americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org
mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

One for the books!!! Good News for Small Miners!!!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> COURTS & CASE LAW
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Hefty



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 132
Location: sacramento ca

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: One for the books!!! Good News for Small Miners!!!  Reply with quote

http://www.plp1.org/images/USA_v._Tierney.ORDER.pdf

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 230
Location: Central Oregon Coast & Az

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the post Hefty...good info.  But even after reading the court determination it makes me give rise to other questions regarding the validity of the CFR's vs law.  But I will continue to challenge such potential questions when they arrise.  Just because a miner uses mechanical big equipment does not, in my understanding, dictate a "significant" disturbance.

Per an earlier Woof posting that is relevant:

There is no definition of "surface disturbance"  

The term "significant surface disturbance" was a way for the Secretary to try to get around the legal standard "unnecessary or undue degradation" found in the FLPMA. Don't be distracted by the words. The following is the only legal definition on which the BLM or Forest Service can rely.

Supreme Court wrote:
"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)
bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jristrogy



Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are the master of all What you most want to be like.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> COURTS & CASE LAW All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum