Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search
:: :: The answer is in answering the riddle
Unsubscribe From Newsletter



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

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

Pages: [ 1 2 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
16:49:22 Wed
Apr 7 2010

Offline
494 posts
Reply
The answer is in answering the riddle

Holy Basil Batman, a Riddle:

Where, as a matter of law, it is that:

"Under the existing mining statutes the title to a mining claim does not rest entirely on possession, but it rests upon a statutory grant. Oscamp v. Crystal River Min. Co. (1893) 58 Fed. 293, 296, 7 C. C. A. 233",

saying that mining title exists and requiring a statutory grant somewhere to support it. And

"By the terms of this section the locator of a mining claim has a possessory title thereto and the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment thereof, and this exclusive possession and enjoyment includes the right to work the claim, to extract the mineral therefrom, the right to the exclusive property in such mineral as well as the right to defend his possession. Belk v. Meagher (1878) 3 Mont. 65, 78. See Tibbitts v. Ah Tong (1882) 2 Pac. 759, 4 Mont. 536, 547",

Further observing that what a locator has is a title known as "possessory title" entitling "the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment", including the entire surface,

And where, last I checked, the word GRANTING in the 1866 act, and for other purposes, is current, happening now, why it is known as a "present grant", the

AMENDMENT
Reported by Mr. STEWART. from the Committee on Public Lands, to the act (H. R. 365) granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands in the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada, That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States,


And clarifying that where:

"The term "occupation,"as used in this section of the statute, is equivalent to possession, and the right to locate is included in the right to occupy, and incident to a location is the right of possession. Tibbitts v. Ah Tong (1883) 2 Pac. 759, 4 Mont 536, 539,"


Zooka, OGM, and now Gary or anyone else believing there is no grant working today, Since we locators "has a possessory title" which title is required and must "rest upon" a grant, and if the Act of 1866 is not that grant, which works as an extinguishment of the rights of the grantor, Then where is the required grant providing for the possessory title a locator has providing the right of exclusive possession and enjoyment, including of all the surface?

Instead of arguing there is no grant, why didn't you expose the existing grant earlier?

Show us the grant providing for the existence of our possessory title.

Holy Basil Batman, failing to answer, or answers longer than one short sentence will expose the Jokers amoungst us; Follow their continuing opinion to your harm.

MEG


  
calgolddredger
20:58:40 Wed
Apr 7 2010

Offline
21 posts
Reply
Re: The answer is in answering the riddle


I must say a good "egging-on"

Hmmm...I thought this post was locked? Oh.. second post.
Actually seen this post many many times plastered everywhere. Geez Thanks.
[1 edits; Last edit by calgolddredger at 21:04:53 Wed Apr 7 2010]

  
Seden
23:37:55 Wed
Apr 7 2010

Offline
222 posts
Reply
MEG's Duplicate post

Calgolddredger you are right, this is the SAME MEG post that got locked. This is unacceptable and you are right it is just a provocation of Zooka and others.

Jim, can you kindly ask MEG to make his point based on CURRENT law,not 1800's law? This appears to be his main downfall from reading all of Zookas rebuttals and Mr. Bryce is absolutely correct.
If MEG would use current law THEN we would benefit from the information he provides.

Randy

  
tenderfootminer
23:43:40 Wed
Apr 7 2010

Offline
605 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

well said Sedan Even though I can chose not to read these posts every time i do a little steam comes out my ears same old thing over and over :gonetoofar: makes me just frown and go to more serious posts:devil:

  
chickenminer
00:00:58 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
364 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Quote from Jim's posting on the now locked post..

"Ok folks, we need to lighten up a bit. I asked MEG to post information about the Mineral Estate Grant as information for those who want it. He has helped the mining community nationwide and individuals one on one with mining related problems. He does this free of charge.

He doesn't post this stuff to cause arguments, it is simply information to use or not use at your discretion. For those who can use it, it is invaluable."

Well Jim,
That may be true but MEG's very nature seems to be arrogant and antagonistic. Just read his post, there was NO need to take a personal jab at folks if all MEG wants to do is disseminate information.






---
Dick Hammond - Chicken, Alaska
Chicken / Stonehouse Creek Mining
Chickenminer.com
 
 
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
01:47:21 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
494 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

You know, as I think about it. This isn't even name calling. they are free to remove the fact of their error in answer. Essentially, by not answering they determine who they are, not Me.

And I think it is very arrogant and antagonistic to rely upon someone else's failure to answer as proving the thing they have not answered themselves is not the fact. And in this case, the law as well.

~Hal.

  
Seden
02:37:40 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
222 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

........and so the Riddler and the Joker became one and the same.:smile:

  
akbushcop
03:55:32 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
732 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

It's the incessant posting of this type of pablum that is turning people off from even helping you take up the legitimate portions of your cause.

  
tenderfootminer
04:43:44 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
605 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

thank you akbush cop that hits it right on the head:smile:

  
LipCa
06:09:41 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
649 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

I'm sorry, MEG, but the more I read your posts, the less I understand any of the information you are supposed to be presenting.....It's like your're carrying on a conversation with someone and we are only hearing one side of the conversation.......things(links, quotes, statements) just appear!
I feel that you have information to share but it's not coming across in a format that I can understand very well.
Your last "Holy Basil, Batman" is a fine example.

Maybe somebody does, but not me.

I wish you could present it in a better format....




  
akbushcop
13:31:08 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
732 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

He only wants to argue his side. He is unable to see the other side. Only his is RIGHT. Everyone else is wrong. A very good and thorough researcher will try to disprove his own theory.

  
calgolddredger
20:55:50 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
21 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

In this case the "messenger" is of poor character and comes off as very annoying and obnoxious. (just my oppinion, still have that right)

At this point doesn't matter who is in the right or wrong, it is how it is being broadcasted and the way it comes across.

  
cheeser
21:19:05 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Unavailable
205 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

I tend to look at the be-all end-all for any and every issue in this country: MONEY.

If MEG were even remotely correct, corporations would be all over the courts using it. MEG's posts have the implications of millions if not BILLIONS of $$. If there was any credence to what MEG writes, don't you think those corporations would be using it? Of course they would. But they're not. Why? Because they have millions of $$ invested in lawyers (you know, people who are actually trained in legal concepts unlike MEG/Hal) who have gove over these issues with fine-toothed combs. And they know what MEG/Hal are spouting it a load of bunk.

If we're going to fight for our right to mine, we need to stop giving credence to charlatans like MEG/Hal.

  
Seden
22:02:45 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Offline
222 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post-Rattlesnake Jim

Rattlesnake Jim,

If MEG would quit quoting 1800's cases and ONLY cite cases with CURRENT LAW , THEN and only THEN could we make use of his information and I'm sure everyone would agree. This is the point Jim, we all want a good mining law researcher who is up to date and the only one I know of is Jerry Hobbs of the PLP. Go on the PLP website and look at the case laws he quotes-do you see any obsolete ones?
NO you don't-do you get it now? Am I making myself clear?

Randy

  
cheeser
22:43:23 Thu
Apr 8 2010

Unavailable
205 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Quote: Rattlesnake_Jim at 21:27:36 Thu Apr 8 2010


If you trust lawyers, I feel sorry for you. Very few lawyers actually have their clients interest in mind. Many will play the game to increase their fees. There are only a very few mineral law attorneys worth their salt!
RSJ


I never said I trusted lawyers. In fact, your statement backs up my statement that corporations and their lawyers want money. Period.

And apparently you believe that these corporations are willingly throwing away billions of $$ because the hundreds/thousands of lawyers who've gone over this for them aren't as smart as MEG/Hal?

You say it yourself - "Many will play the game to increase their fees." Don't you think those lawyers would drool at the fees they could earn using MEG/Hal's points? It would be the biggest windfall in the history of the legal profession. There's a reason NO ONE is using MEG/Hal's points in a court of law - there's no chance of winning and therefore no $$.




  
Steppegold
02:45:22 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
436 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

HI Folks - Seden you are quite right, CURRENT LAW is all that matters...

...to lighten things up a bit, consider the plight of the London taxi drivers. The laws and regs for them originated in the time that Hackney Carriages were coach n' horses, and when those darned infernal combustion machines appeared the law took 100 years to catch up. I can remember not so long ago that a black cab in London was NOT PERMITTED to reverse under any circumstances without first unhitching the horses (and if there ain't no 'orse then you ain't gonna reverse). Indeed all black cabs in London until quite recently were supposed to carry at least one bale of hay on the roof to feed the horses, There were however some dubious benefits, notably the absolute right of the taxi driver to pee against the rear offside wheel of his taxi whenever he so felt the urge! Well he can't just wander off for a oops-pardon-me-maam in a crowded London street while his horse has decided to bolt down Downing Street dragging a coachload of silk stockings to wherever. Yes old laws can be fun. Take the obvious case of insisting that all four wheel vehicles must never drive on a pavement but must proceed with the traffic on the road. That's sensible but it accidently meant that every mam pushing a pram was supposed to push the baba along the Queen's Highway and not break the springs or the speed limit. And with mining laws it was no better. In Wigan, the mighty Wigan Council decided to build a swimming pool in the middle of the town but during construction the whole lot collapsed into medieval pillar-and-stall underground coal mines of Mr Platt who died 500 years afore. Twas not really a problem, just delay and expense, but HO-HO then Wigan Council was then charged RENTAL by the National Coal Board for occupying the old coal mine with the now rather large basement of the Swimming Pool. Twas very embarrasing as law is law, so the minimum rental in law was agreed upon. A Peppercorn rental. Trouble is, Wigan Council neglected to ever pay the Peppercorn each year and so it rumbles on. Which brings us to the odd-ball of the longest war in human history was between Russia and the town of Berwick upon Tweed. This pass-the-parcel city was passed from England to Scotland and back so many times in war that the only way England and Scotland could make peace was to formalise that the city would swap from one country to the next. (Keep to the point, if there is one at all - Ed), Baruumph - so when Queen Victoria declared war on the Russian Empire for the Crimean War, her declaration listed not only England, Scotland but every teeny weeny bit of the British Empire, includeding the mighty midget city of Berwick. Of course the Crimean War fizzled out, and the Peace Treaty duly signed but Queen Victoria's scribe oh-oh forgot to attach Berwick to the long list of bits of British Empire that agreed to the Peace. This uncomfortable fact was only discovered in the 1970s, and so, mighty Berwick stood alone against the Russian Bear for 120 years, right through WWI and WWII, Once discovered, a Peace Treaty was signed between the Mayor of Berwick and the Russian Embassy delegation. Unfortoooonately it now turns out that the Mayor was acting ultra vires, in other words he doesn't have the power to wage war, and so he doesn't have the power to make peace and (..that's enough ranting for today Steppe, get back doing the ironing - Ed).
:devil:

In summary - ancient laws matter next to now't. Its the CURRENT LAW that matters,

:gonetoofar:

Steppe

  
charlene91
03:54:08 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
260 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Hi you all so are some of you saying that because a law is old that it doesnot mean any thing is that what you are meaning ...Charlene



---
My trommel gets the rocks so clean,
And breaks up all the clay;
It works and works - so lean and mean -
Works all the live long day.

So if you want no rocks or clay
To ever slow you down,
Just use a trommel every day
And watch 'er go to town!

What is that yellow in my swirls?
Could all of that be gold?
O, trommel, trommel... I'm your girl,
Together we'll grow old.


Written by AKLady
 
 
Steppegold
04:41:33 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
436 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Hi Charlene

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer!

Old Laws MAY still be VALID.
But many are no longer valid.

The problem is that saying this and that about an Old Law is mighty confusing and could be darned dangerous UNLESS the Old Law is checked backwards and forwards to the PRESENT LAWS.

Checking an old law through to the PRESENT LAWS takes a lot of time, analysis and patience which seem to be in short supply.

That said, it is ESSENTIAL that all miners keep on the ball with ALL CURRENT REGS and LAWS, as Rattlesnake Jim flagged up, to immediately quote back at those officials who exceed their statutory powers - "ULTRA VIRES". If you think an official is going beyond his/her legal powers just mutter "ultra vires" and its amazing how often then go away! If an official does something "ultra vires" then he/she risks ending up in court not you, lose their job and pension (or even get promoted - Ed). Er um.

Is there such a thing as a Miners Regs Handbook for Alaska? Might be worth putting together.

cheers

Steppe

  
Gotgold
05:37:15 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
47 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Sent to me by someone I trust…..

The Act of July 26, 1866 remained in force only six years, and was then superseded by this section [30 U.S.C. § 22]”. See Del Monte Min. & Mill. Co. v. Last Chance Min. & Mill. Co., Colo. 1898, 18 S. Ct. 895, 171 U.S. 55

Here is the text from this Section which changed the picture…..

“Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in
lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall 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 and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States”.


I hope this finally puts this “grant” issue to bed once and for all.

Gary



---
Mines and Minerals v1.0
www.HystWare.com
 
 
tenderfootminer
05:40:03 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
605 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

for state claims at least the laws are very simple the paperwork takes me about 2hrs. ayear for 14 claims.And if I have any questions or problems dnr is always very helpful this including permits for buildings water anual labor tax etc. very simple and they even have a important dates sheet,I keep on the fridge.Very simple I have the mineral rights and can't keep others out for any reason and wouldn't anyway as long as they are not mining.If I want to own land I would go buy it like anyone else. Why buck the law that works?? we should be fighting to keep the rights we have not looking at what has been changed (sometimes)for a reason.I for one don't want my hunting and fishing rights to be trampled on by someone saying It is against the law to hunt on someones claims.I find most alaskan hunters are the kind of folks that clean up after themselves and respect my workings.I trust everyone...but cut the cards.No need for fixing something thats not broken in my opinion :confused: ....ws( the the dates sheet is called 'key dates for miners on state land ';and its free at dnr)

  
JOE_S_INDY
11:43:40 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
1384 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

You don't even have to go into town to get one.

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/mine_fs/keydates.pdf



---
Wiser Mining Through Endless Personal Mistakes
 
 
Zooka
21:55:12 Fri
Apr 9 2010

Offline
2131 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Wow I go away for a while and look what happens! My "silence" gets me into trouble! Or perhaps, Meg, i just dont care about you or your ego any more.
Reading your most recent spam fest, here and elsewhere, I was wondering what rattled your chain and got you all wound up again; then I remembered, you had another 10 hour ego boosting lecture with the Oregon Miners Association over easter didnt ya? Got you all hot and bothered. I bet they all walked out like I did after viewing your last 10 hour lecture, wondering where the meat was? Just a bunch of conclusory statements and promises to explain further in detail that never happened. Advocacy, not analysis. Cherry picking.

I see you have nothing new to say, here or other places, same old incompetent attempts at legal analysis, same old junk excuse for legal research, same old cherry picked laws and cases, and wrong readings of simple english, same old advocacy presented as law. It is pathetic, really.
There is nothing new for me to challenge which I have not already disproven.
Also, I would say that you have been answered quite well in this post, by the posters above.
Your so-called "legal research" is garbage still, your analysis is completely flawed, still; and your conclusions are drastically incorrect, still. See my earlier replies to your nonsense; I will not waste the time to reproduce them here.
I am sorry Rattlesnake Jim came into this debate so late, well after those postings, or he would have had the benefit of reading the truth before going off half cocked.

And you still have not told us anything about yourself, your qualifications as a legal analyst, your mining background, education, etc., and you get all offended at the thought of it. While I have presented my credentials in detail. You are not a miner, are you; you have no claims, do you? You just appeared in southern Oregon a couple of years ago, I hear. Who are you? What do you do for a living? How do you pay the bills? Why should anyone believe any conclusion you make?

Honestly, Jim, I suggest that Hal's "contributions" to mining and the furtherance of miners' rights are more negative than positive. Disinformation, wildly incorrect assertions of law, and that particular fanatic tone of his are dangerous, a waste of miner resources and a drag upon our limited time.I have not seen the positives he refers to yet, and it has been quite a while.
-Z

  
billcosta_rica
00:03:58 Sat
Apr 10 2010

Offline
206 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Alonso Quixano, a retired country gentleman in his fifties, lives in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and a housekeeper. He has become obsessed with books of chivalry, and believes their every word to be true, despite the fact that many of the events in them are clearly impossible. Quixano eventually appears to other people to have lost his mind from little sleep and food and because of so much reading.
[edit] First quest

Gustave Doré: Don Quixote de La Mancha and Sancho Panza, 1863He decides to go out as a knight-errant in search of adventure. He dons an old suit of armor, renames himself "Don Quixote de la Mancha," and names his skinny horse "Rocinante." He designates a neighboring farm girl, Aldonza Lorenzo, as his lady love, renaming her Dulcinea del Toboso, while she knows nothing about this.

He sets out in the early morning and ends up at an inn, which he believes to be a castle. He asks the innkeeper, who he thinks to be the lord of the castle, to dub him a knight. He spends the night holding vigil over his armor, where he becomes involved in a fight with muleteers who try to remove his armor from the horse trough so that they can water their mules. The innkeeper then "dubs" him a knight, and sends him on his way. He frees a young boy who is tied to a tree by his master, because the boy had the audacity to ask his master for the wages the boy had earned but had not yet been paid (who is promptly beaten as soon as Quixote leaves). Don Quixote has a run-in with traders from Toledo, who "insult" the imaginary Dulcinea, one of which severely beats Don Quixote and leaves him on the side of the road.. Don Quixote is found and returned to his home by a neighboring peasant,

  
billcosta_rica
00:07:00 Sat
Apr 10 2010

Offline
206 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Second quest
Don Quixote plots an escape. Meanwhile, his niece, the housekeeper, the parish curate, and the local barber secretly burn most of the books of chivalry, and seal up his library pretending that a magician has carried it off. Don Quixote approaches another neighbor, Sancho Panza, and asks him to be his squire, promising him governorship of an island. The dull-witted Sancho agrees, and the pair sneak off in the early dawn. It is here that their series of famous adventures begin, starting with Don Quixote's attack on windmills that he believes to be ferocious giants.

In the course of their travels, the protagonists meet innkeepers, prostitutes, goatherds, soldiers, priests, escaped convicts, and scorned lovers. These encounters are magnified by Don Quixote’s imagination into chivalrous quests. The Don’s tendency to intervene violently in matters which don’t concern him, and his habit of not paying his debts, result in many privations, injuries, and humiliations (with Sancho often getting the worst of it). Finally, Don Quixote is persuaded to return to his home village. The author hints that there was a third quest, but says that records of it have been lost.


  
billcosta_rica
00:13:50 Sat
Apr 10 2010

Offline
206 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

this kinda sounds like our buddy hal and his co-hort meg. off chasing another wind mill..... but the story doesn't well for hal or meg.

bill-cr

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
18:33:54 Wed
Apr 14 2010

Offline
494 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Zooka, the riddle is, Where is the required grant?

  
akbushcop
19:36:16 Wed
Apr 14 2010

Offline
732 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

The answer to the riddle is the grant is no longer required. Like the smoke from a campfire it has vanished into the four winds. Never to be seen again.

  
Steppegold
21:27:20 Wed
Apr 14 2010

Offline
436 posts

Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

MEG, in this thread you mention some important dates for very interesting laws and regulations:
1866
1878
1883
1892
1893

As you are so assertive that you and your colleagues are right, I trust you and your colleagues have gathered information for 1894 onwards to check if these laws and regulations did not become modified, rescinded, repealed or overruled in the subsequent 117 years. As everyone knows, laws, rules and regulations can change utterly, slowly or suddenly, unless requiring a change to the country's Constitution.

Please post in full the results of investigations into the 117-year gap, then the discussion can proceed in a concrete manner.

If you and your colleagues have not yet investigated the 117-year gap then please let me know.

Thanks in advance


Steppe

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
21:29:21 Wed
Apr 14 2010

Offline
494 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Quote: akbushcop at 19:36:16 Wed Apr 14 2010

The answer to the riddle is the grant is no longer required. Like the smoke from a campfire it has vanished into the four winds. Never to be seen again.



To those of you without mining title, the grant never was to be able to vanish into the four winds.

For the rest of us, the subject matter is about Mining Title.
Mining Title requires a grant to rest upon.

Where is the grant supporting the Mining Title the mining law tells us a locator exclusively possesses, if not the 1866?

MEG

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
22:19:34 Wed
Apr 14 2010

Offline
494 posts
Reply
Re: MEG's Duplicate post

Quote: Steppegold at 21:27:20 Wed Apr 14 2010

MEG, in this thread you mention some important dates for very interesting laws and regulations:
1866
1878
1883
1892
1893

As you are so assertive that you and your colleagues are right, I trust you and your colleagues have gathered information for 1894 onwards to check if these laws and regulations did not become modified, rescinded, repealed or overruled in the subsequent 117 years. As everyone knows, laws, rules and regulations can change utterly, slowly or suddenly, unless requiring a change to the country's Constitution.

Please post in full the results of investigations into the 117-year gap, then the discussion can proceed in a concrete manner.

If you and your colleagues have not yet investigated the 117-year gap then please let me know.

Thanks in advance


Steppe



Steppe,

When you answer the riddle you will see there is no gap, it is current law.

MEG

  

Pages: [ 1 2 ]

[ Notify of replies made to this post ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 11956

  • Can start a new thread. (Everyone)
  • Can't start a new poll. (Mods & Admins)
  • Can add a reply. (Everyone)
  • Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)
  • Register :: Log In :: Administrators

    The time is now 02:54:29 Wed Dec 8 2021

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    :: :: The answer is in answering the riddle

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]