Archive for 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
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Wallrat

I've been cited

I was camping and highbanking on my unpatented placer claim near Idaho City, and got a USFS citation for habitation and/or illegal mining (I have no NOI, as of yet). I could use some advise on how to beat this 'ticket'. I'm thinking the McClure case would be relevant, since it's the same USC citation number. Do we have a right to mine and camp without a NOI? Can it stand up in court?  If someone could walk me through what I need to do and what I need to present, I'd be deeply grateful. Thanks!
legalminer

Hopefully, the experts will comment, but I'll take a stab.
A NOI is not required to mine your claim.  In fact, don't get one.  You have the mining laws that authorize your mining and camping (occupation).  The FS will hassle you, as they are with miner Dave Everist (actually arrested for occupying his claim).  I haven't heard an update on that case recently, but look it up.
The FS really has no authority over your mineral deposit property.  Your claim has been "disposed of" and returned to the public domain.  It will take some research, but start reading the threads on this site and others (SWOMA and GPAA legal threads).
You'll learn all you need to know to beat this citation.  Sorry, I don't have specifics for you.  You probably need to post the actual citation info.
Others will come along and be more helpful.
Glindberg

yes it applies, there is also another case before it that set the precedent (us v lex). Do NOT file an NOI.

As legalminer said, all pertinent data (exact) citation info would be very beneifical. Do not fret, we are here to help.

Gary
Hefty

Post a copy of the citation.....as it will help us help you
johncrossman

Citation

Wallrat, I live in Idaho as well and we have another miner being harrassed by the same ranger. we are having a meeting tomorrow night and you are welcome to attend, PM me for info, we can help.
Hefty

These are some quotes from some of their manuals on how they interpet the laws......



5335 - OCCUPANCY AND USE
5335.01 - Authorities  


The principal Federal law violations that apply to occupancy and use are:

1.  Title 18 U.S.C. 1863.  Trespass on National Forest Lands.

2.  Title 36 CFR 261.10.  Occupancy and Use.



Procedures for addressing illegal occupancy can be found in FSH 5309.11, section 23.2.

5335.1 - Occupancy Under Claim of Title  


Follow procedures in FSM 5450 and FSH 5309.11, section 23.22 where a person occupying National Forest System (NFS) lands alleges right or title to the land.  Until such time as the legality of the occupancy can be determined, real and related personal property located on NFS land must not be destroyed or removed without a court authorization or written permission of the owner.  Such cases should also be coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel.

5335.2 - Occupancy Under Claim of Mining Claim  


See FSM 2818 for investigation and follow-up on questionable occupancy of National Forest System land where the occupant claims to be legally occupying a mining claim.




2818 - OCCUPANCY ON MINING CLAIMS

One of the most difficult problems of the Forest Service in regard to minerals is that of unauthorized residential occupancy on mining claims.  The problem arises primarily out of:
1.  Imprecision in the law regarding occupancy,
2.  Historical laxity of the Government in taking action against suspected unauthorized occupancy, and
3.  The difficulty in legally determining intent, which is at the heart of the issue.  

The basis of the occupancy issue is the 1872 Act which states, "Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, . . . shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase; . . ." (30 U.S.C. 22).  The meaning of that statute has been broadened and clarified by court decisions and legal interpretations.  For example, it is generally accepted that a claimant to an unpatented mining claim is entitled to uses of the surface that are reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of bona fide prospecting, exploration, mining, and processing of locatable minerals.  On the other hand, it follows that a claimant to an unpatented claim is not entitled to certain uses of the surface where such uses are not reasonably necessary or where the claimant is not actually involved in bona fide minerals-related activities.  

In order for structures, including residences, to be authorized under the United States mining laws and laws requiring the management of surface resources, two conditions must be met:  
1.  The structure must be reasonably necessary for use in prospecting, mining, or processing of locatable mineral resources and,
2.  The structure must be covered by an approved operating plan or special use permit.  Generally, a structure is not necessary for annual assessment work.
2818.01 - Authority

Judicial decisions rendered in the 30 years since Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 228, subpart A (36 CFR part 228, subpart A), was promulgated, gave content to the meaning of the term “significant disturbance.”  For example, it is well established that the construction or maintenance of structures, such as cabins, mill buildings, showers, tool sheds, and outhouses on National Forest System lands constitutes a significant disturbance of National Forest System resources.  United States v. Brunskill, 792 F.2d 938. 941 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Burnett, 750 F. Supp. 1029, 1035 (D. Idaho 1990).  (70 FR 32713, June 6, 2005.)
2818.02 - Policy

The Forest Service must prevent and eliminate unauthorized use and occupancy of National Forest System lands.  
2818.1 - Actions Under 1872 Act Use Regulations

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 228, subpart A (36 CFR part 228, subpart A) provides a logical and effective means of controlling new occupancy problems through the requirements for an operating plan.  If the mining laws are used as justification for a new structure, the structure must be covered in an approved operating plan, in which the reasonable necessity is explained--unless the structure is authorized by a special use permit due to other considerations.
1.  Potential For Need of Structures.  The necessity for structures in regard to mineral activities depends upon several factors:
a.  The stage of mineral activities,
b.  The expected size and life of the proposed operations,
c.  The remoteness of the site,
d.  The amount and kind of equipment requiring protection and storage, and so forth.  For example, a tool-storage structure may be a reasonable necessity if the plan of operations is for a long period of active exploration or development, and it is inconvenient to transport tools to and from the claim.  On the other hand, a residence

will not be necessary to conduct minimal assessment work on a mere indication of mineral.  The area of operations will seldom be so remote, or other "needs" so compelling, as to justify residential occupancy on the claim.
2.  Potential for Residential Occupancy.  When it appears that residential occupancy, may be, an issue on an unpatented claim, the District Ranger shall take timely action to inform the claimant in writing of:
a.  Rights regarding use and occupancy,
b.  The requirements of 36 CFR part 228 subpart A, and
c.  The Forest Service responsibility for surface resource management and protection.  Exhibit 01 is a sample letter for this purpose.  The claimant should be encouraged to demonstrate the facts, reasons, and purpose for use or occupancy.  The Forest Service must make a diligent effort to resolve differences through agreement and document all communications and actions relative to the requirements in paragraphs 2a-c.

Except in the most clear cut cases, the District Ranger should request the assistance of a Forest Service mineral specialist or certified mineral examiner (FSH 2809.15, sec. 10.5) to evaluate the situation on the ground, and advise the officer whether the proposed or existing surface use is logically sequenced, reasonable, and consistent with existing laws and regulations.

The advice should be used to help with negotiations to secure willing cooperation.  If negotiations fail, the advice should be formalized using the surface use determination procedures (FSM 2817.03a and FSH 2809.15, ch. 10).

As stated in FSM 2817.03, willing cooperation should be sought, but legal remedies are available through the Department of Justice.

2818.1 - Exhibit 01

Sample Letter

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 2810
(Date)

(Name and address of claimant)

Dear                                         :  

(Introductory statement)                                                    .  As District Ranger, I must inform you of Forest Service policy regarding mining activity and uses of the surface on a mining claim.  

The mining laws give the public the right to prospect and to locate and claim valuable mineral deposits which they may discover on certain lands.  On the other hand, the mining laws prohibit a claimant from using unpatented mining claims for purposes other than for mineral-related activities.  Forest Service policy is to encourage bona fide prospecting and mining and to allow uses that are reasonably necessary for these purposes, but we must oppose unauthorized uses of a claim.  This policy applies to the use of claims for residences.  If we determine that a claim is being used for unauthorized uses, we are required by law to take steps to end such uses.  

The Federal regulations found in 36 CFR part 228, subpart A provide procedures to follow regarding mineral related activities under the mining laws on National Forest lands.  Specifically they require that any activity by an operator which might cause significant surface resource disturbance must be conducted according to a plan of operations approved by the Forest Officer.  (Your cabin) (Any structure which you may plan to build) (The building which you have under construction) must be covered by such a plan of operations.  In order for that structure to be authorized under a plan, you must be able to show a reasonable necessity resulting from planned prospecting, exploration, or mining activities.  If you have any questions about the requirements of a plan of operations or the justification for a structure, please come to see us so we can discuss it.

Sincerely,


District Ranger
beebarjay

There are two points of consideration that can be used to counter the citation.  

One would be the use of mining law(s) to show the USFS has no autority over the Public Domain, of which your claim exists within its' boundaries.  But this poiint of arguement would not be heard in the administrative hearing of which your citation would be adjudicated.  A "demurer" would be required.

The next point would be to argue the case per accepting a limited authority of the USFS to have power to control actions on your claim per their CFR's, and FLPMA.  In accordance with a mis-aapplication of the Multiple Use Act.

The basic consideration is one of approach. How do you want to argue your citation.

In order to understand the demurer process you would need to have a basic understanding of the legal concept.

If you accept a limited authority of the USFS and the application of their CFR's you risk further intrusion of the USFS upon your actions.

So I would suggest you give consideration to your ability to adjudicate and the time frame of that possibility.  

Showing the specific citation and conveyng all pertinent info would be important for sharing what others might do in the same situation.  Non of us are giving legal advice, but many of us can share information that may be of help and convey what we would do should we be given a citation while mining on our claims.

It would appear you have a USFS agent who is not familiar with the mining laws and is acting  per his/her undersanding of the CFR's.  A simple letter to the District Ranger pointing out your postion based on mining laws and the savings clauses that exist exempting you from the USFS authority may be a possible resolve.  Were you able to convey your position to the citation USFS office/agent by having a converstaion?

bejay
johncrossman

Citation

Beejay, we have been informed of this particular ranger, Chad Hood, he is a young guy who apparently trained in the East before coming here to Idaho. This ranger is supposed to be in charge of mineral and mining in the Idaho City, Boise County area for what ever that means, we have more than one guy this ranger is harrassing. We have an association meeting tonight and hopefully we can get some more details about this and the other situations. I know for a fact this is same ranger who was threatening an older gentleman for using his suction recovery device on his own claim, poor guy was terrified.
Woof!

From "Boxy" over on the GPAA forum.

If he was cited for a "use and occupancy" violation under 36 CFR 261.1 (k), and he was mining at the time, he's got a win in his pocket.

Here is the law he was cited for violating:
36 CFR 261.1 (k) wrote:
Use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such authorization is required.


Here's why the Forest Service can not win a case against a miner based on 36 CFR 261.1 (k):

36 CFR § 251.50   Scope. wrote:

(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (§212.9); grazing and livestock use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are designated “special uses.”


Here is what the Court wrote in Lex Waggoner when they overruled the trial court and found for Lex and Waggoner:

Quote:
"36 C.F .R. § 261.1 (k ) under which appellants were convicted, does not prohibit
occupancy that is subject to a special use authorization or that is "otherwise
authorized." Here, because activity covered by the Forest Service's mining
regulations is excluded from the special use regulations, see 36 C.F .R. § 251.50( a).
the appellants could not obtain a special use authorization for their activity which
was subject to the mining regulations."


This has been long settled. McClure won on the same issue a year later by dismissal. He didn't even have to go to trial, the judge just threw the charges out based on the Lex Waggoner decision.

Here is the decision in McClure dismissing the citation:
Quote:

Defendant moves to dismiss the Violation on the ground that it fails to state an offense. The gravamen of Defendant's argument is that Defendant is charged with using National Forest System land without special-use authorization, when the alleged activity that he is charged with doing (gold mining) does not require "special-use authorization". 36 C.F.R. 25l.50(a).

Based on the very specific language in § 251.50( a) exempting such activity; and the court's ruling in Unites States v. Lex. 300 F.Supp2d 951,960-61 (E.D. Cal. 2003) [Lex & Waggener], this Court agrees.
Gold_mine

This may help you out and maybe you can give a copy to the law enforcement officer and get him off your backs..

Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 216/Thursday

Clarification for the Appropriate Use of a Criminal or a Civil Citation To Enforce Mineral Regulations

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-06/pdf/E8-26448.pdf


Gold_Mine
Gold_mine

This is the part I think may help.

The Forest Service recognizes that it
cannot preclude use and occupancy of
NFS lands for locatable mineral
operations, including camping or
residential use, if those operations are
conducted so as to minimize their
adverse environmental impacts, the
operations are limited to locatable
mineral prospecting, exploration,
development, mining, processing,
reclamation, closure and those uses
reasonably incidental thereto, and the
operations are appropriate in terms of
their type, duration, and stage.
However, this does not preclude Forest
Service adoption of rules requiring
written authorization for some or all of
these operations by means such as a
notice of intent to conduct operations or
an approved plan of operations when
the Forest Service deems it appropriate.
Nonetheless, this rulemaking has no
effect whatsoever on a miner conducting
operations specified by 36 CFR
228.4(a)(1) that do not require prior
notice to the Forest Service. Nor does
this rulemaking have any affect
whatsoever on a miner’s duty to submit
a notice of intent to conduct locatable
mineral operations, including
reasonably incidental camping, which
might cause significant disturbance of
surface resources. Nor does this
rulemaking have any effect whatsoever
on a miner’s need to obtain approval of
a plan of operations, and if necessary, a
reclamation bond, to conduct locatable
mineral operations, including
reasonably incidental camping, which
will likely cause significant disturbance
of surface resources. Those matters
continue to be governed by 36 CFR part
228, subpart A.

This is 228.4(a)

Sec. 228.4 Plan of operations -notice of intent requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a notice of intention to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intention shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. If the District Ranger determines that such operations will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger.
****(1) The requirements to submit a plan of operations shall not apply:
(i) To operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest purposes,
(ii) To individuals desiring to search for and occasionally remove small mineral samples or specimens,
(iii) To prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study,
(iv) To marking and monumenting a mining claim and
(v) To subsurface operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance.
(2) A notice of intent need not be filed:
(i) Where a plan of operations is submitted for approval in lieu thereof,
(ii) For operations excepted in paragraph (a)(1) of this section from the requirement to file a plan of operations,
(iii) For operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment such as bulldozers or backhoes and will not involve the cutting of trees. Each notice of intent to operate shall provide information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the route of access to the area of operations and the method of transport. If a notice of intent is filed, the District Ranger will, within 15 days of receipt thereof, notify the operator whether a plan of operations is required.


Gold_Mine
Hefty

Re: Citation

johncrossman wrote:
Beejay, we have been informed of this particular ranger, Chad Hood, he is a young guy who apparently trained in the East before coming here to Idaho. This ranger is supposed to be in charge of mineral and mining in the Idaho City, Boise County area for what ever that means, we have more than one guy this ranger is harrassing. We have an association meeting tonight and hopefully we can get some more details about this and the other situations. I know for a fact this is same ranger who was threatening an older gentleman for using his suction recovery device on his own claim, poor guy was terrified.


Name     Chad C. Hood  
Phone     907-789-6275or 586-8800
Fax     907-586-8808
Title     Minerals Administrator
Staff     Minerals
Office     R4, Boise NF, Idaho City RD
Hefty

FSH 2809.15 - minerals and geology handbook

Chapter 10 - surface use determinations

Google it, interesting reading
johncrossman

Chapter ten

Hefty, the read was interesting, but for him to make a determination wouldn't he need to be certified, or above all else I wonder if he's certified and I'm saying this because we know of no one else that is, as of yet. Maybe I hitting on the wrong idea? We have a couple of others that haven't even been warned if you will, just cited, they are afraid of the system and will not come forward because of their fear of lenghty battles. One of our miners was told if he leaves his camper at any time they would impound it and all he does is comute to town for mail and supplies the USFS said even on his valid claim he could only stay fourteen days. We know this isn't true but.........
Hefty

Yea I found out the hard way that they dont follow their own manuals or directives.
This is why we are here, learning this stuff, to confront them on the spot with it.
NCrossman

Hefty wrote:
Yea I found out the hard way that they dont follow their own manuals or directives.
This is why we are here, learning this stuff, to confront them on the spot with it.


Hefty, I think "confront" is such a harsh word, but to educate and inform them on the spot would be better.  However, after reading through your ordeal with the CAUSFS... I think confront would be an appropriate and excellent word choice.  

Though they haven't done to me what has been done to you, I do believe that if they come my way, I will educate them on the laws and what their real job is and then I will inform them of the exit they can take to leave.

But you are right, this is why we are here and willing to learn all of this interesting and historical, yet modern and applicable stuff.  There is power in numbers and the more that stand together for their rights, just proves that we can not be bullied and pushed around.  

See what everyone needs to understand is that the more the government is allowed to run-a-muck... i.e. hand out false and fictitious citations, the more they will.  It will and does take a lot of people to stand up and fight, unfortunately.  It's sad because our founding fathers had already fought for the right to mine, prospect and explore.  I think they would be rolling in their graves right about now over all of this nonsense...

Anyway, point being... we need to educate all today so we can prospect and mine tomorrow! Smile

Wallrat needs to understand this as well.  He needs to not be scared, but come forward and let us all help. Smile
Wallrat

Thanks for the help guys...Woof was right, it was 36 CFR 261.1 (k). The notation said "occupation and/or illegal use without special use authorization. (illegal mining)" Something like that.  As to Chad Hood, he came here from Alaska, he told me. He seems to be reasonable, and the contacts I have had with him have been constructive and civil. The forest cop was ok too, I think it was the voice from HQ (on the radio) that told him to cite me. So, things look good for a dismissal, with what I've found here. Thanks!

As to the NOI, realizing the issues, I think I'll file it and go the low conflict route. Based on the reasonableness of Chad Hood, as I've talked to him, it sounds like I can live within their limits. Let's hope that was not a facade! I can't spend all my time in court, and they know it. Worse comes to worst, I'll sell the claim and start over on a different one without the NOI.
johncrossman

Noi

Wallrat, you are not required to file an Noi unless you are going to cause significant ground disturbance or to camp on your claim. You should not bend to these bogus regs. One of our miners has resubmitted an Noi to chad hood several times and still is getting the run around, they need this they need that we need a map and so on. I bet you will file it and be given the same run around as well. I mine in the same area and because I am protected under the grant I file nothing.  And will not!
Good luck
John
NCrossman

Reasonable? Really? Reasonable is not illegal citations. Reasonable is not making you scared to go to court. Wallrat, there are two things for you to know:
1. You don't have to spend a lot of time in court, these issues have already been addressed and thrown out in federal court. DON'T BE FOOLED, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER valuable mineral MINING PERIOD!!
2. There are ways to get out of the Noi! Do not sell your claim. There is no need for that.. I personally wouldn't play their game of filing for the noi. That is just the start of their harrassment toward you.

You aren't the only miner in Idaho City to be cited by chad hood. There are others and last week we were approached by one who doesn't want to go to court, but they harassed him enough...

What are you really scared of?? They can't take your stuff, ask you to stop your mineral exploring, and they can't make you abide by their codes... FORTUNATELY, THEIR CODES WILL NEVER SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. Already set in place by miners and congressional leaders  in the 1800's...and one last thing Wallrat, if you want to continue with the noi, all I have to say is have fun trying to get your stuff back when they confiscate it; have fun not being able camp on your claim except for only 14 days at a time; and go ahead and have fun paying their fees and being in their admin courts when you could be making money and mineral exploring instead!  

The noi is nothing more than a right of passage for the USFS to harass! !

I think you already know this inside, because you have already reached out to this forum. We are here to help, but the choice is yours!!!  Happy prospecting!!
Wallrat

I can appreciate your position, John...I considered it. However I'm going to live on my claim from thaw to freeze, so it seems the best way to go. I'll keep you posted on things. If they deny my NOI, I'll do it the hard way. I just hate the idea of having to go to Boise and spend all that time in court and the idea I may not win. There hasn't been a very enticing history of butting heads with the Government(Randy Weaver, Waco, etc)...I'd prefer to avoid it.
johncrossman

What is the hard way??? Please explain.

First of all, you won't be going to court in Boise.  You will be going to an admin court in Boise County, Not Boise City in ADA county.  So when you go, if you go... you need to take the LEX AND MCCLURE MINING CASES.  THEY WERE POSTED EARLIER ABOVE IN THIS PARTICULAR THREAd.  First go to the local district ranger and hand them to him and have him read them.  Then if he still proceeds, take them to the judge when and if you go to court and if you don't feel comfortable with doing that, all you need then is ask for DEMURER in front of the admin judge.  then they will refer that to fed. court in Boise City.  Then the federal judge can only go by federal or constitutional laws and therefore will dismiss the citation based on rules and regs vs. the mining laws......

Also, because these cases like LEX and MCCLure, you will have the benefit of having the case dismissed for you.  However, I still think that if you educate the ranger with both the cases and the mining laws, he will probably back down.

Once again, if you don't feel comfortable doing this, contact me and we will GO TOGETHER AND educate the ranger... BASICALLY HAVE A CHAT WITH them and inform them on what the law is and what their duties are.....and well aren't!!!!

afterall, USFS is a SURFACE MANAGEMENT agency.  Mining is a SUB-SURFACE operation... Get the difference?
beebarjay

I can believe you can have your cake and eat it to.  Stand your ground as to the unjust citation.  Simply show the Ranger and citing officer that you know your stuff.  It has been given you and all you need do is copy it.  Let them know you know the significant aspect of your claim responsibility.  It is then up to them to prove your occupancy is significant.  If you stand your ground after they relingquish the unjust citation then you can battle the NOI issue.  Don't sign or do an NOI immediately.  Get the citation issue reslolved and then confront the NOI.   If you do an NOI it determines that you are engaging in a significant action.   Putting permanent bldgs up is usually determined to be significant...so your occupancy could have a bearing on how you proceed to occupy.

Are you contending that they will not void  the citation unless you do an NOI?

bejay
1866

I can tell you right now that Woof has already given you the information you need to beat this. Others have also provided extra ammo to the same ends.

Key points:

1. You have a RIGHT to occupy your mineral deposit. FULL STOP. The 14 day "camping rule" does not apply for the simple fact that you are NOT a mere social guest of the United States Forest Service. You OWN PROPERTY; a segregated estate, the locator of which (that's you) has EXCLUSIVE possession and enjoyment of the surface.

2. You have a RIGHT to mine on your property. In fact, you MUST mine on your property to preserve your right of possession. Restricting that right puts your property at risk, thereby creating a takings as a result of felony extortion by a public servant. LEO Hood is a CRIMINAL.

2. USFS have no authority on your locatable mineral  deposit, for it is located upon the PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is NOT public land.

3. Even if USFS did have authority on the Public Domain, their authority is aimed at regulating "special use" on the Public Land. Mining for valuable minerals (ie. locatables) and legitimate activity related to it, such as occupation and development, is a SPECIFIC USE upon the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

As Hefty pointed out with his citations, even their own handbook, FSM 2810, acknowledges the rights vested in the miner. (The same does however, instruct the FS employee to always assume that the miner is NOT a miner!)

That said, you had better be VERY CAREFUL about filing NOIs. BeeBarJay hit the nail on the head: if you sign that NOI, you are acknowledging that you are in violation and that they have authority, unless you really know what you are doing.

As for Mr. Hood, miners in Idaho would be wise to teach him a very harsh lesson in The Mining Law very quickly.

As a side note on the Dave Everist case. I talk to Dave a couple times a week and had an update earlier. While I cannot share too much in the way of details, I can share that the feds have been dragging their feet and that Dave has filed a motion to dismiss on a wide range of grounds. He also recently filed a suit AGAINST the agencies, which should be "Everist v. USFS, et. al". I do know that a case number has been issued for the suit and that the case was originally assigned to Judge Clarke, who transferred it to Judge Panner.
Wallrat

I'm in agreement s to what our rights are...and I intend to fight their citation. I'm figuring on asking for a dismissal, as this issue has been decided already. My instinct is to tell them to Eff off, but I'll try to get along before coming to that. If the NOI is dragged along, or I get another citation for some nonsence, then I'll fight them in the courts. That's the 'hard way'. Having a public school education, the law is a steep hill to climb. Thanks all of you for the help! I'll let you know how it goes, as I know more.
1866

One thing to look at is to make sure that the citation actually adheres to the lawful requirements to be valid.

So for example, if the citation charges you with the PENALTY, opposed to the so-called crime (seen it done by USFS and even the Staters), it is grounds to set aside.

Also, I know that in Oregon, they must give you a date to appear and it MUST be within 30 days. Failing that, it is grounds for a set aside. Don't know about Idaho, but you need to make sure the citation conforms to state laws.

Another thing to consider is that most of these "crimes" that USFS are pursuing miners over are actually supposed to be CIVIL issues, not criminal. That too, is grounds for a set aside.

Don't be too intimidated by law. This mining law was written by miners with limited educations and was intended to be easy to understand.

People like Hefty, BeeBarJay, etc. will tell you that they were pretty intimidated at first and didn't believe they could figure it out. These guys now have a very good handle on it.

What they found is that merely reading the law and referencing a law dictionary to understand what all the words really mean is a pretty simple method of learning this.
beebarjay

The truth is in the words......which brings forth intent.  I believe the USFS and BLM fail to actually learn the words of the law and their own rules designed to follow the letter of the law.  Take your citation situation and break it down using the words.  Woof gave you the exact understanding of where the USFS went astray.  But consideraing you want your confidence level to be great one needs to undersatnd what 1866 is conveying.  The application of the citation and the words within the true application of the citation; as well as the action the USFS contends to pursue, can be two different things altogether.  They can be had on technical application of their own rules (as they fail to really understand them) or they can be had on their failure to understand the mining laws and the savings clauses that apply to you as a miner.  

1866 is giving you additional ammunition.

I can tell you how I would do my NOI.  I would take all the pertinent legal info and compile it in a letter of intent letting the USFS know that I know my stuff and am willing to challenge their citation and intent to inject their authority where none exists.  This can be done simply by compiling what has been given you here on this forum.  If the USFS has failed to comply with even their own rules the issue of mining law will not even surface as yet.

As you can see with Hefty he got the USFS on their own failure to understand and follow their own rules.  Now the USFS, after returning his stuff, wants to intitiate a pattern of authority where none exists.  NOW Hefty will take on the issue of mining law and the savings clauses:......educating the USFS and the Sheriffs office.  All the savings clauses and letter(s) of the law application exists here on this forum as well.

I believe where you will need some guidance is in the actual hearings process.  Knowing how to go through the process is important and can allow you to be prepared correctly.
99% of the time the USFS is actually challenged in Fed court they lose on a failure to follow their own rules.  (this I was told by the Head USFS guy here in Oregon).......been some time and I can not remember his name.

1866 is giving you a real good heads up and information that may allow you to see the USFS walk out of the room with their tail between their legs.  I will agree the process can be intimidating but I believe you have the necessary help to move forward with a lot of confidence.


bejay
Woof!

Maybe I missed it but I'm not seeing any details about your citation wallrat?

1866 makes some very good points about the procedural issues that the FS quite possibly screwed up. These can lead to a quick dismissal unless you allow them to amend their complaint. I don't know why you would do that but often people do give permission to amend the original complaint. I think that's because they don't realize they have already won. Adrenaline will do that to you.

As far as "occupation" and NOI's - The only reason to file an NOI is because you believe your "operation" will cause a "significant surface disturbance". At this point the FS has filed suit against you for illegal occupancy. As many posters have pointed out, the only reason your occupancy (required under the mineral estate grant) could be in violation of their regulations is if that occupancy itself is creating a significant surface disturbance.

It is up to the Forest Service to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your occupation is already creating a significant surface disturbance in fact. I'd be willing to bet they won't even try to establish that fact. Unless you are withholding facts about this matter they could not succeed in that effort. They will be relying on you not to understand when or why you should state "objection - assumes facts not on the record". In other words they will rely on you rolling over.

If you file an NOI you will be admitting, on the record, that you believe your occupancy or some significant portion of your "operation" does rise to the level of a "significant surface disturbance". You may as well just show up at prison with all your money and skip the trial as it will be just a formality after you have given them the evidence they are missing.

Watch Hefty's thread for more information.

Woof!
beebarjay

I stole this off the GPAA forum posted some time back

Boxy QUOTE:
From the same federal register, responses from the Forest Service:





...Regardless of the local stay limit, an operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to conduct operations unless the locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, might cause significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

Moreover, as discussed above, an approved plan of operations is not required for locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, unless those operations are likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

An operator, consequently, is not required to notify the Forest Service prior to conducting locatable mineral operations which involve occupancy of NFS lands providing that those operations meet two conditions: (1) The occupancy is reasonably incidental to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing and (2) those proposed (or ongoing) operations, including such reasonably incidental occupancy, cumulatively will not cause (or are not causing) significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

To the extent that respondents fear the Forest Service might cite an operator who is camping on NFS for the operator’s failure to submit a notice of intent to operate when one is required, those fears are groundless. None of the prohibitions set forth in 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, including those adopted by this final rule, prohibit an action requiring a notice of intent to operate. Rather, the prohibitions applicable to occupancy of lands in conjunction with locatable mineral operations that require prior notice or approval apply when an operator acts ‘‘without *** an operating plan when such authorization is required.’’ For purposes of 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, Sec. 261.2 defines the term ‘‘operating plan’’ to mean a plan of operations that has been approved. There is no prohibition applicable to acting without a notice of intent to operate when it is required by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.




It walks, quacks and tastes like a duck. It is a citation for occupancy without a special use authorization - not a mineral violation.

End Boxy QUOTE
NCrossman

1866 wrote:
I can tell you right now that Woof has already given you the information you need to beat this. Others have also provided extra ammo to the same ends.

Key points:

1. You have a RIGHT to occupy your mineral deposit. FULL STOP. The 14 day "camping rule" does not apply for the simple fact that you are NOT a mere social guest of the United States Forest Service. You OWN PROPERTY; a segregated estate, the locator of which (that's you) has EXCLUSIVE possession and enjoyment of the surface.

2. You have a RIGHT to mine on your property. In fact, you MUST mine on your property to preserve your right of possession. Restricting that right puts your property at risk, thereby creating a takings as a result of felony extortion by a public servant. LEO Hood is a CRIMINAL.

2. USFS have no authority on your locatable mineral  deposit, for it is located upon the PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is NOT public land.

3. Even if USFS did have authority on the Public Domain, their authority is aimed at regulating "special use" on the Public Land. Mining for valuable minerals (ie. locatables) and legitimate activity related to it, such as occupation and development, is a SPECIFIC USE upon the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

As Hefty pointed out with his citations, even their own handbook, FSM 2810, acknowledges the rights vested in the miner. (The same does however, instruct the FS employee to always assume that the miner is NOT a miner!)

That said, you had better be VERY CAREFUL about filing NOIs. BeeBarJay hit the nail on the head: if you sign that NOI, you are acknowledging that you are in violation and that they have authority, unless you really know what you are doing.

As for Mr. Hood, miners in Idaho would be wise to teach him a very harsh lesson in The Mining Law very quickly.

As a side note on the Dave Everist case. I talk to Dave a couple times a week and had an update earlier. While I cannot share too much in the way of details, I can share that the feds have been dragging their feet and that Dave has filed a motion to dismiss on a wide range of grounds. He also recently filed a suit AGAINST the agencies, which should be "Everist v. USFS, et. al". I do know that a case number has been issued for the suit and that the case was originally assigned to Judge Clarke, who transferred it to Judge Panner.


1866,

We are trying to teach Mr. Hood a lesson and fast.  The problem that we are running into is all the people that have been cited or "warned" have all the same story... Basically they all say they can't and won't fight the 'government' and they don't want to waste time with b.s.   Anyway, there aren't many who are willing to stand up, most people in IDaho City, Idaho are losing claims and no one seems to want to fight to keep them.  We are in conversation with a gentleman who is tired of being harrassed by the same Chad Hood.  But it took him forever to stand up and ask someone for help.  I think that this Hood guy and his superiors really have a reign up there and it is a reign that has to come down... immediately.  I also mine close to there and I would be happy the day this Hood-lum (lol) steps up to give me a bogus citation!

I am not looking for a fight, but should one arise, I'm thinkin' someone's gonna lose and it isn't going to be me!
beebarjay

There is a reason many just turn and run from the unwarranted authority.  I know I can personally attest to the fact that the knowledge is the key.  One must feel  comfortable going into battle and have the knowledge that creates that comfort.

I know that it takes some time and effort to learn the laws/rules/regs.   And it takes time to gain a level of comfort enabling a person to feel qualified to engage an agency and proposed authority.  Additionally there is a level of understanding as to how the hearings procedure or court proceedings can be understood and negotiated.   Woof just posted on another thread some good reading material that is pertinent and valuable.  

SWOMA has structured itself to engage/inform/educate miners with the correct application of the law/rules/regs and this forum is an attempt to create information that can allow miners to challenge unwarranted authority.

It would be nice to see Mr Hood inundated with challenges by willing knowledgable miners.  But as pointed out it can only be done by those willing to take on the challenge after they have become knowledgeable enough to feel comfortable doing so.  

bejay
1866

Nicole,

You're always going to find that the majority won't  fight back.

Most people honestly believe that if they don't rock the boat, they'll be left alone. Hence they comply (and worse, they often criticize those who refuse to comply, stating "You guys are ruining this for the rest of us!", when the reality is, their complacency/fear/ignorance/compliance is what has ruined it.

Another angle is that most people assume that the agencies, attorneys and judges must be right. They also really can't stomach the idea that the people they believe is their government would willingly, knowingly and intentionally destroy their way of life or intend them harm.

The reality is quite opposite:

The agencies, attorneys and judges are, as a general rule, CLUELESS about this mining law.

Those who are not so clueless often conspire to harm the average person. I submit that when agency employees, attorneys and judges conspire to take property and rights from people (miners or others), it is a form of violence and ultimately terrorism levied against the people by their government.

Now the good news.

You don't need a bunch of miners to stop rogue agents, all you really need are a handful that are completely committed.
Wallrat

Sorry to be tardy, I don't get out of the bush too often. Here are the citation details:36 CFR 261.10 (k) citation, "use and/or occupancy of NFS lands without special-use auth. (mining without a permit)". Then it says I can pay a $175 fine, or appear. No date given, it says "To be". That's it, though he did include the address for the magistrate. at 550 W Fort St. in Boise.
beebarjay

From another Woof posting on another thread....posted for your consideration.

Hefty wrote:

Mon, June 18, 2012 2:47:13 PM
From: "Fischer, Christopher -FS" <cfischer@fs.fed.us>View Contact
To:  
Cc: "Barnett; Gary -FS" <gbarnett@fs.fed.us>; "Torres; Anthony W -FS" <awtorres@fs.fed.us>; "Wiese; Karen -FS" <kwiese@fs.fed.us>; "Madrigal; Tom -FS" <tmadrigal@fs.fed.us>; "Weaver; Rick -FS" <rweaver@fs.fed.us>... more


Mr. Hepfner,

As a reminder, in order to work your mining claim, you will need to have an approved Plan of Operation (POO). Please work with my office to get an authorized Plan of Operations for your mining activities at your earliest convenience. Until you have an approved plan, any mining activities, associated equipment or occupancy of National Forest System lands is prohibited.


I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Chris Fischer

District Ranger

American River Ranger District, Tahoe NF

W: 530-478-6254 x238

M: 530-906-2095

cfischer@fs.fed.us



This little "note" is a real treasure Hefty. Guard it with your life. It not only is proof of intent to harass you under color of law but it is tacit admission by those agents that they consider their own occupancy regulations to be entitled to deference.

I gave the explanations the FS provided when they published the new criminal regs on occupation. In that Federal Register notice they explained that occupancy did not require any notice or plan if there was no "significant surface disturbance" from that occupancy. They also made it clear that they do not consider any forest stay regulations to apply as long as "the occupation is reasonably incident to mining".

So why is this so important? Why would it matter to some district ranger that the FS published some explanation on where they thought these new regs apply?

The courts have applied a hands off approach to agencies interpretations of their own regulations. If an agency regulation could be interpreted in two or more different ways the courts have allowed the agency itself determine which way they want to interpret the regulation. The courts have refused to make those decisions for them. (PLP should be paying attention here too.  )

This principle is called "deference" and there is one exception to this principle. Where the agency has already defined the meaning of the regulation in the process of creating it there can be only one interpretation of that regulation - the one defined when it was created.

Here again are some of the defining statements made in the Federal Register along with the new reg:
Quote:
Regardless of the local stay limit, an operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to conduct operations unless the locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, might cause significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

Moreover, as discussed above, an approved plan of operations is not required for locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, unless those operations are likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

An operator, consequently, is not required to notify the Forest Service prior to conducting locatable mineral operations which involve occupancy of NFS lands providing that those operations meet two conditions: (1) The occupancy is reasonably incidental to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing and (2) those proposed (or ongoing) operations, including such reasonably incidental occupancy, cumulatively will not cause (or are not causing) significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.

To the extent that respondents fear the Forest Service might cite an operator who is camping on NFS for the operator's failure to submit a notice of intent to operate when one is required, those fears are groundless. None of the prohibitions set forth in 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, including those adopted by this final rule, prohibit an action requiring a notice of intent to operate. Rather, the prohibitions applicable to occupancy of lands in conjunction with locatable mineral operations that require prior notice or approval apply when an operator acts ''without *** an operating plan when such authorization is required.'' For purposes of 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, Sec. 261.2 defines the term ''operating plan'' to mean a plan of operations that has been approved. There is no prohibition applicable to acting without a notice of intent to operate when it is required by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.


So that is what is meant by "occupation" in the new (2008) regs. The Forest Service are stuck with it now, you can hold them to those definitions in a court of law. The courts can not allow "deference" to any other definition of what those regs mean.

Also by publishing those definitions in the Federal Register all Forest Service personnel are now put on actual and constructive notice of what those regs mean. No excuses.

Now do you understand how important it is that you have written proof that the district rangers intend to enforce those regulations without regard to their actual meaning? Color of law. Intimidation and harassment.

Woof!
1866

Also note, that in the note, it was forwarded on to many employees of USFS. That is not standard policy. It is however, putting the others on notice that "Hefty" is a problem for the agency and is to made an example of.
Wallrat

I went to court on the 6th...was offered three options; guilty, not guilty, and nolo contentre (pay a fine and it goes away). I offered him an option too; dismiss. That was good for a laugh, and we go to court on Oct. 2nd. I intend to use McClure, Lex (in case they go towards the 'occupation), and since my work was both casual use, exploratory,  and there was no significant disturbance, so there was no need for an NOI.  Luck to the Crossmans, we'll all need it.
NCrossman

Yes, wallrat we all will need it. I don't know what time you were there in court on Monday, but they got a new prosecuting attorney and he lives in garden valley. I am going to call him on my case because they refused me my right to a speedy trial. Also, your trial is a day after mine.

Did you have a judge or just a negotiator? Obviously they weren't there for me.

Keep us posted.
legalminer

Any updates?
I think we're all very interested to see how this is resolved.
Hope it's looking good for your defense.
NCrossman

Wallrat wrote:
Sorry to be tardy, I don't get out of the bush too often. Here are the citation details:36 CFR 261.10 (k) citation, "use and/or occupancy of NFS lands without special-use auth. (mining without a permit)". Then it says I can pay a $175 fine, or appear. No date given, it says "To be". That's it, though he did include the address for the magistrate. at 550 W Fort St. in Boise.


Wallrat, Just curious?  Why did they send you to Ada county court house?  How come, if you were cited in Idaho City (or Boise County) they didn't give you a date to appear in Idaho City at the Boise County court house?  550 W. Fort st. in Boise... hmmm. that is interesting.  I would suggest that they dismiss it on the grounds that it didn't happen in Ada county?  Or am I just reading all of this wrong? Let me know. I just noticed it and was wondering.  Thanks
Wallrat

No idea why I'd be sent to the Boise courthouse, except that it's a Federal citation. I was all ready for court, with McClure, a definition of "Significant Disturbance" [from 36 CFR, section 9], then I got a call from the Prosecutor, where I told him there was no significant disturbance, and so I had no idea why they cited me. We talked a bit about it, then in a couple of weeks I got another call............DISMISSED! So, it would not have happened without the knowledge I found here. As  a side note, after my citation I went down and put in an NOI. At the time there was a temporary ban on either approving or disapproving NOI's because of the Karuk suit. So, after 15 days, there was still no action on it, and I went back to work. Really, this was a win/win. No NOI to operate under, and a dismissal. I owe you guys a bunch, and can't express how thankful I am for all the help.
NCrossman

Thanks for the update wallrat. Next time, don't even bother with the noi. It just puts you on radar. I believe as of today the forest service is looking for myself and john, but even though they know we are there... somewhere, they can't find us. Part of the reason is because we have no permits, are under no radar except for my court stuff, but other than that, we plan on moving back to our claims soon.

Congrats wallrat, but don't be surprised if they show up again. It is just a matter of time. And next time, the planned harassment will only be more detailed. But continue to work your machine and get gold, I believe we miners have a chance at taking these bullies down.

Good luck and keep in touch.
Ciao!
Wallrat

you may be right about the next harassment but I'll videotape all future 'meetings' with the Forest Circus, and anything I'm doing in the future was on the NOI that I gave them. Since they didn't approve or disapprove it, then I'm thinking they have no leg to stand on. I shouldn't get too cocky, but a double win first time at bat is making me feel pretty optimistic. Luck to you on your upcoming trial. Go get 'em.
beebarjay

Filing and performance (per law) of a valuable Mineral Mining Claim requires the intent to conduct the activity of mining and maintaining said mining claim in accordance with the law(s).  I believe you can contend that your annual assessment work is your proof of intent per the law that dictates intent.  So having an approved active mining claim is in fact an NOI per my contention.  "Notice of Intent"  Seems pretty simple to me.  But then again there are a lot of dummies out there that need reminded of the law(s).  


bejay
Hefty

Wallrat wrote:
No idea why I'd be sent to the Boise courthouse, except that it's a Federal citation. I was all ready for court, with McClure, a definition of "Significant Disturbance" [from 36 CFR, section 9], then I got a call from the Prosecutor, where I told him there was no significant disturbance, and so I had no idea why they cited me. We talked a bit about it, then in a couple of weeks I got another call............DISMISSED! So, it would not have happened without the knowledge I found here. As  a side note, after my citation I went down and put in an NOI. At the time there was a temporary ban on either approving or disapproving NOI's because of the Karuk suit. So, after 15 days, there was still no action on it, and I went back to work. Really, this was a win/win. No NOI to operate under, and a dismissal. I owe you guys a bunch, and can't express how thankful I am for all the help.



Congrats on the DISMISSED!
Did the Prosecutor give you a reason for it? Did he send you any paperwork with the reason? Or just by word of mouth?

Hefty
NCrossman

Advice. Make sure your recording device is:
1. Easily accessed
2. Easy to flip on & to operate
3. Easy to record and is working
and finally,
4. You have great image quality, audio quality and no one is talking over it. I know it is hard but clear audio is better than chaotic audio.

My lesson learned.

See you around in Idaho City!!
Wallrat

beebarjay wrote:
Filing and performance (per law)


While I read and understand the words, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page with you here. By this I assume you mean doing the required assessment work, after legally staking and filing?

beebarjay wrote:

of a valuable Mineral Mining Claim requires the intent to conduct the activity of mining and maintaining said mining claim in accordance with the law(s).  I believe you can contend that your annual assessment work is your proof of intent per the law that dictates intent.



How does proof of intent relate to the supposed requirement to file an NOI or POO? I can understand that it shows you intend to hold and maintain the claim, but you lose me beyond that. You're saying that simply having and maintaining a claim is a de-facto notice of intent to the USFS that you intend to mine it, and so you needn't file one with them? Does that fly in a court?

beebarjay wrote:
 So having an approved active mining claim is in fact an NOI per my contention.  "Notice of Intent"  Seems pretty simple to me.  But then again there are a lot of dummies out there that need reminded of the law(s).  
Yep...I'm one of them.
beebarjay

Give thought to the words in everything a miner does.  Understand all the relevant meaning and definitions of the words in all the laws/rules/regs.  When a claim is filed in accordance with the laws, the filling is for what?  Is it just to have the mineral rights?  Or does it intail more?  Does the act of having a claim intail working the claim?  What is working a claim mean?  Does it mean you are going to extract the mineral?  Are you required to perform?  Is not having a valid claim create the intent to mine/extract the mineral from the surface/subsurface?  So why would one be required to submit an NOI?

Then of course one must consider who the NOI would be submitted to?.....The USFS or BLM?  How does either agency take an authoritative position over the actions of the miner?  The miner is on Public Domain not Public Lands.  Both agencies are Public Lands management agencies.  

But the point is that the miner is granted the rights to perform.  No where in the laws does it say anything about the need to notify either agency that you are going to perform....unless your mining activity does something that is unduly needed for mining.  Of course the agencies want you to submit to their authority....because once you do you have entered into an agreement to abide by their rules.

In order to maintain the Mineral Estate Grant. under the color of law, one must hold the claim correctly and ellude any attempts by agencies to intrude on the lawful activity of mining.  

So the key is to know all the laws/rules/regs and specifically all the savings clauses that keep a miner in a position of maintaing his Grant.

I just posted a lot of information on another thread regarding the POO and NOI.  If an agency makes a request for an action by the miner one must ask "by what authority is the request made?".......Then it is up to the miner to show why he is NOT subject to such a request.  (If any request is made ask for the specific CFR used to make the request)  The laws/rules/regs are all on this forum and I would suggest studying all the information provided and placing the information in a portfolio that is easy to access.  But it would be wise to gather all the savings clauses that show where agencies fail to have authority over the miner and his activities necessary for mining.

As miners we would like to have each of our situations answered by others.  We would like to have someone tell us exactly what to do and when.  But the reality is that the miner must know all the laws/rules/regs and how to apply them in each unique situation.  

The earlier reference to dummies was not directed towards miners, but to the agency members/staff who act as an "authority" where none exists.

The most common mistake made by miners is to assume that when a government agent proposes authority they fail to understand that the miner does not come under the authority of the agencies unless the miner is doing more than just mining, and doing other things that are not part of an act necessary to mine.

It is the agency that brings forth "significant" as it is not written in the law(s) governing mining.  
Keep in mind the agencies attempt to obtain control and authority where none exists.  It is up to the miner to convey to such agencies that the Mineral Estate Grant is the law and the agencies are in the wrong when they ( gov agent)attempt to intrude on a miner who has maintained his granted rights.

The miner/claim holder/prospector has been given Congressional protection from such agencies as the BLM and USFS, but it is up to the miner to maintain that position.  Agencies are not there to help a miner do it....they are always there attempting to intrude.

bejay
Hefty

Good Job on your last two posts Bejay.
As for me... I am done digging for info on mining laws. I am going back to digging for GOLD!
Have all my material on this subject in my folder that comes with me. I am getting fat aka Hefty  sitting here reading. I do feel that we as a group have accomplished alot on this forum and I feel honored to be a part.

Hefty
beebarjay

Understand Hefty.  Beings we were a couple of the first to get into all this stuff it is understandable that you have been able to gain great knowledge from this web site.

You are one of the heroes after the fact: as you successfully utilized the "law" info to place the USFS in need of redemption.  Glad you have gained the knowledge necessary to continue mining; or challenge those who dare to intrude on your lawful rights.  I am sure you will continue to check in from time to time and I know you will be watching the Oregon challenges.

Good luck digging in the dirt/streams for that yellow gold.  I have a new challenge awaiting me on an Az claim and must utilize even new legal technical moves to secure my possession.  Thus it seems there are never ending situations that arise requiring a great amount of knowledge and and skill.

Stay in touch and feel free to jump onto the forum when you find the urge.

bejay
Wallrat

Spamming asshat.
Me Gold Seeker

Wallrat wrote:
Spamming asshat.


The spammer has been removed/banned from the forum, also all of his posts were deleted.
GoldPatriot

Me Gold Seeker wrote:
Wallrat wrote:
Spamming asshat.


The spammer has been removed/banned from the forum, also all of his posts were deleted.
I'm doing my best to keep the spammers out of this site.  Sorry for the ones that make it to the board, but they'll be outted as fast as I find them!!!

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home