New 49er     


:: :: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of more r
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.

1 people online in the last 1 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 1 guests. (Most ever was 17 at 04:21:43 Thu Sep 27 2007)

Pages: [ 1 ]

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

Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of more r ( 19:08:48 SatApr 11 2009 )

Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of more rights lost.

Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation...04/10/2009 show (follow-up)
Mining Claims Are Private Property Of The Highest Sense.

http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/?page=viewarchive.aspx%3fid%3d640

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 15:14:21 TueApr 14 2009 )

Note: If you have audio playing when you've linked to the site, find the square in the circle at the top of the page by the clock and click on that. That should stop the audio of the program playing at the time. Then click on: Download

It my take a few moments to load.

Once audio is finished loading click the small play icon, then use the scroll bar to advance through the show.

Hope that helps.

P.S. There is a synopsis of each days show to be viewed on the show links provided.

  
socalgold
Offline
701 posts

Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 20:48:04 TueApr 14 2009 )

Rights lost??? You have never had a right to refuse access to your claim.

Everyone keeps missing a very important point. If it is private property, then it is a different story., but if it is a mining claim, then you only have "possesory" interest in the land for recovering minerals only!!!
You do not have any right to keep any others from access to the area for fishing, hiking, bird watching, logging, cattle or even just picnicking. Entering onto a claim just quading or joyriding, then you have absolutely no right to restrict them from coming in.

I have held placer claims and paid taxes on them for "possesory mineral interest". Others paid taxes for cattle and Siller Bros. Logging Of Yuba City CA., paid taxes on the timber. Fisherman were rampant on opening weekend of trout season, and some have come for the beauty of the area just to eat lunch and maybe a swim on a sunday.

I believe he exceded his authority, or lack thereof.






[3 edits; Last edit by socalgold at 20:55:57 Tue Apr 14 2009]

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 01:24:59 WedApr 15 2009 )

Please tell Me, Where does it say that a mining claim is not an exclusive possession enjoying fee title as other private property.

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

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

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

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

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


  
johntf
Offline
334 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 20:42:46 WedApr 15 2009 )

Not sure if the 1st post I made / or not [ sometimes I hit the wrong button when posting / trying to post , but I came back to see answer to question , which was , could you post just a little detail with some of your posts like the 1st on page ?
I get my internet from WiFi [ mostly coffee shops ] and do not have time to listen to the show on internet .
Then as for the point of exclusive right to access of claim , I was lead to believe that , it was only the minerals in claim [ allowing other interests , like fishing ect. ] so this is an interesting point , more detail to your view here , what I remember was told to me back in the late 70s early 80s , so no detail , and not a good memory .

  
socalgold
Offline
701 posts

Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 21:44:44 WedApr 15 2009 )

Mineral, between Joe and Rockbuster et al over on the gpaa forum, i guess you got your answer.

  
LipCa
Offline
714 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 23:50:09 WedApr 15 2009 )

MEG....

Looks like the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955 ("Multiple Use Act"), Pub.L.No.84-167, 69 Stat. 367 (codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 611-612), may have removed the "present and exclusive possession" use of a claim...
??

on claims located after 1955....

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 14:25:28 ThuApr 23 2009 )

The Parable of the Sower

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 15:58:12 SatApr 25 2009 )

Note: For those of you wishing to keep abreast of matters pertaining, of similar comments, questions and concerns in this Thread, I have posted a response to rockbuster and others on the GPAA Forum...link: http://goldprospectors.org/newforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10301&PN=3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 CFR 3809 No Authority Over Property

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

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

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

You can hear the explanation read from the rules here:

43 CFR 3715 Deceptive Sentences

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

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

You can hear the explanation read from the statute here:

Other Authorization Trumps Agency Enforcement Authority

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

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

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

You can hear the explanation read from the rules here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[1 edits; Last edit by Mineral_Estate_Grantee at 21:11:45 Sat Apr 25 2009]

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 17:26:31 SunApr 26 2009 )

Congressional Record and other information links from here:
www.restoretherepublicradio.com/Behind_the_Woodshed_Week_In_Review_APA_Notice_Points/

  
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 04:52:41 MonApr 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

6 States,

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

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

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

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

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

*** “In construing a public grant, as we have seen, the intention of the grantor, gathered from the whole and every part of it, must prevail. If, on examination, there are doubts about that intention or the extent of the grant, the government is to receive the benefit of them.” ****** “and, unless there were other provisions restraining the words of present grant, the grants uniformly were held to be in praesenti, in the sense that the title, although imperfect before the identification of the lands, became perfect when the identification was effected and by relation took effect as of the date of the granting act, except as to the tracts failing within the excluding provision.” St. Paul & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. *** [Aside Note: Scope of grant inferred from the term “for other purposes”, big.]

*** “"A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A party is, therefore, always estopped by his own grant." Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)”

The Shumway case is also instructive:

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

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

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

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

So these negate your opinion here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
LuvNuggets
Offline
74 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 07:30:09 MonApr 27 2009 )

Let me add an important note:

As a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, former Vice President of Spangdahlem IDPA, and licensed CCW,
I want to make sure every understands that the use of a firearm is a very serious life changing event.

To use a weapon to cause harm to another person must be within the legal definition of self-defense. The courts will look to see if the parties could have exercise an "avenue of flight or flee" before firing a weapon.

The miner will have to show fear of life in order to justify the use of shotgun. Just the posting of "No Trespassing or a Mining Claim" would not be justification to take a life.

IMHO
Rick:thankyou:
[1 edits; Last edit by LuvNuggets at 07:31:56 Mon Apr 27 2009]

  
Jim_Alaska
Offline
1928 posts
Administrator


Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 15:06:35 MonApr 27 2009 )

Thanks LUV, you are right on the money. Pulling a weapon on someone is about as serious as it gets, but shooting them.....well, you had better know the laws and even then you may get nailed by the law.



---
Jim (Alaska)
Administrator
Jim Foley's Alaska
jfoley@sisqtel.net
 
 
Mineral_Estate_Grantee
Offline
523 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 15:42:45 FriMay 1 2009 )

Note: For those of you wishing to keep abreast of matters pertaining, of similar comments, questions and concerns in this Thread, I have posted a response to LipCa and others on the Alaska Gold Forum Forum...link: http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewthread?forum=2&thread=795&postnum=60

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.

  
LuvNuggets
Offline
74 posts
Reply
Re: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of mo ( 19:41:50 SunMay 10 2009 )

Although a little different situation it's another use of firearms with the wrong thinking of "trespassing rights and private property."


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015085906
[3 edits; Last edit by LuvNuggets at 19:48:18 Sun May 10 2009]

  

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 15:25:37 Sat May 8 2021

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net
    :: :: Update: Miner Altercation. Not as justification for shooting, evidence of more r
    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]