New 49er     


:: :: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates?
Lost Password :: Posting Pictures :: Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search



Make a donation to our message forums through Paypal


Make a donation to our Legal Fund.

 

Photobucket

Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, hubberjonas.

people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 34 at 15:22:43 Fri Sep 10 2021)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

Dave_Mack
Offline
145 posts
Administrator


Reply
IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 01:47:31 WedDec 9 2009 )

In view of this recent Decision, I am following with a modified copy of an opinion that I wrote on this same subject a few weeks ago:

Check this out!

This is not my personal field of expertise, but I have spent quite a lot of time in court rooms during the last several years, and I have managed a substantial amount of litigation, which has required extensive consultation with highly-qualified (Harvard-trained) attorneys on this and similar subject matter. While this is likely to get me trashed in some circles (I don't have time to debate these issues with anyone), I am going to weigh in here with a dose of reality.

All these legal concepts and theories about mineral estates and personal property rights are wonderful. I truly wish that we lived in an America that honors the Constitution and individual rights to private property. But, whether right or wrong in the result, through a very long history of evolving legal decisions, asserting our rights is not as simple as arguing the various Amendments to the U.S Constitution or what was provided in a mineral grant 200 years ago.

Let me remind you that we live in a world today where our lawmakers and president (all who have sworn an oath to the Constitution) are within days or weeks of passing a law that will make it a criminal act for any American to not possess government-approved health care!

What?

We could sit here all day long and talk about all the many ways in which our basic rights have been taken away from us and replaced with more "Progressive" policies for the benefit of the larger good of the community. We would not be having an argument!

So, while these basic concepts of individual property rights are wonderful, the reality is that we live in a world where nearly everything we do is against some law which is likely to be enforced by the local judge. Constitutional arguments fall deaf on the ears of these local judges. They are looking at how the higher courts have already decided the issues being contested in their own courtrooms. Local judges do not overturn controlling case law which was decided by higher courts. You have to go up the food chain to do that.

On the subject of the basic property rights that should be enjoyed by mining claim holders, my guess is that you will have to argue all the way to the supreme court (where there is no guarantee of success). Arguing these important legal concepts all the way to the supreme court is likely to take so long, you probably won't even be interested in mining anymore by the time (if) you get there! Long before you reach the end, you'll probably wish you never started the fight.

Going to the supreme court also costs a lot of money. There are many steps along the way. If you don't have the best property rights specialists arguing the case for you, you almost certainly won't make it very far. These specialists cost a lot of money!

Here's the reality: If you go out on the public lands with the property rights and mineral grant arguments in hand, and start making a disturbance which the local ranger doesn't like, and it is a significant disturbance, and you don't conform to the ranger's authority, he is going to write you a criminal citation. If you still don't stop, he is going to have you arrested.

When you end up in front of the local federal magistrate, that judge is going to look at controlling case law to decide your fate. While there is surely more, here are two semi-recent cases which explain to the judge that public land agencies have the full authority to prevent you from creating a significant disturbance with your prospecting or mining activity until such time as an Operating Plan has been agreed to by you and the land agency:

US v. WEISS


US v. DOREMUS


Never mind whether this is right or wrong. Never mind that arguing that American fundamental property rights should make it different. This is reality which will not likely be changed by arguing property right legal theories in front of a magistrate judge. It is nearly certain that his decision is going to be in conformance with these or similar cases. You are going to lose. Overturning his decision will be a long journey which you are unlikely to travel. You will have a criminal record.

That's just my own take. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm not a property rights expert. I am a problem solver and a realist. I know these words won't win me many points with some people out there who are fed up with the way things are and wish they could be different, or easier than they are. But I can pretty-much assure you that if you go out on the public lands and start creating a significant or substantial disturbance against the wishes of the land agency, you are almost sure to go down in flames in front of the local judge, and likely on appeal at least through the next several levels -- and maybe all the way.

That's just my own unqualified opinion for whatever it is worth to those of you who would rather be mining, than in jail, or in the law library or in some other kind of trouble.

If you think we have problems now, just consider this:


Our leaders are seriously discussing an 80% mandatory reduction in coal-plant generated electricity in America. Coal plants presently produce 50% of our electricity. Nuclear power plants are not being built anymore, and it appears that environmentalists are doing their best to eliminate every hydro-power plant in America -- and our government officials are going along!

Our leaders are also going to strap all public and private business with mandatory health care (criminal penalties for not conforming).

China is not agreeing to any of these things (they are already the world's largest polluter); but we will be forced to compete with them on the worldwide market, and even in our own market where our government allows them duty free imports.

These are just a few of many things that are just plain wrong. So we should not be surprised that the lower courts are not going to be impressed with legal theories about mineral estates.




  
bearkat
Offline
53 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 05:54:41 WedDec 9 2009 )

Very sad state we are going into for sure. Nice dose of reality there, as usual, a very sober/reality view point. Yes the MEG is exciting to research and study and BELIEVE, but of the theifs in robes wont listen, well then, were screwed.

These crazy laws they are enacting are way too fast, way too radical, and way to destructive...it will have the effect they want, total dependance on THEM.

Wow...I didnt even read the "check this out" link by Dave until after I posted this reply...So, that is very interesting response by the judge and a very CLEAR answer also. I didnt even know that the 1866 mining law was "about load claims" later in 1870 added placer claims. READ THAT LINK EVERYONE!. Very informative. Sad but necessary.

[1 edits; Last edit by bearkat at 06:15:08 Wed Dec 9 2009]



---
http://mashdetectors.com
http://metaldetectingforumsearch.com
 
 
aunuts
Offline
171 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 19:04:08 WedDec 9 2009 )

Usurping the law is not new to government and judges. You pay taxes on your wages that is called "income". Income under the IRS statutes is moneies derived from interest from stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Wages were not taxed as they are a "bartered" income and bartered goods are not taxable. Then our congress needed more money so they conveniently changed the definition of wages to income. It is still in the IRS statutes that wages are not taxable, but try not paying and see what happens to you. The same MAY happen to mining in this country if we cannot reverse this trend. The time is NOW, we cannot wait. Once laws are enacted they are virtualy impossible to reverse no matter how illegal or immoral they may be. We MUST support Dave and the PLP or lose our rights forever. I agree with MRG completely, but as what happened with your wages being RIGHT is not going to save you. Fight now or forever hold your peace. That means your money and your time. If you are not willing to sacrifice now do not complain later.

  
Tobin1
Offline
73 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 00:03:21 ThuDec 10 2009 )

I'm not a felon but wouln't it be a shame if under the new health care plan felons will not be able to qualify!!! Hey Dave you probably heard of The Civil Liberties Union they only take cases affecting rights of many people and they are non-profit. They are used to getting right into Supreme Court action!!!

  
bedrocker
Offline
50 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 06:32:11 ThuDec 10 2009 )

Dave........thanks for speaking out on this topic, it has been sad to see all this stuff being written about the granted right....why would all the hughe mining companies with staff lawyers ignoring it, and going thru the ringers with every odd group opposing mining, if they could just say.....oops.....I have a granted right..go away...Rich

  
Gotgold
Offline
47 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 12:22:15 ThuDec 10 2009 )

Not to joust with your words, but isn't something missing from this intire picture.....as in an agency created by Congess e.g. the EPA, this also goes a step further to the Federal Reserve.....both are an invested in Congressional approval which Congress can Stop.....they created it on our dime!

  
johntf
Offline
334 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 20:13:18 ThuDec 10 2009 )

Quote: Gotgold at 12:22:15 Thu Dec 10 2009

Not to joust with your words, but isn't something missing from this intire picture.....as in an agency created by Congess e.g. the EPA, this also goes a step further to the Federal Reserve.....both are an invested in Congressional approval which Congress can Stop.....they created it on our dime!


That brings up a good point , may have missed or forgot with all the issues here ,
But where are some details on what the big guys [ mining companies ] doing .
I suspected a while back that they were behind some of this , to use to get us out of there way .
But just to calibrate , any info / links to what they are doing ?

  
LuvNuggets
Offline
74 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 10:31:14 TueDec 15 2009 )

You guys want another scare?

Check out this House Bill 45 called Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45


This one has a lot of backing even though the standard lobby machine is fighting it.

[7 edits; Last edit by LuvNuggets at 10:43:30 Tue Dec 15 2009]

  
johntf
Offline
334 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 16:04:55 TueDec 15 2009 )

Just another example of what is wrong with many things in this country .
Aside from the 2nd amendment issue , the point I take issue with hear , is that the bs that the lawyers / government go through to make difficult to fallow what is going on .
All laws should be short & simple , so that all can know what is going on , without endless reading , mindless verbatim , that only lawyers can figure out [ even then they put the laws in such bs , that they can argue for ever ] , then the best lair / lawyer wins .
The Constitution & Bill of Writes , are plan & simple to all , unless they start letting the scum get into the conversation .

  
aunuts
Offline
171 posts
Reply
Re: IBLA Decided against Mineral Estates? ( 22:26:05 TueDec 15 2009 )

gotgold, the federal reserve is NOT federal. They are a group of independent bankers that control our money. In the constitution it states that Congress will coin money, but they turned their responsibility over to the Reserve. Everybody talks about the Constitution as tho it were in effect,however any laws on the books today completely ignores our Constitution. Our legal system works from "case law" not the constitution except as defined by the Supreme Court and we know how unbiased they are.

  

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 4903

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

    The time is 02:13:43 Sat Jul 2 2022

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]