|Welcome, Register :: Log In||Welcome to our newest member, Agent67.|
|Users active in this forum:|
|Users active in this thread:|
people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 29 at 13:36:32 Sat Aug 3 2002)|
|Pages: [ 1 2 3 ]|
|[ Notify of replies made to this post ]||[ Print ]||[ Send To Friend ]||[ Watch ]||[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]|
Apr 26 2009
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Apr 26 2009
Congressional Record and other information links from here:
Apr 27 2009
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.
Apr 27 2009
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
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.
Apr 29 2009
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.
Apr 29 2009
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:
May 1 2009
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.
Jul 19 2009
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
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, p. 30-16.
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.
Jul 19 2009
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.
Jul 19 2009
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.
Jul 20 2009
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.
Dec 2 2012
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?
My head hurts, too.
Dec 3 2012
Is this what you are looking for Joe?
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.
Dec 5 2012
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:
Dec 5 2012
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:
Dec 5 2012
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.
Dec 6 2012
W E L L L L
I guess that answers that.
Dec 7 2012
Maybe these below links will provide answers.
Executive Summary: The Mining Law: The Extent of Federal Authority Over Public Domain
SHERIFF: This Land is Our Land,Feds Have No Jurisdiction!
|Pages: [ 1 2 3 ]|
|[ Notify of replies made to this post ]||[ Print ]||[ Send To Friend ]||[ Watch ]||[ < ] [ Add Reply ] [ > ]|
Total Members: 11956|| Register :: Log In :: Administrators|
The time is now 07:30:37 Wed Dec 6 2023