| Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search |
 |
| Welcome, Register :: Log In | Welcome to our newest member, jlivings2. |
|
3 people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 3 guests. (Most ever was 55 at 21:51:42 Sun Nov 11 2012) |
| Pages: [ 1 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Mineral_Estate_Grantee Offline 611 posts Reply |
Coordination Proposal of SWOMA to the county of Josephine
Natural Resources The Mineral Sourcing Coordination Proposal of the South Western Oregon Mining Association for the County of Josephine Mineral Exploration and Mining The mining industry makes up an important part of the property tax base of the County, and its payroll and expenditures for supplies and is important to the economic stability of the County. Mining is one of the historical uses of public land and agency management of such use is statutorily compatible within the multiple use principles, where applicable. Mineral resource production provides an important contribution to the economy of not only the county of Josephine but the State and nation as a whole, directly and indirectly. Any proposed agency act relating to the mining law 30 USC 21a seq. will be carefully, and by consultation with affected mineral or mineral related parties, evaluated through coordination as to any undue adverse impact on the mineral industry in the County, or by the Law of Possession. Recommendations regarding any proposed agency act will be sent to the Agency and to Congress. Any and all Process, investigations, or enforcement, shall be directed through the county Sheriff with due protection of private property or rights. Guiding Principles 1) To ensure that the economic viability of all Mineral Prospecting, Exploration, Development, Occupation, Purchase and of vested Mineral Title shall be an accepted and protected practice in the county of Josephine to the full extent of the Law. All lands within the County not lawfully removed from mineral entry will remain available for such lawful or beneficial use not limited to exploration, development, occupation, and purchase. Any and all existing withdrawn areas shall be reevaluated by the agency for compliance with this Plan and brought into compliance without delay. Objectives: Ensure that exploration, development, and production of all mineral and energy resources are integrated within the planning and management of federal agencies. Insist that Federal agencies recognize the private property rights and non-discretionary nature of locatable mining as being distinct from United States, U.S., owned mineral operations of leaseable or saleable contract of agency discretion. Ensure the integration of all mineral resources with the planning and management of renewable resources in the Federal agency’s land and resource management planning process consistent with the prevailing nature of the mineral estate, in particular the locatables. 2) Ensure that all lands with geological potential for mineral development whether locatable, leaseable, or saleable or of geothermal developmental character remain available and accessible for prospecting, exploration, occupation, development, and purchase. Objectives: Ensure free and open access of public lands for development of mineral and energy resources that help economics as well the contribution to customary needs such as supporting strategic and national defense, industry, and financial security. Prior to initiating an administrative withdrawal of Federally managed lands from mineral entry or in reevaluation the agency shall ensure (a) documentation of the full consideration of the national interest in local community development, (b) that the considered lands are not mineral in character being these lands have been disposed by act of Congress for future economic development, (c) the value of other or common mineral resource foregone and compensated for, (d) the economic value of the resource being protected as weighed against the mineral resources, where it is lawful to do so, by measurable scientific data, (e) the agency conducts a Certified Survey for Value of locatable mineral losses for purposes of just compensation, f) compensation for any and all losses do to a withdrawal, g) interference-free valid existing rights. 3) Assure that all land management agencies plans and policies provide for all mineral development needs through specific management directives; that management directives and or policies do not interfere with any right of access, property, or occupation to prospect and develop any and all mineral resources. Ensure that private property rights are acknowledged, recognized, and protected. That state and federal agencies and statutes protect and accept the access, occupation, and property right development of any mineral grantee that is prospecting and developing those privately owned minerals within the county of Josephine; With just compensation paid by the Agency for any and all encroachment. Ensure for U.S. owned minerals clear guidelines for leaseable and saleable mineral contracts at the level of comprehension of the lessee or contractor. Ensure that U.S. owned mining or federal claim Plans of Operation are approved in a timely manner (within 90 days of submittal), and that other discretionary analysis does not take place ahead of any discretionary mining analysis. And that just compensation be paid by the Agency to the adversely affected party for any failure to comply with this principle, as for any other harm found under these principles. 4) Ensure that reclamation bonds for U.S. owned mineral operations on public lands within the county are commercially available, fair, reasonable, and adequate to reclaim the land so as not to remove it's identity as a mineral in character land for use of future generations in prospecting, further development, and towards preserving the Mining Heritage. Objectives: Ensure that reclamation bonds are calculated based on the cost to government of hiring a third party bid contractor in the county of Josephine to perform the work as determined by state labor law. Ensure that all reclamation bonds are calculated under the Service Contract Act state labor provisions when reclamation consists solely of removal of surface improvements, refilling, contouring, vegetating and landscaping the surface, all activities where the Davis Bacon Act, and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) do not apply due to no congressional moneys being appropriated for the bond. Ensure that national agency direction on bonding is consistent with local policies. 5) To ensure mineral value added industry development within the county of Josephine such as milling, refining, and end consumer product development, such as, jewelry, metal, sculptures, yard oddments, etc., be protected and accepted. Work to foster and encourage mineral and energy resource development. Implementation In coordination with federal and state agencies and state government planning laws, encourage development of a mineral plan for all lands not lawfully withdrawn from mineral exploration and or development on public lands to be inventoried for the geological potential of locatable, leaseable and saleable mineral lands as well the geothermal potential. Ensure those lands will remain accessible for prospecting, exploration, development, occupation, and purchase as stated in U.S. Code, U.S.C., Title 30. Proposed and or existing agency clarifications (such as personnel policy manuals) to the mining law 30 USC 21a seq. will be carefully evaluated as to any undue adverse impact on the mineral industry and the resultant economic and social impact in and to those in and about the county of Josephine. Implementation Evaluation With adequate agency assistance periodic review shall be done of federal land management agencies annual reports, land use plans, planned amendments, land classifications documents and any federal agency filing in the Federal Register pertaining or possibly pertaining to the availability of, access to, and occupation of mineral resources for prospecting, exploration, or development in the county of Josephine. Ensure prompt response and adequate remedy by the county Board to complaints by anyone adversely affected by agency interference or infringement of mineral rights, or property protected under federal and state statutes. Legal Authorities and Mineral Terminology Definitions Reference The mining law of 1866 granted certain rights to citizens of the United States and was clarified and expanded in 1872 to the process for termination of federal jurisdiction over the valuable mineral estate and transfer of property and occupancy to the mineral grantee. The Federal Multiple Use Act of 1955, amending the 1947 Common Materials Act, clarified leaseable and saleable minerals and reiterated this country’s need for minerals. The Federal Land Policy & Management Act reiterates that the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service administered lands are to be managed in a manner recognizing the nation's need for domestic minerals and other resources as well as the power by the Law of Possession and property by the 1866 and 1872 mining Acts to the mineral grantee. The National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 restates the need to implement the 1970 Act and requires the Secretary of the Interior to improve the quality of minerals data in lands use decision making. Classes of Mineral A.1 (a) Locatables as defined in the grant of 1866 clarified in the mining act of 1870 &1872 codified in statutes 30USC 21a to 30 USC 54. Some examples are Gold, Silver, Copper, Platinum, Zinc, etc. BLM def General Mining Law means the Act of May 10, 1872, as amended, (codified as 30 U.S.C. 22–54). Please Note: Locatables are discovered and claimed in the public domain, not on public lands. A.1 (b) Leaseable as defined in the grant of 1866 clarified in the mining act of 1872 revised by Mineral leasing Act of 1920 Geothermal steam act of 1970 mining The 1955 Multiple Use Surface Act and mineral policy act of 1970; codified definition under 30 USC 505 regulated under 30USC 21a seq. Some examples are Coal, oil, lignite, natural gas, phosphate, salt, etc. A.1 (c ) Saleable minerals defined in the1955 Multiple Use Act as codified in 30 USC611 and regulated under Leaseable mineral law. Some examples are lime stone, aggregate, building stone, crushed stone, etc. Commercial Mining; there is no statutory distinction between commercial or noncommercial mining activity on federally managed lands. All mining is of commercial economic contribution. Independent Miner; also known as a Mineral Estate Grantee, the acceptor of the congressional grant of locatables and prior acknowledged rights and Powers, such as miner Law of Possession, claiming exclusive possession of any valuable mineral deposit on public domain, or as restored from public lands. Mineral materials means those materials that— (a) BLM may sell under the Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601–604), as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 601, 603, and 611–615); and Multiple Mineral Development Act means the Act of August 13, 1954, as amended (30 U.S.C. 521–531). Recreational Mining; there is no statutory distinction or separate regulation addressing Recreational Mining as an activity on federally managed lands. Small miner means, of operators, a claimant who, along with all related parties, holds no more than 10 mining claims or sites on Federal lands on the date annual maintenance fees are due, Surface mining; codified definition in 30USC505 managed under Leaseable law 30USC612, not locatable law. Vested Mining Claims: As Patented Mining Claims; Vested mining claims have all mineral and surface rights of property and occupation of Patented mining claim except the Paramount Title remains with the U.S. holding in case of reversion or abandonment, but not to interfere with the valid claimant. NOTES |
|
Gotgold Offline 47 posts Reply |
MEG,
Please provide the date M/D/Y of this proposal. Gary |
|
Mineral_Estate_Grantee Offline 611 posts Reply |
For ya'lls information, it is my understanding this was submitted to county Commissioner Sandi Cassanelli on Monday 12/14/2009, and she submitted it to the other Commissioners the following day (Tuesday). For those that don't have a means of coping this proposal and would like a paper copy, Armadillo Mining has it available. Also, I think at least a BIG THANK YOU (by email, phone call or snail mail) is due Commissioner Cassanelli to show her how much she is appreciated in this battle to retain our Rights, Property and Entitlements...
|
|
Mineral_Estate_Grantee Offline 611 posts Reply |
|
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts  Reply |
Folks,
Those of you who also happen to be a member of The Alaska Gold Forum should read "The Rest of the Story" there. Putting things into perspective in these matters is VERY important. http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewthread?forum=2&thread=596 JOE S |
|
Real49er Offline 249 posts Reply |
I can't read it there Joe. Guess I'm not a paid member! Any chance we could get Jim A. to let it be copied onto the New 49'ers forum?
|
|
Mineral_Estate_Grantee Offline 611 posts Reply |
Allow me:
"Hooo boy. I detect the hand of Hal in this stuff. I have spotted 3 or 4 misstatements or incorrect statements of the law so far; I have a REAL job, so will not have time to get to them in depth soon. However, SWOMA, you are not going to build goodwill and allies by drawing elected officials into these sort of misstatements. You need to hire a real mining law trained attorney to vet this stuff before you shove it out there. It makes you look like shysters. 3 quick ones: "The mining law of 1866 granted certain rights to citizens of the United States and was clarified and expanded in 1872 to the process for termination of federal jurisdiction over the valuable mineral estate and transfer of property and occupancy to the mineral grantee." Half the story. "The Federal Multiple Use Act of 1955, amending the 1947 Common Materials Act, clarified leaseable and saleable minerals and reiterated this country’s need for minerals." Again, half the story; this act also implemented new law covering "all mining claims" created under ALL of US law. See last posting by MEG. The wording ion the statute is clear. Just because it says in its intro it is only clarifying the 1947 act doesnt mean it isnt creating new law outside the 1947 act as well, just like the 1866 act says it is an act affecting water rights and ditches in Nevada and California, but affects all of the public lands and domain. "Independent Miner; also known as a Mineral Estate Grantee, the acceptor of the congressional grant of locatables and prior acknowledged rights and Powers, such as miner Law of Possession, claiming exclusive possession of any valuable mineral deposit on public domain, or as restored from public lands." Again, a misstatement of CURRENT law. As set out in my reply to MEG's last blast, the old common law principle of "miner law of possession" and the old legal doctrine of "exclusive possession" are no longer the law. Several federal circuits, including the 9th, which covers Oregon, have so held. Oh, and how ya gonna get the County to make a federal agency comply with its own federal requirements? And who is going to pay for the enforcement of these lofty goals, county and federal? Got to get to work. -Z" |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
Real49er,
I will not repost someone else's written work without his (or her's) specific permission. I think that is just WRONG. It would seem that whoever calls themself 'MEG' doesn't share that same strength of character. There are some REAL differences in what is, or isn't the real, legal truth over all this "POWER TO THE PEOPLE", selective reading of the older legal "dealings" and it's relation to "real time" law. In my legally limited view, Zooka (a miner, personal friend and lawyer) is much more creditable in his presentations than what seems to be the persona of this unknown "Radio Personality Representation" of "Hal" ---- as posted on various forums by "some unknown minion calling himself the "MINERAL ESTATE GRANTEE". No matter how much we want "Hal" to be right in this crusade, every posting of "MEG's" almost fails to ring true. "Almost", for those of us with experiences in the military, only counts in Horseshoes, Beer ....s, Hand Grenades and Nuclear Devices. To be quite critical here - WHO EVER DESIGNATED MEG AS HAL'S MOUTHPIECE? MEG? Until some actual, professional and specific work is posted by "Hal" I have no credence with those postings attributed to MEG. JOE S |
|
john_adams Offline 56 posts Reply |
Its just crap and forums that allow it are becoming the same
John Adams |
|
bearkat Offline 75 posts Reply |
MEG post alot of interesting stuff here...and he gets bashed by you 2. So give us MORE of an alternate view, more proof than just saying he has no credibility. Post the Mining law as you read it and tell us an accurate/different interpretation. POST IT!
Seems Jim Foley believes most of the mining law as MEG interprets it. Most, maybe not all...I guess he is full of it too? I Cant tell who's interpretation is right....I might have to stick with what Dave McCraken says in his opinion...as a realist he is, "what judge will rule different than the rulings that have been made already"? Which are mainly AGAINST the miners and not by what MEG says the mining law states. Thieves in robes? Who's right? No wonder miners are all divided. Do we mostly just want to mine and be left alone? Sounds good to me.  
|
|
RUSTY_HAPPY_CAM Offline 684 posts Reply |
The real question here is not an issue with who is right or wrong, it's information. Education is something the small mining community lacks almost as much as the ability to work together. Hal has spent years digging into old property rights and mining laws. He was nice enough to provide us with the links so we can read them ourselves. Some of them may have been replaced or legally upgraded. But how about the ones that haven't been superseded? What about the ones that have been forgotten or more likely buried by the other side. They are still there and may be the only thing that saves what we do. Hal is the only miner that I know that has both the time and knowledge to do the extensive research to dig this stuff out.I have learned a lot in the last year from Hal's research and Zooka's legal experience. Without the ongoing discussion I most likely would have never taken the time to read the actual laws that cover what I do. I hope some of you have taken the time since it is a real eye opener. Hal has never recommended that anyone take any action other than studying the links that he has provided. If you don't agree with the information, don't act on it. However slamming Hal for digging up buried laws is pretty close to sticking your head in the sand.
|
|
bearkat Offline 75 posts Reply |
Very good reply Rusty as I agree with what you have said. Slamming him doesn't help anything. Just because judges dont rule in line with what MEG says, doesnt mean hes wrong.
I think this is a matter of case law? Looking at the most recent decisions instead of looking at the Constitution and Mining laws to make conclusions. I also have learned alot from him, which without his efforts I would have been lacking of this knowledge whether it be accurate or not. Alan in Oregon
|
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
Well, Alan in Oregon,
I'm sorry that we have differing opinions on this subject. Learn to live with that fact, as I have. I hold opinions (open to enlightenment, of course) which are different from those whom you have named (and others, too). That is a difference of opinion and I am OK with that, and I believe they are too. Learn to live with that fact also -- and don't presume to attempt to create dissent between these folks and me over a difference of opinion. "...Just because judges dont rule in line with what MEG says, doesnt mean hes wrong." And, Alan in Oregon, it doesn't mean he's right either, In fact, it just means that he has a Legal Premise and is unable to 'gain footing' in having that premise prevail. "...I would have been lacking of this knowledge whether it be accurate or not." Enjoy your personal level of "Knowledge", sir, (accurate or not, eh?  ). While you seem to be happy with that kind of thinking -- I, myself, will certainly hold out for at least one or two legal victories in this cconcept. Maybe I might even settle for even just ONE good one, before I would ever consider acting upon this 'shaky' premise. I can certainly forsee a real disaster that blind acceptance could produce in this theory. Have a nice day. Joe S |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
John, you old dog -
Thank you. Joe S |
|
bearkat Offline 75 posts Reply |
I tell ya Joe, I also would like a victory in that concept also. That would shut up alot of this, but with that Tracy fellow going down, it put alot of doubt about the MEG concept, or it is just thieves in robes?
I was extremely excited to hear this information when I first heard it, in my head it was all settled, but as I learned further it is more complicated, as usual. I dont even know if HAL does the MEG post or not actually. Either way, is very interesting info, I'm not gonna hang my hat on it however. If I did, I wouldnt have got my Oregon dredge permit already. Do you think the Mining law is a grant? Seems you dont. What is another way to look at it? Do you want to mine in the National Forest? If so, Does the NFS have authority over mining by law or by rules? Or any? I like all these opinions...I just like if one is too be discredited, do it with facts or a more sound case, not put downs. Alan
|
|
Mineral_Estate_Grantee Offline 611 posts Reply |
I find it astonishing that any one would give any credibility to someone that admits they have not read sufficiently the mining law but has the audacity to insist the opinion authoritative. I find it at least interesting that Zooka will condemn in others what he allows to himself, cherry-picking. Hypocrisy? I find it outlandish that anyone would let a title, such as attorney, get in the way of discovering the truth, through blind faith acceptance. And I find it sad that people preaching integrity, those that can not rely upon their own endevour or thought, would stoop so low as to berate or chastise those making contributions. On the other hand, Zooka is done a disservice by those replacing His opinion for the responsibility each of us has to apprehend the subject matter by our own method.
Seemingly, those in the mining community have forgotten where the mining law comes from. Real miners don't need no steenkeeng attorneys. And anyone who does serious research will find attorneys today an obstruction and corruption of the law. Honest attorneys, if there be such a thing, will admit they just aren't trained in actual mining law, a specialty law above and apart. Moreover, I don't know of any law saying an attorney possesses any higher intelligence or insight than the miners making the law that the 1866 and subsequent mineral law owes its heritage. That Zooka or anyone admits they have not studied the mining law sufficiently and then attempts an opinion which forms the basis of an attack, ridicule, or challenge is laughable, frivolous really. The standard of analysis is the para materia requirement explained in the Congressional Record of 2000. The term "para materia" means the subject matter must be taken all together before an answer may be given to any particular question. Zooka would do well to read that Record before waxing great all his "expertise" where he admits falling short of the rigors and specialty of the mining law. With that, for all of you that have taken the responsibility to think for yourself and read for yourself, I offer some observations which I hope will show the frailty of Zooka's admitted unstudied opinion. And you all must understand, I have nothing against Zooka, I don't know him. I don't offer my research as any attack. But for him to do what he is doing this way is a disservice to us all. We had written privately by request of a forum member to work out our difference and create a more powerful alliance to further the needs of the community. Willing to do that, I had explained to Zooka I was swamped with research work for miners in trouble but would get back to him ASAP. He took that as an insult. He decided to go to the forums instead, cheerleaders in tow, and vilify Me and the information you all can research for yourself. But I understand. It is easier to attack Me, than to do the hard research. What Zooka would have you believe is that the 1955 Act dealing strictly in the disposal of COMMON minerals repealed 30 USC 26 granting UNCOMMON minerals including all the surface. But this is patently false. For those of you with the DVD video Decoding Mining Law, remember the discussion of the Mineral Estate Tree. The branch of right and property and the left branch of administrative permission. The 1955 Act covers the left branch only. But no body who wants to steal your property will recognize that. The REAL LAW 30 USC 26 says we have exclusive possession of the entire surface. I suggest you all go read it. All subsequent REAL Law must save that granted property. A repeal of law is made by expression; Not much different for the grant of a thing. It has to be written. To see a repeal of law find the Act of 1872 and read of the repeal of certain sections of the 1866 Act. Understand however, the congressional intent and property granted thereby was saved, so the expressed repeal did not repeal the prior congressional intent and why the 1866 and 1870 are incorporated into the 1872 in full power and authority. So there you see the form a repeal of law takes. It is by written expression, stated clearly so there are no misunderstandings. No court case is needed to divine the fact as Zooka would impiously impose. You also have evidence in the 1872 act that even in repeal certain things are saved from the previous law, or by restatement in the latter law; In this case the granted uncommon mineral deposit including the surface in trust to all Americans is preserved. Now you all will remember I have shown this in-depth already in a prior post using BLM information for confirmation of the fact, the 1955 Act says that mineral deposits are excepted from treatment under the Act codified at 30 USC 612 (b) (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws) which amended the 1947 Common Materials Act, not the 1872 act. Though I don't know why, most people, in particular attorneys, maybe because of their unpropertied administrative bent, and "judges" will repeatedly miss that part. Even after being shown it is there. But that then exposes a corruption of law purporting itself Justice in the form of case decisions, doesn't it? What is more important is, there is no language in the 1955 act repealing either Section 26 of title 30 or the act of 1872. The reason is the 1955 act was NOT to affect the uncommon minerals granted in 1866. The 1955 act was an amendment to the 1947 disposal of the COMMON minerals, hence the saving clause or "exception" of mineral deposits at 612 (b). Please take note -- Not all the mineral claims spoken to in the 1955 act are mineral deposits. Mineral deposits are those uncommon valuable minerals granted in 1866 as saved through 1872 despite "repeal" of certain sections of the 1866. The Congressional Intention and every thing granted in 1866 as amended by the 1870 remained granted in 1872. The 1947 Common Materials Act and the 1955 "Surface Resources Act", amending the 1947 Act, did not change anything in the 1872 act. No need to find a current court case to tell you what is plainly printed. To show further limitation of these common mineral disposal acts, the leaseable and saleable minerals, read this part of 30 USC 615 showing no repeal of any prior right or possession authorized by law of unpatented mining claims is provided: "nothing in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title shall be construed in any manner to authorized inclusion in any patent hereafter issued under the mining laws of the United States for any mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, of any reservation, limitation, or restriction not otherwise authorized by law, or to limit or repeal any existing authority to include any reservation, limitation, or restriction in any such patent, or to limit or restrict any use of the lands covered by any patented or unpatented mining claim by the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees which is otherwise authorized by law. " Notice the Ortiz court that Zooka provided conveniently eliminated the exception. This is typical of judges/attorneys not understanding mining law or miners not asserting mining rights properly, despite any systemic corruption. And that is only if the exception was relevant in Ortiz. I also find Zooka's choice of Ortiz interesting. Why choose such a convoluted case to instruct people? Why choose a case where the mineral is completely removed to the point it would invalidate the claim constituting a trespass? We are talking here about valuable mineral deposit claims on unappropriated public domain, not leases of played out disposable minerals on public land with administrative paper filing errors. Moreover, the statement "may be read to preclude Ortiz from complaining" is not the epitome of a statement of certainty and clarity. The undisclosed statutory exception or mineral deposits remains absent from the case. The decision also admits Ortiz provided no evidence to come to a determination favorable to him. That sounds like either he failed or his attorney failed to represent his case properly. Or maybe Ortiz just didn't have a case but the attorney didn't tell him that, if he knew. By any measure it is a poorly chosen case to make any analysis for the subject matter at hand. But this is where Zooka's "expertise" works against him. If he intends to instruct us He ought to know that such a convoluted case would only confuse. And while I commend Zooka linking to a book, the better information was not on page 655 as directed but at the beginning of the book, which Zooka dismissed; His own reference. The distinction here is, that was a lot of reading for people and a bit overwhelming if we are trying to make a concise point. The 1955 act says, essentially, any mining claims, except mineral deposits are subject to surface multiple use. In a nutshell, that comports to the entire mining law respecting the prior granted property. And that's where this discussion should end. We shouldn't have to be harassed by cherry-picked "current law, ":real law" excuses for what the law is. Remember from the DVD, the case read stating we have the right of relation back to the grant. The 1866 act is "present" i.e., current, always. And, if need be, we can find more clues to confirm the correctness of this. No special knowledge is needed to divine mining law. Remember, miners made this law. Why must we now suffer an attorney's unstudied interpretation? Have we become that stupid to our own ways, habits, customs, rules and regulations? You know? that is the "rules and regulations" mentioned in the REAL LAW. They are miner’s rules and regulations, not agency. Not attorney. Not judge. Apparently not many notice the agencies of today did not exist when that provision for "rules and regulations" was made. But who did exist? Yeah, MINERS! The miners have the power. That has been settled law. Well, settled until Special Interest got involved. From a Forest Service manual you can read: "Common varieties may be sold and are not locatable (FSM 2850) except for certain claims established prior to July 23, 1955 (FSM 2812). Uncommon varieties are locatable. NOTE: This statement acknowledges the distinction mentioning any mineral claims, except mineral deposits, that common entrys made prior to 1955 were preserved but locatables are not conditioned or suffer the 1955 limitation at all. See 30 USC 615 for why. Zooka also presumes judges, his fellow members of the BAR brotherhood, are well versed in mining law. I don't. And other authors have discussed the deficiency. For instance, "This has one great disadvantage to a mining lawyer nowadays, for, while in Judge Lindley's day [1850-1920] there were many judges familiar with the problems of this specialty, they having previously been active in the field of mining law, it is rare today for a judge to try a mining case who has had previous familiarity with the subject." -- California Journal of Mines and Geology, July, 1948. So when Zooka admits he hasn't studied the specialty of mining law sufficiently it is confirmation of the above statement and instructive of the value of the contribution, but of no help to us. In the Hicks 2009 victory the judge admitted he didn't know mining law and asked to be briefed on the ENTIRE mining law. We, non-attorneys, presented 8 bullet points, one sheet of paper, explaining the "ENTIRE mining law" to the judge. This was a calculated strategy. This defense was not based upon Zooka's interpretation which would have been a loser for Hicks. It was based in the knowledge that mining law is above and apart, a "specialty" subject and that the agency regulations, outside of the muniment of title, do not apply to mineral deposit locations. There is a rule under the Forest Service and BLM regs that actually says that the rules do not apply. So these rules alone show Zooka's unlearned opinion to be wrong. Zooka can be the greatest lawyer and the bestest guy in all the world, but if he is not versed in the specialty of mining law it means nothing. That is not my opinion. Read the quote above again if you missed it. Our specialty insight of the mining law did address the Forest Service's equivalent of the BLM Part 3800 the way the REAL LAW, not opinion, requires. Hicks prevailed. Zooka’s knowledge would at best have had him still arguing the point. But that is what an attorney has learned to do; Print words that continue arguments. No attorney makes money offering a quick solution. And apparently, those outside the brotherhood that do offer quick solutions are vilified by them and their friends. Zooka uses a citation from a private web site which is useless, as is any link from an agency who’s Disclaimer says the information isn't reliable. Or as the Forest Service admits it will not guarantee its information will not infringe private property (see the Disclaimers reprinted on this page: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Myth.html ). So those references by Zooka are useless to us. The phrase in decisions "for mining purposes" is used to confirm the use is one granted by Congress "authorized by law" in determination of sham claims and trespass. We are not talking about sham claims or trespass. That is what the purpose of most the law subsequent to the 1872 was about; Stopping sham or fraudulent claims. If your mineral deposit claim is valid the subsequent legislations do not and can not apply. That doesn't mean you will not be wrongly imposed by an agency intending to steal your land, or that a "judge" won't allow it to happen. Even out of ignorance of the specialty of mining law. Be warned, the court decision provided by Zooka is fraught with errors if applied to our purpose here. Part 3800 pertains only to special use lands and 3802 is wilderness study areas and is irrelevant for purposes of the discussion of specified uses, as mineral deposit claims are. We have defeated BLM Notices of Noncompliance alleging some violation under 3809 for this very reason. It will be seen that Specific Uses, such as mineral deposit claims, and water rights, and highways, on the public domain are excepted under FLPMA 1701(a)(3) and 1732 (a), (b), and (c) because REAL LAW, the "other authorization" requires this. No court case is needed to further explain. Zooka still hasn't answered or explained, If it is the case, if the 1955 act magically repealed 30 USC 26, that it is clear that this law applies to "all claims located after mid-1955", then what does the exception to mineral deposits mean in 612 (b)? This is the one dirty secret that agencies and attorneys don't want to acknowledge, no different than the agencies do not want to acknowledge that what we possess is private property. For second opinions in support find the Metro Farm Radio link interview with Ramona Morrison, Hage Daughter ( http://www.metrofarm.com/assets/podcasts/2008-10-04_607dnevada.mp3 ), Hage WINS, and the Congressional Record of 2000 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-10-23/pdf/CREC-2000-10-23-pt1-PgE1883-2.pdf . But the Contrarians among us will deny all these proofs because to admit them means they have to get off the fence and actually take responsibility, instead of letting the few of us do battle to preserve our property. Remember Zooka, I'm not telling anyone anything. I'm asking everyone to read, interpret, and understand the law for themselves. The REAL LAW, the intention of Congress says we have exclusive possession of our mining claims, including all the surface. And the exception in 612 (b) to mineral deposits saves that exclusive right of possession as stated in 30 USC 26 which includes all the surface. Don't blame that on Me. That isn't my theory. That's the REAL LAW. I'm just the guy saying "LOOK! Over here! Here it is! Additionally, I think the recent 2009 Minard Run Oil case is instructive http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20091216081629_large.pdf and the narrative http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Focus-on-Oil-Gas-and-Energy-Law/Energy-Regulation/Feds-Settle-Sweetheart-Suit-and-Kill-Search-for-Energy . And look see at what the Forest Service knows back East that it denies out West. Even where the government has purchased an interest in the surface estate it has no power more than consultation and may not interfere with the dominant mineral estate private property or stop its development pending an EIS. How much less power there is where absolutely no interest in the surface exists, being it was granted to the valid mineral deposit locator? You decide. The Congressional Record indicates and this goes for BLM: "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" just like REAL LAW requires. The only thing that is going to defeat this granted property is corrupting attorneys, judges, and miners ignorant of their power and rights...or those lead blindly by the admitted insufficient knowledge of the specialty mining law. So attack Me with your admitted ignorance "of this specialty" of mining law if you feel the need but you waste everyone's time and cause division. And it won't change what the law is. Neither will it stop the government from picking us off one at a time or in small bunches. While the some of you are working hard to extinguish the fire of property rights the act of 1866 created, some of us are using what you deny exists to defeat what you say can't be. But it takes time to see the results, especially with so few standing up for themselves and their property rights. For the rest, I commend those of you sticking with it and continuing your study despite the aggressive diversions to throw you off track because of fear or other weakness. The intention of Congress in 1866 is a "present grant"', CURRENT LAW, no exception. MEG P.S. MEG is the reminder of a status. Are you Miner enough for it? |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
Well,
All I can say is that MEG's line of semi-bull is going to get someone thrown in jail, financially ruined, or maybe even buried if events go really wrong. As for Hal and his 'interesting theory' - when he, personally, leads his theory into court (and wins) will be the only saving validation that 'Mr. Radio Personality' could hope to get from me. "Pity the Miner Fool" who actually tries to fall back on that flawed thinking in court (you know, that place with lawyers and judges), or in another 'OK Corral' mentality / situation that started off all these crappy postings here a year ago. Certainly this last posting by "MEG, The Un-Official Mouthpiece"" is the last one that I'll probably bother to read. Joe S |
|
socalgold Offline 715 posts  Reply |
I quit a long time ago Joe. It all may very well be true, but to have that behind you and then to get cited and go into court and try to educate an arrogant self serving, liberal judge, is to invite nothing but trouble.
I'm with you, let's see any of his appearances in court or where he has gone in and assisted a lawyer as a paralegal. If he wants to prove his therory works, then get ahold of a pending case and assist. I know most atty's would welcome an "expert" on the law to give them knowledge to win their case. I'll bet there are quite a few people in jail now, that may have had a different trial, if some old standing laws were introduced that their lawyer wasn't aware of. |
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
Lee,
The longer I tried to believe "The Hal Theory" the more I have come to believe that it's all just muck raking on a quasi point - just to improve "ratings" for the radio show. Of course, we all would like things to be that way - but they're not. I do agree that assisting in an actual court case (and especially if his theory prevailed) would certainly give traction to his Cause Celebre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre |
|
Dick_B Offline 62 posts Reply |
Holy Moly what a lot of words.
|
|
JOE_S_INDY Offline 159 posts Reply |
Yes Dick B!
Holly Molly, Captain Marvel! The only good news is that there isn't too much repetition in all of those words! Joe S |
|
bearkat Offline 75 posts Reply |
Doesnt seem like any body even read what MEG posted. Seems its just "KOOL" to discredit him. Sure makes alot of sense to me. But lets just be safe and go by the "rules" so we dont piss off the NFS or BLM dudes instead of standing on the law, right? Interesting.
Yep, seems it could cause alot of trouble for someone, is very similar to fighting a "taxes are voluntary" case. Not much hope if you do it wrong. Doesnt hurt to study it though. To get ratings for his radio show?...geez how superificial can you get Joe...yoU sound like Obama on that one. Yeh Hal's that shallow to get people to listen to him. HAHA ur funny man...I dont think he would type that much for that long to get people to listen to a radio show. Geez, when one is deceived you just cant break the wall....like liberals. John says he "goes by it", (the mining law) hahaha. thats crap, if you did you wouldnt mock and discredit MEG. You would add something constructive by READING THE STINKING LAW yourselves and trying to HELP our cause, (gold mining, duh) weather it be to correct MEG or add to his research. NAH, Lets just give up on the law and discredit him till he goes away. We wont be mining ANYWHERE in 10 years. Happy? Words are sharper than any 2 edged sword. Have you met HAL, Joe? You seem to be God's gift of wisdom here on our forum. At least hes trying to help US, the gold mining community. I dont see you trying to help like the effort he does. Yeh sending a little cash to 49er's or PLP, wooopee, his efforts are 10 fold of yours. Alan in Oregon
|
|
UncleMark Offline 624 posts Reply |
I would like to say this.
Hal probably has the legal aspect of the law correct. But here is where I have an issue with what MEG says above. I do not have the time or money to personally fight this issue in court I do not know of any miners who do have those resources. Large mining corporations that have much deeper pockets than we do have not been able to get legal precedence set that agrees with Hal. This may be because the corrupt political system won't allow the corrupt legal system to rule properly, or it could be for other reasons. Current case precedence on this issue may be flawed and incorrect, however until someone wins a lawsuit to correct that defect in precedence, it is controlling law as all agencies of our government will use. The issue I have with MEG is that to attack me as a coward to stand up for rights I have that our legal system currently does not recognize is uncalled for. Does a man who believes he has a right to free speech have a right to free speech as a law officer beets him for disobeying an order to cease and desist? Does it make that man a coward if he chooses to not loose his teeth to a night stick but rather chooses to leave and file a claim in court at a later date and receive compensation for the violation of his rights? The pen is mightier than the sword. MEG, get a court precedence to recognize those rights, and then men will stand up for those rights. Current US Supreme Court ruling is CWA and EPA regs apply to mines. The ruling in "Coeur Alaska" this last summer also upholds the Supreme Court's view on this issue. I will add this also. The US Supreme Court's ruling in "Coeur Alaska" states very clearly that a mining operation that is required to be permitted by a US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit shall not be held to any other part of the Clean water act, as the "discharge" regulated by the 404 permit includes all components of that discharge. The USACE 404 is an exclusive permit and the EPA has no authority to require that operation to be permitted in any other way by the EPA under the CWA. That is what the US Supreme Court just ruled this last summer. It took the people in that case all the way to the Supreme court to get that ruling, even the Court of Appeals felt differently than the Supreme Court did on this issue. The point I am going to make here is this. The EPA is ignoring this issue. They still claim (EPA) that they can separate a suction dredgers "discharge" into two components, waste water and dredged material each to be held to different parts of the CWA. The EPA is doing this even though the Supreme Court just cleared this issue up last summer. A court case in Oregon on this very issue has gone to the Oregon Appeals Court, which ruled in error and will probably have to proceed to the Oregon State Supreme Court. This case was filed in 2005, and has yet to be settled. Why would you call a man a coward because he refuses to beat his head against a brick wall? If someone wants to fund this lawsuit on Hal's points of law, I would gladly fight that fight in court where it needs to be fought. But I am not a coward for refusing to fighting local LEO's who have been instructed to uphold the law "as explained to them by their superiors" My fight is not with an officer, it is with the agencies that refuse to follow the law. This problem is not new in America, and I am not a coward for not having the resources to fight that fight. I would rather say that a man is a fool who chooses to fight a fight he knows he can not win or afford to fight to completion. Mark |
| Pages: [ 1 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Total Members: 4307 | Register :: Log In :: Administrators The time is 01:31:13 Fri May 24 2013 |
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)