for them.
But I sure wouldn't want to volunteer to be the victim in
the test.

mefolkes
15:41:45 Mon
Apr 13 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Jim, I took the time to check on Hal's claims. The streaming audio on his linked site was playing an ad for a powder that could supposedly cure everything that ails people. The ad said the "micro-plant powder" was 89% silica, which it said was a "pre-cursor" to calcium. This is ignorant and insane. Silica is silicon dioxide, and it contains no calcium, which is a completely different element.

Hal's quote from Oregon state mining law only relates to someone interfering with the mining operation. Read his quoted passages as many times as you want, and there is no conveyance to the miner of exclusive rights. If a paranoid militia type has the idea that anyone breathing within a certain distance of his mineral claim is interfering with the mining operation, all that means is that he's crazy, not that he has valid exclusivity of all rights.

I saw or heard nothing during my exploration of the linked site that supported wild claims of exclusivity of rights. Hal mentions an 1866 federal act, but federal laws are easily nullified by subsequent legislation. The most famous mining and mineral claim laws were after 1866. So even if Hal could find ample support in the text of the 1866 mineral grant law for his claims of exclusivity of all uses on non-patented mining claims, he still needs to prove that later laws did not remove such exclusivity.

There are a tiny number of people howling about all sorts of claims, including not having to pay taxes on income because that income was not in gold-secured currency. They have become so maniacal on their ideas that they have killed innocent people and honorable law enforcement personnel trying to enforce the law.

I did battle at the GPAA forum a while back with a number of fanatics. I was amazed at the delusions involved. One nut up in British Columbia offered "proof" that Mel Fisher's salvage of the Atocha off Florida was all a scam, and that the treasure had really been found on the nut's personal discovery site on the B.C.. coast. He claimed that the Spanish had shipped the treasure from the Atocha and other galleons to the Pacific Ocean and then sailed them up to B.C. to bury for safety. That would make absolutely no sense to anyone who was not clinically insane. Then he showed photos of the treasure that he said Fisher's crew had left behind, and the photos included bronze and copper coins from China, and a rusty wood-splitting wedge that he claimed was a silver bullion bar. In his own private little universe, he was absolutely convinced of the validity of his belief.

It isn't all that hard to enrage a lunatic, and out in the wilderness, there isn't much to stop a lunatic from killing someone. I'm not very comforted by the fact that there are online support groups for people with contentious and incendiary views. They can excite each other to greater rage and convince each other further of their shared delusions or errors.

Jim, since Hal seemingly is unable to pass along the "proof" of his claims, I would appreciate you giving us a synopsis of the claims and the backing for them. I'm sorry to be hard-nosed about this, but I still remember one of my cousins insisting that I work with him in the pyramid distribution scheme for a petroleum additive outfit. I went with him to the outfit's big presentation. My cousin, who was rather bright, but with absolutely no training in physics or chemistry since high school, accepted all the claims, largely because they were presented by a revered former football coach who had been hired by the outfit because of his speaking skills, not his non-existent background in chemistry and/or physics. I sat there howling with frustration over lies and distortions. My cousin was outraged about my negativity. But in just a few months, my cousin's entire sales network and investment had crumbled, after the state fire marshall discovered that the petroleum distillates involved were corrosive to the particular type of plastic they were sold in. Not long afterward, the attorney general's office filed fraud charges against the outfit because of its preposterous claims that violated all known physical principles and chemical interactions.

Please, someone produce some actual proof of Hal's claims, not just some unfounded ravings that have the potential of getting innocent hikers, hunters and fishermen killed by people defending rights that do not exist.

tenderfootminer
04:03:43 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
well said!! :smile:

Muley
04:34:31 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Doe's anyone actually know the alledged miner (Ronald Eugene Spears, 61) that did the shooting?
All the news release said was that he was living on a mining claim. Is he "really" a miner or is he someone posing as a miner as a cover for other purposes???? or just someone living in the mountains?

If this is the case then the world needs to know and fast.
If he was actually mining, I still feel like he over reacted. The story that I read about the altercation was that he was not threated as this group of 4 wheelers was just passing through his claim and bothering him or his operation other than making noise.

Jim_Alaska
05:24:10 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
I'm sorry mefolkes , as I said in another post. I am on the road travelling and have very spotty computer access and no access to my resource files. I'll try to get something for you when I get back home.

But please understand that I have been on the road now for nine days and family will take first pace when I get back.


mefolkes
05:57:25 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Jim, you have to maintain your priorities. Your fine service here is a gift to us, not something we are owed.

Mark

mefolkes
06:19:16 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Okay, I did some digging into the shooting story. According to the sheriff's department, the ATV drivers were on an unimproved dirt road. The victim may lose his arm. Spears was screaming that they were going to collapse his tunnels. So apparently he was doing drift tunnels through a placer deposit, but he sure as heck wasn't doing it right if ATVs could cave the tunnels in.

Back on Hal's website, the thing is full of audio and ads about marijuana. The hemp they are talking about is obviously used for drugs, not for sturdy fibers used for fabric. My surmise is that the whole bunch is nothing but a bunch of dopers who want to use a smokescreen of mineral rights to cover their pot plantations. The profit motivation and the personal use of the product would explane the fanatic defense of "rights" that simply do not exist.

Mark

raimford
06:55:29 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
This is a very interesting post. I am presently living in Oregon state. We have 4 different classes of land in Oregon. (1) Federal land that was not ceded to Oregon when it became the 33rd State of the Union, this includes land ceded to the Federal government under Article I, Section 8, Claus 17, and (2) Land that is owned by the state (for the people, of the people, by the people), and (3) "private" land that the people have possession of but is "owned" by "this state", and (4) land that is privately owned in "the state".

The United States Constitution has a "privilege and immunities Claus" which I mentioned on another post. The privilege of extracting minerals from Federal and State lands is subject to statute. The federal and state legislatures have a duty and an responsibility to protect the land that is in their care for all the people in America. Therefore, it is not a Right to extract minerals from Federal and state lands, but a privilege and when you apply for that privilege you agree to abide by the statutes and regulations that are in place to protect that land and the surrounding land owned by others. Yes, and I agree that some of these Federal and state employees exceed their authority on a regular basis.

A "patented land claim" provides ownership of the land and the mineral rights associated with it. Still, you must conduct your activities on your land so as not to subject injury to others around you. This is just common sense under "common law".

I, personally am not subject to the vast majority of the statute laws of this state known as the Oregon Revised Statutes, because they deal with privileges and unless I am engaged in a "privileged occupation" I am not a subject of the statute. Case in point:

The highways of the state are owned by the people (public property). There are 2 uses to this public land (1) commercial use ( transporting person or property for hire) to which a "license" is required, and (2) private use for recreation to which a license can not be required by the state (only competency). For the latter, considerable responsibility must be exercised on my behalf to conduct myself responsibly so as not to injure another or damage their property. If I neglect my responsibilities and act recklessly so as to subject another to imminent danger, I may be charged for a "common law" crime.

As to shooting another whether on Federal, state or private property there is no excuse and it is a crime, unless you have a reasonable fear that your life or the live of another is in jeopardy. Therefore, we must always conduct ourselves with respect and dignity toward others.

Granted, I am not an expert on mineral rights, patented claims and land ownership. I am writing this post from the "top of my head" and what I am able to remember from past experiences. Anybody with additional information or information which corrects my ramblings please so state and cite the law so I may refer to it and correct my misconceptions. Thank you.

A discussion of "this state" and "the state" will require another post, if the readers on AGF so request I would be happy to convey my findings on the subject. Raimford.

LipCa
15:01:34 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
mefolkes,

I think you are way off base with your associations of the advertisers and the person that presents the information.
It is hard to believe that you would call him a doper and pot grower based only on the adds.

I've read some of the material he presents(and he doesn't do it very well) and the 1866 mining laws and at least on the face, it makes some sense.

When Jim presents some of the info, don't start saying that Jim is probably growing too,

Keep an open mind until you see some info.

LipCa
15:07:21 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Raimford,

Although I don't have the time this am to debate it, I beileve we have the right to the minerals, not a privilege.......

JOE_S_INDY
15:12:58 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Raimford,

"Common Law" defined in Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Common law (legal system))

This article is about the general legal concept. For the book by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., see The Common Law.

Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action.

Common law is law created and refined by judges: a decision in a currently pending legal case depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[1]


The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a "matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of non-appellate courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England and in those nations which trace their legal heritage to England, including the United States, and other former colonies of the British Empire such as Pakistan, India,[2] Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong.[3]. This should be contrasted with civil law legal systems (see section below).



Joe

Zooka
16:50:25 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Raimford,
I will address a couple of your statements, from my law school classes on privileges vs. rights.
Basically if a federal statute provides a citizen with some benefit or right of some kind, and the citizen goes through the process required to qualify under that statute, he becomes "entitled" to that benefit. The process to obtain the "entitlement" designation has a low standard of due process; a hearing, sometimes evidence and such.
But once the citizen acquires the entitlement, modifying it requires a much higher standard of due process. Hearings with evidence, rules of evidence, appeals, etc. are a lot more convoluted.
Similarly, with property law, when you file a mining claim, you become entitled to mine the "locatable minerals" on that claim. It is in legal language a "right" not a "priviledge", one governed by statute and one that can be terminated. You acquire a temporary ownership of the locatable minerals, a greater title to them than anyone else, including the government, and you keep it until you drop or lose the claim. You have to comply with the regulations about keeping the claim - assessment work, etc. as well. That is why if the government passes a law which takes the claim from you, or prevents you from mining it, it can be a "taking" under the Constitution, just as if they had condemned your farm to build a new superhighway.
During the course of the evolution of federal statutes and laws relating to mining claims, there have been a large number of changes to exactly what is given along with the right to the locatable minerals to a claim owner. It is so complicated that frankly I have never been interested in pursuing the details. if I ever buy a claim that has been continuously mined since the early 1900s perhaps i will look into it; I just know that recently staked claims have different rights than the real old ones, sometimes, and it is a spaghetti-like tangle to get figured out. And then you get to educate the local government enforcers if you want to take advantage of an obscure right that is not covered in their manuals. Go chop down a big old tree on your federal claim, in the national forest, without a permit, and see what happens, for example. Your claim might have granted you that right, but try and tell it to the ranger...
However some things are true for all claims; like you cannot sell the gravel (not a locatable mineral), and you can block off certain roads if the use of the road would endanger you or the user due to your mining activities. I'll bet that there are more regs about re-routing the road, etc. as you cannot simply drift mine under Hwy 49 and require the State to close it down because of your mining activities.
Your statementsd about the public roads in Oregon are interesting. Are you saying that if you are not conductingt a business, you do not need a driver's license, and cannot be ticketed for speeding as long as you are driving at a safe speed?
I don't know about Oregon, but most every place else, the State owns the land where the roads go, most of the time (not just an easement), and using them is a priviledge that requires you to have insurance, a license, a safe vehicle etc, and subjects you to all fo those laws that apply to persons on public property plus traffic laws. I will be interested to hear how Oregon is different.
-Z

mefolkes
18:17:10 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
LipCa, the strong connection between the marijuana stink of Hal's website and Hal is good reason to scratch one's head. And no, I would not begin to suggest that Jim is a "grower" just because he might accept some of what Hal has to say. The most important thing to remember is that hotheads pose a danger to innocent people, and it is not helpful to have information out there that is one-sided and inaccurate and that tends to fan the flames of discontent. Hal could even have brilliant insights into the 1866 Mineral Grant Act, but if the provisions of that act have been superceded by later mining and claim laws, then Hal's insights are worse than useless. It then becomes a matter of historical analysis, not current legal implications. If a fellow thinks that he is following perfectly the guidelines of the 1932 electrical code, and he is, he is still in violation of the law and risking his life and others because the electrical code has been revised. But if all he presents to listeners is the 1932 code, they may think that he is brilliant.

Mark

raimford
19:00:32 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Joe;

I clicked the wikipedia link and I did not get a def. of "common law". "Common law" was brought from England to the North American continent very early. It, common law, was signed into law by King John of England to the barons, at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215 by the signing of the Magna Carta (Charta). Afterwords, with some alterations, it was confirmed in parliament by Henry III and Edward I. This charter is justly regarded as the foundation of English constitutional liberty and is the backbone of our Constitutions.

I only have a few minutes to reply, so I'll just be able to respond to a few statements made in regard to my post. In a couple of days I'll have more time.

Zooka;

We have a Right to apply for a privilege. When we are granted a privilege by government, ( Rights can not be granted by governments. We have all our Rights at all times for they are given by God), the government can change the conditions or terms of the agreement and if we don't like it we can give back the privilege. Just look at what the Federal government did to the Social Security Act. Look how many times its been amended. If we violate our agreement with government, then we are summoned into a courtroom for an administrative hearing by an AHO (Administrative Hearings Officer) not a judge and jury. The Constitutions do not apply for they have nothing to do with it for it is contract law.

A Right can not be taken away except by "due process of Law" under the Constitutions and by a court of competent jurisdiction. We can not even give away our Rights unless we do so willingly, knowingly and with full knowledge of what we are doing. Which poses and interesting dilemma: What if we don't know what our Rights are, do we lose them?

I must be going for I've a lot to do. I'll address more of what you said later, especially on the "use of the public highway" and licensing.



JOE_S_INDY
23:09:05 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Raimford,

I edited my previous post - sorry 'bout that.

Joe

LipCa
23:48:15 Tue
Apr 14 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
As near as I can tell, the website belongs to someone else. Not to Hal. ??

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
01:01:46 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Please tell Me, Where does it say that a mining claim is not an exclusive possession enjoying fee title as other private property.

"Mineral rights are ownership in land, and therefore Lewis is a landowner. See, e.g., United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyo., 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938) (with respect to question of ownership, “[m]inerals ... are constituent elements of the land itself”); British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of State of Mont., 299 U.S. 159, 164-65, 57 S.Ct. 132, 81 L.Ed. 95 (1936) (finding a mineral estate an estate in land); Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. State, 125 Mont. 258, 234 P.2d 452, 453 (1951) (“[l]ands as a word in the law includes minerals”). We need not decide whether the term “landowner” as it is used in Forest Service regulations and orders always includes owners of mineral estates. Here, the government conceded at oral argument that Lewis is a landowner under the terms of the closure order before us and thus exempt from this closure order. " Hicks 2002. The Law Page www.grantedright.com

Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation. See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., supra.

The holder of a claim supported by a discovery need not seek patent; his unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory right. 30 U.S.C. § 39; United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 86 (1985).

Federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

"When the location of a mining claim is "perfected" under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States. The right of the owner is taxable by the state; and is "real property", subject to the lien of a judgment recovered against the owner in a state or territorial court. The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.



mefolkes
01:10:33 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Sheesh. I'm reminded of the famous line spoken by Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride". "I don't think that means what he thinks that means!"

tenderfootminer
01:54:35 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
ok Biting my tongue:smile:

JOE_S_INDY
02:41:55 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Hmmmmmmmmm

Folks, give the man a chance to present his ideas.

We've been told for years that on a claim (Federal in this case) we only 'possess' the constitutional right to extract the valuable minerals in the ground through temporary ownership - while Mr Anthony seems to have (at least on the surface) a case for possession of exclusivity.

Lawyers (except Z.), give me heartburn in that they can't just use common English to say what they mean. Each of their sentences has to be researched for hours to understand what it's little hidden meanings are.

I, for one, am willing to listen to the man - to give him a chance to present this idea.

{Of course I'll have to 'listen' to him without sound since I don't have that in my PC.}

Joe



LipCa
03:37:24 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
These court cases that he just cited and the quotes from them, certainly state that you are a "property owner" or "landowner".

I looked at one of them:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/295/295.US.639.23.html

Here's a citation from it:

1. The character and extent of the right which plaintiff acquired by virtue of its location of the mining claims, in 1917, are well established. Restating the rule declared by many decisions, we said in Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306, 316, 50 S.Ct. 103, 104, 74 L.Ed. 445, that such a location, perfected under the law, 'has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term.' It is alienable, inheritable, and taxable. See Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 767, 24 L.Ed. 313; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 283, 26 L.Ed. 735; Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 510, 511, 14 S.Ct. 651, 38 L.Ed. 532; Elder v. Wood, 208 U.S. 226, 232, 28 S.Ct. 263, 52 L.Ed. 464; Bradford v. Morrison, 212 U.S. 389, 394, 29 S.Ct. 349, 53 L.Ed. 564.

This case was affirmed by the court...

I choose to look at this information with an open mind rather than a closed mind...

I will add, I think being an "owner" of a mining claim does not give you the right to keep people off of the claim. Only the right to protect your mining/mineral interest by lawful means.

Zooka
04:29:31 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Harry, the problem is that in the law the term "present and exclusive possession" means that you have the right to kick people off of the land as without an invite from the owner they become trespassers merely by being there.

I really dont have the time to do a real, thorough legal analysis of this - i have skimmed some books and materials on the subject in the past and am confident that though the law might have been that back then, for some lands, it is not that now, at least for modern claims.

MEG is a classic "cherrypicker" - one who finds sentences in statutes, and old cases he likes, and builds an edifice of reason and law upon them, while ignoring all of the cases and laws that are counter to his thesis. In the law, we call these people "the guys who lose in court".
I can find you genuine case law to support many propositions in the law. Heck I can point you to any number of United States Federal Court decisions and laws that allow you to keep slaves!
They have been superceded, moved past, and/or overruled.
Filing a mining claim no longer gives you the right to kick everyone else off as trespassers. Owning a mining claim active since 1866? I dunno, frankly.
"The law is an ever-changing instrument" as one famous old Supreme Court justice put it.
Try to get a legal abortion in the South in 1960, or buy condoms in Connecticut in the 1950s, or buy whiskey anywhere in 1920.
A mining claim gives youj an interest in land, and that interest is a property interest. This is not news. A parcel of land is considered in the law to be like a""bundle of sticks", with each stick being a different part of the land as a whole. For example, I can give you a life estate in my house, and you will always have the right to live there for as long as you live. Or I can sell you 1/3 of the mineral rights in the land. Or I can lease the land to you for a set term. Or I can give you a 1/2 ownership interest in fee simple (that means the whole bundle of sticks).
Just because you have one of the sticks doesnt mean you own the entire property. Nor does it give you all the right to occupy or use the land.
A mining claim is a very specific grant of ownership - of the locatable minerals (gold, silver, platinum, copper, and some others) therein, for as long as you follow the rules. Some other rights are thrown in there, but no longer is it considered to be the law that a modern mining claim gives you the "exclusive right" to occupy the land.

We have so many better things to spend our time on than this.

fubar
04:54:19 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Zooka
I am a simple person...I like the way you describe the subject as you see it. It makes sence.
I VERY MUCH LIKE YOUR BOTTOM LINE!! (last line)
Thanks
Scotty

LipCa
06:28:34 Wed
Apr 15 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Looks like the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955 ("Multiple Use Act"), Pub.L.No.84-167, 69 Stat. 367 (codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 611-612), may have removed the "present and exclusive possession" use of a claim...


This is a pretty good read on surface rights:

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/448737

Zooka
04:39:56 Thu
Apr 16 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Great read, Harry. That is actually one of the clearest and best written legal opinions i have read in a long time, a real pleasure to read and a long and thorough analysis of the situation as of 1980.
You will note they were quite careful to not address claims filed before 1955, and at least implicitly those claims retain the right to exclusive possession of the surface itself. Very interesting. Definitely something to put in the back of one's noggin.
-Z

drayegon
05:18:59 Thu
Apr 16 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Quote from MEG

But I am not past lobbing two rounds over somebodies head if they are trashing my property.

If your going to just lob a couple of rounds over them you might as well shoot them. In the eyes of the law you have done the very same thing as shooting them.

If you feel that you are in imminent danger Then you have the right to shoot the person or person's who make you feel in danger. Not shoot over their heads but to "Shoot Them" that is until they no longer present a threat to you or someone else.

Just quit trying to bluff people it does not work. If I am somewhere and you for what ever reason decide to lob two rounds over my head. I am the person who will turn around and drill you dead center with two. I will not pull out a weapon and wave it around or threaten you or anything like that. That is not legal. I will tell you why I am there and that is it. No other garbage as that is just BS and we all know it is. So do not do that. State why you are asking me not to be there I will then reply with my reasons and such but that is all no threats.

So this is called a polite society nothing more or less.

73
dray

raimford
06:30:20 Thu
Apr 16 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
M.E.G.

Curiosity got the better of me and I just couldn't stay away. Guess I'll watch Jay Leno tonight. Until that time I would like to make a brief comment.

LipCal's http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/448737 case says quite succinctly that "Fee title" is only obtained after your claim is patented. An ordinary claim is less than "Fee Title". We must, in our conversations, keep them separate to avoid confusion.

I own land in Oregon that was part of the Davis Land Claim of 640 acres. Mr. Davis bought the land from the Federal Government just after Oregon became the 33rd state of the Union. The Title (of which I have a copy) states clearly "Title Fee Simple to the assigns and heirs forever". Presently, I have a mortgage in Federal Reserve Notes on the property and my property is classified as "less than fee simple". I, therefore, pay about $3,600 a year in property taxes. I did not know at the time that by accepting the privilege of using federal reserve notes that in the paper work I signed I gave up my Fee Simple Title. This is basically the same as a patented land claim "Fee Title" and just an ordinary "less than Fee Title" claim. Raimford.

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
14:23:06 Thu
Apr 23 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
The Parable of the Sower

And he taught them many things by parables, and he said unto them in his doctrine,
Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, some sixty, and
some an hundred.
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. --Mark 4:2-9


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—October 23, 2000 Extensions of Remarks
EXCERPTS:

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2000/2000_E01884.pdf
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2000/2000_E01885.pdf

Sections 8 and 9 of the 1866 Act are the seminal U.S. law defining the rights of ownership.
Section 8, which was later codified as Revised Statute 2477, deals with the establishment of ‘‘highways’’ across the land. The term highways as used in the 1866 Act refers to any road or trail used for travel. The right-of-way portion of this act was an absolute grant for the establishment of general crossing routes over these lands at any point and by whatever means was recognized under local rules and customs.

Section 9 of the Act of July 26, 1866, ‘‘acknowledged and confirmed’’ the right-of-way for the construction of ditches, canals, pipelines, reservoirs and other water conveyance/ storage easements. Section 9 also guaranteed that water rights and associated rights of ‘‘possession’’ for the purpose of mining and agriculture (farming or stock grazing) would be maintained and protected.
Once settlers in an area had exercised the general right-of-way provisions of the 1866. Act to establish permanent roads or trails, those roads or trails then, by operation of law, became easements (which is the right to use the lands of another).
The acts and their relevant case law include, but are not limited to:
1. The Mining Act of 1872, confirming lawful procedure for citizens to acquire property rights in the mineral estate of federal lands;
2. The Act of August 30, 1890, which confirmed private rights and settlement then existing on the surface estate of federal lands;
3. The General Land Law Revision Act of March 3, 1891, which further confirmed existing private rights (settlement) on the land;
4. The Act for Surveying Public Lands of June 4, 1897, also known as the Forest Reserve Organic Act which excluded all lands within Forest Reserves more valuable for agriculture and mining and guaranteed rights to access, the right to construct roads and improvements, the right to acquire water rights under state law, and continued state jurisdiction over all persons and property within forest reserves.

2. The courts insist that these laws must be read on pari materia (all together). The courts have stated repeatedly that laws relating to the same subject (such as land disposal laws) must be read in pari materia (all together). In other words, FLPMA or any other land disposal act cannot be read as if it stands alone. It must be read together with all its parts and with every other prior land disposal act of Congress if the true intent of the act is to be known.
3. Each of these Acts contain ‘‘savings’’ clauses protecting existing right, including FLPMA. All acts of Congress, relating to land disposal contain a savings clause protecting prior existing rights. FLPMA contains a savings clause protecting prior existing property rights. There is an obvious reason for this. Any land disposal law passed by Congress without a savings clause would amount to a ‘‘taking’’ of private property without compensation. This could trigger litigation against the United States and monetary liability on the part of the U.S.

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2000/2000_E01886.pdf

The mineral estate in the Humbolt National Forest where no claims or rights have attached is ‘‘public land’’ according to FLPMA. The mineral estate in these lands is still open to disposition under the mining laws of the United States. Private agricultural and patented mineral lands, as well as surface estate rights in grazing allotments or subsurface rights in unpatented mining claims are not public lands within the definition set forth in FLPMA.

No evidence has been submitted to the record showing any lawful extinguishment of these rights which would effect a return of the area in question to ‘‘public land’’ status, giving rise to a trespass against the United States.

Nothing in the law allows the USFS to usurp control over right-of-ways, existing prior to October 21, 1976, or to change the definition of a road which had existed prior to 1976. Congress clarified this issue in Section 198 of the Department of Interior Appropriations Bill for 1996: ‘‘No final rule or regulation of any agency of the federal government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way, pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this act.’’

The courts have repeatedly held that when a lawful possession of the public lands has been taken, these lands are no longer available to the public and are therefore no longer public lands. Possession of the mineral estate in public lands could be lawfully taken under the mining acts. Where valid mining claims exist, that land is no longer public land.

On national forest/reserves being established for a split-estate purpose of providing timber for settlers (and enhancing water yield), miners and ranchers could only cut or clear timber for fuel, fences, buildings and developments related to the mining or agricultural use of the claims or allotments
The court ruled that forest reserves were not federal enclaves subject to the doctrine of exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States. Local peace officers were to exercise civil and criminal process over these lands. Forest Service rangers were not law enforcement officers unless designated as such by state authority. The USFS had no general grant of law enforcement authority within a sovereign State. The court has also held that a right-of-way and related improvements (as well as vehicles on the right-of-way) within a federal reservation were private interests separate from the government’s title to the underlying land and that the United States had no legislative (civil or criminal) jurisdiction without an express cession from the state.

By clear and identical language, Congress has stated in the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, the Eastern Forests (Week’s) Act of 1911, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, that there was no intention to retain federal jurisdiction over private interests within national forests. The courts have consistently upheld the ruling in Kansas v. Colorado since 1907.

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2000/2000_E01887.pdf

Even if Elko County disclaimed any interest in the road, the individual owners whose mines, ranches and other property are accessed by the road may have a compensable property right in the road. Federal rules and regulations cannot extinguish property which derives from state law. For the USFS to implement regulations under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act or any other federal authority, which would divest citizens of their property is to trigger claims for compensation by the affected citizens. For the USFS to institute criminal action against Elko County for exercising its lawful jurisdiction over the road and the land adjacent to the Road is a usurpation of power upon which the US Supreme Court has long since conclusively ruled.

--There is no man blinder than he who will not see.


Mineral_Estate_Grantee
15:56:38 Sat
Apr 25 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Note: For those of you wishing to keep abreast of matters pertaining, of similar comments, questions and concerns in this Thread, I have posted a response to rockbuster and others on the GPAA Forum...link: http://goldprospectors.org/newforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10301&PN=3

Rockbuster, I do not intend my post to be a confusion, or as you have stated. But that you think they are must be addressed. This is not necessarily the easiest medium but I'll try to clear things up as it appears to Me you misunderstand, or misinterpret of what I am saying or producing, to explain or support. I thought the Congressional Record of 2000 was very clear in its discussion. The Honorable Jim Gibbons does a great job explaining the private property aspect of our granted entry claims, also.

Your definition "In unpatented mining claim, on public lands ‘minerals as a word in the law does not include the land’" pertains, at best, to administrative entry minerals on public land under such disposal laws as the 1955 Act. I am not speaking to administrative locations on the public land. The grant of 1866 does not address what it did not grant. The grant speaks of the public domain mineral estate NOT public land mineral disposal.

I am exposing that when you locate granted minerals under authority of the grant of 1866, it's granted property, rights, or entitlements, saved by every subsequent legislation, as I have now found as clearly explained in the Congressional Record of 2000, your location is on the public DOMAIN. The acts of 1866, of 1897, and 1891 explain this clearly. Public domain is NOT public land. The property, rights, or entitlements on public domain are NOT the same as those on public land. And under the grant you automatically get all the surface, the water, the access, and water even if it is not on the property. Administrative locations such as those under the Act of 1955 are on PUBLIC LAND, not the public domain, and everything obtained, under, for instance, the 1955 act requires a license, permit, or contract. Granted mineral location does not require any license, permit, or contract.

Your definition is for leasables, saleables, or disposables. It is not applicable to the mineral estate granted and "disposed of" in 1866. If you do not know there is a difference you will never understand what I am saying. If you do not know the example of the two-branched mineral estate tree, you may not be able to easily see the fact. All subsequent disposal laws after the Act of 1866 , such as the 1955 Act which dealt with leasables and saleables of common variety mineral such as sand, gravel, and sandstone, etc., have savings clauses protecting the gifts granted by the Act of 1866 as clearly explained in the Congressional Record.

Part 3800 is not applicable to granted mineral estate locations. Granted private property mineral locations under the authority of the Act of 1866 are not "special uses" subject to this Part.

Subpart 3809, is not applicable to granted mineral locations as the Authority shows and as it expressly states at 3809.2 Scope.

You can hear the explanation read from the rules here: (Note: The following mp3s may take a few moments to load, Please be patient)

43 CFR 3809 No Authority Over Property

http://archives.restoretherepublicradio.com:8765/archives/2009021815-00-00.mp3

Subpart 3802 pertains to wilderness study areas, and is not applicable to granted entry in any regard.

Subpart 3715 is not applicable to granted minerals as the "Authority" for the part clearly shows. In other words, what we Mineral Estate Grantees do is not a "special use" subject to this subpart.

You can hear the explanation read from the rules here:

43 CFR 3715 Deceptive Sentences

http://archives.restoretherepublicradio.com:8765/archives/2009021915-00-00.mp3

43 USC 1732 expressly prohibits all land management authority over any vested property, right, or entitlement, such as those entitled under the Grant of 1866.

You can hear the explanation read from the statute here:

Other Authorization Trumps Agency Enforcement Authority

http://archives.restoretherepublicradio.com:8765/archives/2009021615-00-00.mp3

The Transfer Act of 1905 expressly prohibits Forest Service having any authority over minerals all together.

The terms used in Subpart 3809 are from 40 CFR 1508 and "shall be uniform throughout the Federal government". And without consent of the property owner to be part of a major federal action, which receives federal funds, with agency discretionary authority over the project, program, or demonstration those terms are not applicable. Those terms include "Notice of Intent" from which the POO must be drawn. Therefore, the NOI and the POO are not required because, without more, the NEPA is not applicable to private property in-holdings on either the public domain or public land.

You can hear the explanation read from the rules here:

http://archives.restoretherepublicradio.com:8765/archives/2009042415-00-00.mp3

You write as if you did not read the Congressional Record I supplied. I would ask that you read it or reread it as the case may be. Here is some supplemental case law:

Federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

"Mineral rights are ownership in land, and therefore Lewis is a landowner. See, e.g., United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyo., 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938) (with respect to question of ownership, “[m]inerals ... are constituent elements of the land itself”); British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of State of Mont., 299 U.S. 159, 164-65, 57 S.Ct. 132, 81 L.Ed. 95 (1936) (finding a mineral estate an estate in land); Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. State, 125 Mont. 258, 234 P.2d 452, 453 (1951) (“[ l ]ands as a word in the law includes minerals”). We need not decide whether the term “landowner” as it is used in Forest Service regulations and orders always includes owners of mineral estates. Here, the government conceded at oral argument that Lewis is a landowner under the terms of the closure order before us and thus exempt from this closure order. " Hicks 2002.

"When the location of a mining claim is "perfected" under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term; and may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited without infringing any right or title of the United States....The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

Cheeser, I'm not asking anyone to trust Me, so it is a good thing you do not. The government also says not to trust it, {see its Disclaimers}.

I am, however, asking you to do the most basic of research so you can stop getting yourself into unnecessary entanglements with agency having no authority to interfere, diminish, or obstruct the vested property granted under the Act of 1866 and which granted property, rights, or entitlements have been saved by the required clause in every subsequent mineral disposal law; As clearly stated in the Congressional Record of 2000.

I can not force anyone to see what they are unwilling to see. If you want to throw yourself under the administrative bus, this is America, you can do so if you wish. But this is America. I nor anyone else is compelled to follow you into an accident. To resist tossing ourselves under the bus, we need knowledge and have the certitude and will to apply that knowledge required to look before leaping. I hope this explanation helps to that end.

Cohiba, what does your question about taxes have to do with the price of tea in China?



chickenminer
18:31:59 Sat
Apr 25 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
LipCa...
Very good link. The Multiple Use Act of 1955 was brought to my attention by Mike (Chickengold) here a while back. You are correct, it makes a huge difference if you have valid Federal claims prior to 1955.
I have some old Federal claims that predate 1955 and some later. The pre-1955 claims do indeed have not only subsurface, but surface rights!
This is a very important point to all those that have pre-1955 federal claims. I did not want to see it skimmed over lightly.

chickengold
06:38:22 Sun
Apr 26 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
"The Mining Act of 1872 conferred a statutory right to enter upon federal public lands to search for minerals and provided that the locators of mining claims had "exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations." 30 U.S.C. § 26; see 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 (1997). "This statute was construed to mean that as against parties other than the United States, the locator had exclusive right to use the surface of this land." Silbrico Corp. v. Ortiz , 878 F.2d 333, 335 (10th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation omitted).

In 1955, Congress amended the mining laws by passing the Multiple Use Mining Act, 30 U.S.C. § 601, et seq. , which retained to the Federal Government the right to manage the surface resources of subsequently located unpatented mining claims. See 30 U.S.C. § 612(b). The Act provides that the unpatented mining claims are subject to the right of the United States and its permittees and licensees to manage surface resources and "to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land" so long as such does not "endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto." Id".

"Exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface" has been taken to mean "as pertains to mining", but also to deny access to unauthorized entry. Read what you want, the courts have long battled over the meaning and hence the Surface Use Act or Multiple Use Act which limited the surface rights provided by the 1872 Mining Law.




raimford
17:29:32 Sun
Apr 26 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Zooka; Earlier in this post you stated:
"I don't know about Oregon, but most every place else, the State owns the land where the roads go, most of the time (not just an easement), and using them is a priviledge that requires you to have insurance, a license, a safe vehicle etc, and subjects you to all fo those laws that apply to persons on public property plus traffic laws. I will be interested to hear how Oregon is different.
-Z"

I can not answer this statement adequately in a few paragraphs for it would take pages and pages. I do, however have a 32 page letter I wrote and hand delivered to all 90 Oregon Legislators a few months ago. I will send it to you and all others that are interested in how some of your basic Rights have been trampled upon over the past 80+ years. E-mail me at raimfordgold@yahoo.com and request it. If you would like to be put on an E-mail list to receive periodic updates and additional information, please so specify. Thanks. Raimford.



Mineral_Estate_Grantee
17:43:03 Sun
Apr 26 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Congressional Record and other information links from here:
www.restoretherepublicradio.com/Behind_the_Woodshed_Week_In_Review_APA_Notice_Points/

tomcat_0
01:22:53 Mon
Apr 27 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Hal,

This is a very important subject ! Is there any way a person can get these broadcasts in transcript form ?

I ask this because my ISP has stated, that where I live, high speed services will not be available for at least five years, if ever.

Until then, when ever that is, I'm stuck with 33kbs per second.



Mineral_Estate_Grantee
04:49:48 Mon
Apr 27 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Note: Again, For those of you wishing to keep abreast of matters pertaining, of similar comments, questions and concerns in this Thread, I have posted a response to rockbuster and others on the GPAA Forum...link: http://goldprospectors.org/newforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10301&PN=4

Rockbuster, I'll try again to explain further where you are misapprehending this matter. Let's see if I can bust the rock which impedes your understanding. You have provided Me the form which I will follow. I'll answer to your statements, part by part. And at some point here, understand, I am not trying to convince you, because I can not explain any thing to someone who insists on not keeping things straight. But you have challenged Me to explain then accused Me of something you have no right to allege. So I speak to those that might get the idea that you know what you are talking about though you all the while misapply what you claim disproves what I have presented. And I must add here, as the knowledge I am presenting is being applied in the field, the courts, and to the agencies, we are having very desirable affect and in some cases outright victory....the war to reassert our private property, rights, and entitlements continues......without agency permission. Every war has casualties....that seems to be what it means to be an American with the responsibility when moving against those who would undermine our way of life, or property, and our laws....and in this I would hope we might agree.

>>>Okay MineralEstateGrantee break it down. Where is it that you believe granted minerals are locatable, other than on BLM managed public lands or USFS managed lands?

The first sentence of the Act of 1866. This the Original Grant is not in the US Code:

Found at http://www.grantedright.com/The_Law.html

That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed

4 and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to

5 exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United

6 States,

The grant does not identify the minerals on "public land", "BLM land", "Forest Service Land", "Forest Service System Lands", "USFS lands", "federal land", "acquired land", etc., and so forth, all of which are different designations than public domain.

>>>I have read Us Code Title 43 Sub Chapter III Sub Sec 1732. Most claims are located on BLM managed land and if you read the associated sections within this section (As well as my previous post - section on BLM) you would already know that.

As the grant clearly states the granted mineral estate is "of public domain". "BLM lands" are not mentioned and but for the agency fairy-tale, "BLM lands" do not actually exist. But you refuse to notice this is the fact...so I don't know what more I can say about that failure.

>>>The only exceptions to these new policies is for claim help pre 1976, and even those claims are subject to some of the new regulations set forth in these laws.

As the Congressional Record posted earlier clearly states, all subsequent land disposal laws must include a savings clause so as not to interfere with the prior disposal by grant of the minerals of the public domain. There are no exceptions to this. Any exception to this requirement becomes an unlawful takings. And it appears you misunderstand any exception in 1732 which excepts, withholds, agency management authority from having any authority over this vested mineral estate. One thing that many people do not understand is how a "present grant" such as the Act of 1866 is treated by the court as regards the property identified after the date of an act. Here are a couple of cases which ought to explain the matter and will show why the Congressional Record clearly says all subsequent land disposal laws must have savings clauses. Every granted mineral location has rights by relation to 1866, not the date of its location "today".

*** “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)”

The Shumway case is also instructive:

The doctrine hereinbefore enunciated has never been seriously questioned. It has been reiterated in many cases in both the state and federal courts.

“[t]he owner of a mining claim owns property, and is not a mere social guest of the Department of Interior to be shooed out the door when the Department chooses. Rather, pursuant to the Multiple Use Act, the Department must continue to coexist with a holder of a valid claim whose right to possession is vested.” (Shumway, 1999, 199 F.3d at 1103.)

30USC 611-614 known as the Multiple Use Act is clearly for leasable minerals by the “Mineral leasing laws” definition as amendatory of or supplementary to mineral leasing law.

Is it apparent the Shumway court interpreted that the Multiple Use Act did not apply due to the exception in the lease disposal statute at 30USC 612 (b) “(except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States)” to reconcile the fact that locatable mineral claims relating to the grant Act of 1866, or 1872, are vested and must maintain the right of exclusive possession. This further shows these Acts were never intended to be diminished by the Multiple Use Act which did not change any wording, interpretation, cause, or effect expressed in 30USC26, reflecting the 1872 Act's 1866 savings clauses required of all legislative grants, or that A party is always estopped by his own grant. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) .

So these negate your opinion here:

>>>"The BLM was designated as land management for US public lands by the Secretary. Many laws, in place today, have added to and/or modified the Land Act of 1866 and the Mining Act of 1872."

Additionally, this grant-based mandate protecting locatable minerals is seen in the FLPMA statute section at 43 USC 1732 stating, “except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses [e.g., exclusive mineral estate possession] according to any other provision of law [e.g., the 1872 Act] it shall be managed in accordance with such law” “The Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use” provided, “no provision of this section or any other section of this act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress.”

Where leasable minerals are administratively disposed by the Secretary under the Multiple Use Act, locatable minerals in the public domain shall not suffer impairment, and instead, as the Shumway court found, “must continue to co-exist” separate of public land management duties.

Then you use all your misunderstanding of law to say of Me, "You are feeding bad information to miners and unpatented claim holders," but you have not substantiated the accuracy of your understanding, at all. You continue to mix the types of disposal, the time of disposal, and the law that applies to it and bring an erroneous view as to the subject matter authority of the agencies for your imposition. The Congressional Record clearly states the agencies have no authority. So until you get all that straight, you will not see what I am saying and you will disagree and you will continue to be lead by the nose by agencies with no actual authority. That you do not understand this does not make Me wrong. If it is you need a profiteers opinion, all I can say is the more attorneys that look into this and actually research it in-depth, the more they are having to agree with what I am presenting....that's not me saying that, they say it. ultimately, I'm not saying anything, really. I am merely pointing out how, where, why, and what caused our ore cart from the track.

>>>"and unless you are holding a Bond for their bail and legal fees I suggest; all who read your assertions do so with extreme caution. "

I don't know why I should get a bond, I'm in no commercial activity profiteering upon ignorance. You are free to hire an attorney. But beware, every one I have researched are trained only in administrative mineral law, not granted mineral estate law. And it won't matter how you proceed because by ignorance of the law we will throw ourselves under the administrative bus by abandoning our VESTED property, rights, and entitlements accruing by relation to 1866....or the law as has been consistently applied up until about 30 years ago, when the mining community fell on its face when it began listening to government agency and bad case law decisions. Listening to agencies which will not warrant its information is reliable, or that it will NOT interfere with private property rights.

The extreme caution ought to be when any Mineral Estate Grantee listens to government agencies whose only legitimate authority is limited to things not already disposed by "other authorization" as 1732 expressly acknowledges, as the Congressional Record clearly states is a required element of any subsequent land disposal law. But let's not take your word for it or even mine. Let's see what a second and third opinion says upon the matter:

When “Taken together, mineral laws constitute a special code upon that subject, and show that they are intended not only to establish particular mode of disposing of minerals, but also to except and reserve them from all other grants, and modes of disposal where there is no express provision for their inclusion. United States v Sweet (1918)” “that subsequent laws incorporated in statutes provide expressly how title to such lands may be acquired, as limiting power and authority of Land Department [now Bureau of Land Management] in disposing of public lands valuable for minerals under such method and under such conditions as may be specifically pointed out by some act of Congress. Kansas City Min. Co. v Clay (1892).” (See: 43 USC 1701)

>>>"This is as far as I will go with you on this topic as I believe you are trying to start a movement that can not, and will not end well. Good luck with your venture."

Thank you for your contribution as far as you could go. Thank you for challenging my presentation of the law, the Congressional Record, and consistent and instructive court cases, in further confirmation of my findings. Be assured, If it does not go well, we will find we no longer live in America. Thank you for your support. Not many are willing to go the distance to protect their private property, rights, or entitlements from trespass.




Mineral_Estate_Grantee
06:01:39 Wed
Apr 29 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Tomcat,

No, there are no transcripts.

I know some people with dial-up have saved the DOWNLOAD link from the Archive at http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/archives/ for Behind the Woodshed and select the desired program for the file by right clicking the word DOWNLOAD and SAVE AS to your hard drive to save the entire file. Some do that "overnight" or during a time they aren't going to be using their computer or phone.

Then they play the saved file on their media player offline....and they have one for their library.
Will be working on a way people can acquire a Data CD of copies of a number of programs.

Thank you for your interest.



LipCa
15:30:47 Wed
Apr 29 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
MEG,

You certainly have a lot of background research....

Maybe you can explain the difference between "public domain" and "public land", "BLM land", "Forest Service Land", "Forest Service System Lands", "USFS lands", "federal land", "acquired land", etc.

It would seem to me that these are just a redesignation of the name "public domain" as various agencies were given administrative powers.
For example, aren't the lands that Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) oversees still public domain?
Ownership of that land is shown as USA(United States of America) .

But, then again, I don't know...only thinking outloud(I think):confused:

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
08:22:13 Fri
May 1 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Thanks LipCa, for the opportunity....I still owe chickengold a bit more of an answer but let Me take yours, it ought to be a bit easier to explain to show you there is a difference in the designations, even if they are made up, like "BLM Land."

I've got to go quickly here because of other pressing matters, so I'll speak in generalities. Any specifics I'd have to deal with separately with more info. These generalities can be further defined by statute and you have to look to those and read them very carefully.

But for our case here "public domain" is not actually the same as "public land".

The distinction is harder to make because these to are so often interchanged but are not actually synonymous. Evidence that they are not the same and also showing that what ever they are called, forest reserves, national forest, forest system lands, the territory of the Forest Service jurisdiction, is not "public domain" can be found in the Creative At 1891 and Organic Act 1897, each states that land found valuable for minerals is restored to the public domain. So obviously they are one thing different than what they are restored to when mineral is found, the public domain, which under the grant we get to exclusively possess.

Public domain is essentially, unappropriated land open to entry. The mineral estate in the public domain granted under authority of the Act of 1866 is disposed of already, therefore it is outside of agency administration.

"Public land" is essentially the "lands" [it's all one land really, America, right] that are managed by the agencies generally. They include generally and loosely everything not disposed of by act of Congress that can be disposed. This is where they maintain administrative authority.

If you picture a layer cake you'll begin to get the idea; public domain is on the bottom layer, the foundation. Public land is on top of that layer. And the other types, [listed below] are on top of the public land layer. The agencies have administrative authority over the public land layer and everything above, but not the public domain which is the layer below. This layer below, the public domain, is the layer in which the mineral estate grantee property resides as well as the Section 8 highways, both of which the agencies have no administrative authority over. See the SUWA v BLM 2006 case for confirmation regarding the immunity of the highways from BLM administration authority.

"federal land" is split estate land that is land where there is a surface entry and a subsurface right of entry.

"acquired land" is land that is patented land that is repurchased or by exchange back into the United States possession. It can be thought of more as a private holding, the government is the private property owner. I think H.R. 699 pertains to this being the "legal and beneficial title" is held by the United States; Which I'm looking for help to identify absolutely. This style title holding is not the condition of the public domain granted mineral estate.

"Special use" areas, these are "usually" Acquired Lands administratively designated for a particular use.

If there is such a thing as "BLM Land" or "Forest Service System land" it is really and only agency designation for purposes of management, grounds-keeping. In other words, there will never be a vested property or interest in agency designated land and all service routes will be administratively created and controlled, unlike Section 8 "highways", which can be as small as a footpath and require, literally, an act of Congress to condition.

One new name that has just popped up is "public domain land". This is the tricky one they just invented to make it look like public domain, but the actual definition doesn't match up. "public domain land" of the recent Bills does not appear to be "public domain" spoken of in the 1866 Act.

But "they" are after the granted mineral estate to steal it back and so every device is being used to try to get us to believe what is being regulated today is what we claim and was gifted under the Act of 1866. What is so very interesting is, if that were true, if the new Bills were actually affecting that public domain, they wouldn't need the savings clauses that are still included.

I hope that clears the differences up a bit better for you. once you see this it should begin to get easier to keep track of what is going on in the law and what the agencies are talking about.



Mineral_Estate_Grantee
01:36:26 Sun
Jul 19 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Apologizing for the delinquency of this response... Yes I am that busy addressing these issues behind the scenes... And it has taken this long to come up with an answer which is sufficient yet concise and of which I hope will not continue the confusion over these matters so well propagandized by the BLM to its unlawful advantage and impositions to date. But the tide is beginning to turn.

Besides promising chickengold an answer to 30 USC 612 and that mineral family, I have been asked by a number of people, including Jim Foley, and in discussions with Jerry Hobbs, to address the 1955 Multi Use act, so-called, and its applicability upon the granted mineral estate. Because of mis or dis information, or omissions by BLM or of plain ignorance of the laws, I wanted to show how you can understand the 1955 Common Varieties Act, i.e. "Surface resources Act", eg., Multiuse act, to read that it does not pertain to our granted mineral deposit locations and nothing in it provides authority to the BLM to regulate the suface of your granted mineral deposit locations; Which is why FLPMA has all those exceptions to SoI/BLM Management and Enforcement authority under 43 USC 1732 and 1733 prohibiting interference with our vested properties.

By reading too fast it is easy to over look the answer.

30 U.S.C. 612(b) states:

"Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States).

Observe that "mining claim" located is not the same as a "mineral deposit" located.

Because if any "mining claim" is the exception "mineral deposits", then the first sentence is excepted from the statute making 612 meaningless. If however, the exception, "mineral deposit" is a different mineral class than what is being referred to in the first sentence amending the Mineral Materials act of 1947 act, .i.e., common materials such as sand and gravel, then this makes complete sense. The exception, in the 612 (b) parenthesis above, conforms to the law, recognizes the prior valuable mineral deposit disposal, and is the savings clause identifed in the Congressional Record of 2000 as required in all subsequent land disposal acts of Congress after the act of 1866 regarding the mineral estate, or as is expressed in the Act of 1866 "the mineral lands of the public domain" removing from application of this subpart the valuable mineral deposits.

For reference, notice the text in the 1872 http://goldplacer.com/1872MiningLaw.htm:

"That all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States"

"or other valuable deposits heretofore located"

Which expanded and clarified this:

of the 1866 H.R. 365: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Law.html

" That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed

4 and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to

5 exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United

6 States,"

And then we have Section 505 confirmation of all this that 600-613 and others in this ADMINISTRATIVELY DISPOSABLE class pertain only to leasables and salables.

For further reading and clarification, deliniation, comprehension, and scope I've compiled some information which, I hope, clears this matter up. From this you should come away with the proof that BLM has no authority over your granted valuable mineral deposit locations granted in 1866 though perfected through the 1872 Act. The acts of 1947, 1955, or 1960 were never meant to apply. And if the BLM is going to challenge you it must be by a probable cause supported challenge to the validity of your presumed bona fide location and valid discovery. By this, there is no authority in the BLM or Secretary of the Interior to interfere, by any act of Congress, with your private, as patent, property which includes the surface because those public domain locations are excepted from the purposes for which the 1947, 1955, and 1960 the actual Multi-Use Act, and FLPMA statutes were intended which could not interfere with the 1866 prior land disposal, including NEPA, either Part 228 or the 3809/3715's .

Thank you for your time to research these matters to protect your valuable mineral property against Special Interest encroachment, trespass, or theft. For more information be sure to download any number of programs which explain the mining law at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/archives/?show=Behind%20the%20Woodshed or tune in Noon O'clock Pacific Daily Mon thru Fri at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/

If there are any other questions, do not hesitate to ask. We don't have any more time to be ignorant of our property, rights, or entitlements.

IV. Federal Mining Laws

Federal minerals can be acquired three different ways: (1) location of mining claim, (2) sale, and (3) lease. The locatable and saleable minerals are pertinent to this article.

Title 30, United States Code, Mineral Lands and Mining, contains the federal mining laws. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Public Lands, contains the principal regulations relating to mining on federal lands.

Locatable minerals include any valuable mineral deposit which is not saleable or leasable and is locatable under the Mining Law of 1872 8, as amended. The term also includes uncommon varieties of sand, stone and other building materials. Saleable minerals include common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, clay and other mineral materials. The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 9, as amended, governs exploitation of saleable minerals on BLM and other federal lands.

The history of locatable minerals and saleable minerals is intertwined. Prior to passage of the Materials Act19 deposits of common sand, stone, gravel and clay were unavailable under any system. Uncommon deposits were locatable. After the Materials Act, those common materials could be purchased. Certain types of ordinary material, even with commercial value, have never been locatable under the mining laws, including fill, sub-base, ballast, riprap and barrow.20

On July 23, 1955, an amendment to the Materials Act was passed known as the Common Varieties Act21. The Common Varieties Act codified the prior law that common varieties of certain building materials are not locatable and provided an exception for "uncommon varieties":

"No deposit of common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders and no deposit of petrified wood shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws. . . .

"’Common varieties’ as used in sections 601, 603, and 611 to 615 of this title does not include deposits of such materials which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving it distinct and special value." . . .

The uncommon varieties reference in the Common Varieties Act and the effective date of that statute form the heart of the BLM – crushed stone industry cases described herein. Generally the producer was seeking a way to categorize minerals as locatable rather than saleable.

BLM can challenge mining claims administratively within the United States Department of the Interior or through litigation in the federal courts, but not both simultaneously.29 The cases cited involve all of these methods: administrative action, litigation and a combination of the two.

BLM challenges include notices of mineral trespass, which can involve the Mining Law of 1872, the Materials Act of 1947, the Common Varieties Act of 1955, the Building Stone Act of 1892 30, other parts of a mining claim’s validity or a combination of all of them. Litigation initiated by BLM can involve the same issues and usually include temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions requesting immediate termination of the mining operations.

7 Arizona Yearbook: A Guide to Government in the Grand Canyon State 1997-1998.

8 30 U.S.C. § 22, et seq.

9 30 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.

18 1 American Law of Mining, Second Edition, § 30.05[6], p. 30-16.

19 Supra.

20 United States v. Webb, 132 IBLA 152, 183 (1995).

21 30 U.S.C. § 611.

29 2 American Law of Mining, Second Edition, § 50.02; p. 50-5.



Spek
06:09:47 Sun
Jul 19 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
MEG thank you for sharing this information. You have
obviously spent a lot of time researching this matter
and I view it as generosity on your part to share your findings on this forum. In spite of your extensive posting I still struggle to get a grasp on all you have
said, but am starting to make sense of it.
From past experience in other fields dealing with
DF&W and MSHA I have seen federal agencies impose themselves in areas in which they had not the authority to do so and have proven that point with their own laws, so it is entirely plausible to me that the same is happening in this case. It often pays to read the fine print. I'm short on time for now but will study this more indepth and once again thank you for all your time and effort.

dredgeguy
17:42:23 Sun
Jul 19 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Thanks for the time Hal.
Keep it up and maybe people will catch on to what they are giving up.
We have to get the administrative layers the agencies have put over the property rights separate again as they were intended.

baub
19:08:29 Mon
Jul 20 2009
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Thanks everybody for this post and discussion. I too have trouble grasping all the detail and nuances presented here.
This topic is of vital importance to us all on this site. We need to wade thru the legalese anf get to the truth.

My head hurts.

b

JOE_S_INDY
17:59:52 Sun
Dec 2 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Folks,

I saved this from 41 pages back because I feel that it really needs to be revisited again.

While MEG (either Hal, an un-identified supporter or just a pseudo name) has some ideas as to one end of the spectrum here, as to some other, quite valid and counter balancing posters, on the other side of the aisle.

I have to say that I am undecided on just what is, exactly what here - but the subject should, in my thinking, be carefully brought to a studied end.

What are our ""Rights"" provided by Federally caretakered claim, as well as a State caretakered claim? Access to those claims (AS 2477), State Park access to mining claims and National Park access to the same.

The bickering over the "Who struck John" aspect of "Exclusive Rights to Any Mining Claim" certainly has expired here - so let's just let that contencious aspect die.

What do we enjoy and what do we not enjoy as to the access and use of our claims?

And baub,

My head hurts, too.
Joe

Jim_Alaska
04:32:45 Mon
Dec 3 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Is this what you are looking for Joe?
_______________________________________

U.S. Code

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 612

§ 612. Unpatented mining claims

(a) Prospecting, mining or processing operations


Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefore, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.

(b) Reservations in the United States to use of the surface and surface resources

Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto.


JOE_S_INDY
03:34:38 Wed
Dec 5 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Hey there, Jim,

This information seems to be for Federally administered claims.

Since there are only a handfull of those type claims in the region where I work (as opposed to hundreds of state administered ones) I am at the point that I don't exactly know what carries over and what doesn't from federal to state.

I guess what I'm saying is does 1866 and 1872 extend these same rights to state claim situations?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Joe

dickb
06:21:22 Wed
Dec 5 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Joe:

It's questions like you are asking, that is the reason that lawyers will never be out of a job!
Lawyers write laws with deliberate gray areas in them so that they are subject to interpretation. If everything was simple black and white, like we wish it was, there would be no reason for a dispute.
I really think both the Feds and the States think that they really own the land, not manage it for the public good.

Just throwing my 2 cents in for what it's worth. :confused:
Dickb


Jim_Alaska
07:06:21 Wed
Dec 5 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
The 1866 grant and its amendment, the 1872 miming law, only applies to federal domain. The state can do what it wants and does not have to abide by the federal, except on federal domain within the state.

JOE_S_INDY
00:08:34 Thu
Dec 6 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
W E L L L L

I guess that answers that.

Thanks, Jim.



Mineral_Estate_Grantee
20:57:57 Fri
Dec 7 2012
Re: Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Maybe these below links will provide answers.

Executive Summary: The Mining Law: The Extent of Federal Authority Over Public Domain

http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/exec.pdf

and this:

SHERIFF: This Land is Our Land,Feds Have No Jurisdiction!

http://www.usobserver.com/archive/sep-11/sheriff-this-land-is-our-land.html





Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewthread?forum=2&thread=795
Powered By BbBoard - http://bb.bbboy.net