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
John Crossman

Idaho BLM

Talked to a lady with the BLM to get info on mining claims and one of my questions was, can we stay on our claim for the three months we will be working it this summer. The answer is no 14 days is the federal regulation and we (the BLM) do not allow that. You have to move at least quarter of a mile to a new location nevery fourteen days. I was also told it is better for us to work with and follow their regulations or I could lose my right to mine my claim. I was also told I have no right to the land just the minerals. hmmmm? Grrrr. what to do? I have read the laws and have pretty good grasp but it doesn't seem to matter when they are making the rules!
Glindberg

John, heres a link to the BLM reg 43 USC 1732 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1732  

Pay particular attention to the end of it (heres a copy and paste)

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. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

Now read the 1872 mining act

Gary
Glindberg

John heres another paste and copy. I realize its National Forest but I wanted you to pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

Many of you seem to have had difficulty with the Forest Service employees in relation to your right to extract valuable minerals under the mining acts. Others have expressed fear that they may be arrested or have their equipment seized by Forest Service Employees.

I offer the following discussion of the laws that created the National Forests and their relationship to the mineral estate grant to assist you in understanding your right to mine the public lands designated as National Forest. Education is the greatest weapon you have against government employees who overstep their lawful authority. If you remember only these two things you will be in a much stronger position to deal with obstructive Forest Service employees.

1. The Forest Service is a SURFACE management agency of the Agriculture Department. The Mineral Estate Grant (our right to prospect, claim and mine the public lands) is a SUBSURFACE grant. The Forest Service has no right whatsoever to control prospecting or mining. The Forest Service only has the right to protect those SURFACE resources not directly involved in mineral extraction.

2. Those Forest Service employees work for YOU. They are YOUR employees and as a member of the public, on public lands, you have a right to instruct them on their lawful job AND to insist they do it. Title 16 of the United States Code contains all the laws relating to the Forest Service. If it's not in Title 16 it's not a law about the National Forests.

Lets see what Congress intended when they created the Forests and the Forest Service:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 475

Section 475. Purposes for which national forests may be established and administered

All public lands designated and reserved prior to June 4, 1897, by the President of the United States under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, the orders for which shall be and remain in full force and effect, unsuspended and unrevoked, and all public lands that may hereafter be set aside and reserved as national forests under said section, shall be as far as practicable controlled and administered in accordance with the following provisions. No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of said section, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.

OK so Congress says that National Forests are established to:

1. Protect and improve the Forest within the Boundaries

OR

2. To secure favorable conditions for water flow

AND

3. To furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens.



Congress also tells us what Forests are NOT established for:

1. They are NOT to include valuable mineral land.

AND

2. They are NOT to include valuable agricultural land.



Interesting huh? What other things has Congress said the Forests are for?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 528

Section 528. Development and administration of renewable surface resources for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services; Congressional declaration of policy and purpose

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The purposes of sections 528 to 531 of this title are declared to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as set forth in section 475 of this title. Nothing herein shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish on the national forests. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands or to affect the use or administration of Federal lands not within national forests.

So Congress later came along and added outdoor recreation, range, wildlife and fish purposes. But they make sure that everybody understands that this still doesn't affect the mineral resources found on the National Forest. Are you seeing a trend here? Congress knew that if they were going to put some agency in charge of all this public land they had to tell them what authority they had to enforce laws on that land. So they added Title 472:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 472

Section 472. Laws affecting national forest lands

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands reserved under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, or sections supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any of such lands.

So the Secretary of Agriculture gets to have his Forest Service employees enforce the law on National Forest Lands EXCEPT those laws about mining "surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting". Seems Congress really doesn't want the Forest Service involved at all in your right to mine! So what did Congress have to say about how all these new Forest laws affect mining itself?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 482

Section 482. Mineral lands; restoration to public domain; location and entry

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the President, after sixty days notice thereof, published in two papers of general circulation in the State or Territory wherein any national forest is situated, and near the said national forest, any public lands embraced within the limits of any such forest which, after due examination by personal inspection of a competent person appointed for that purpose by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain. And any mineral lands in any national forest which have been or which may be shown to be such, and subject to entry under the existing mining laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto, shall continue to be subject to such location and entry, notwithstanding any provisions contained in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title.

WOW! Congress felt so strongly about the right to the mineral estate that they made a law saying if there was better use for mining that the Forest could be turned back to the public. Even more important they made it clear that you can still make claims and mine in the National Forests and THE LAWS ABOUT FOREST USE DID NOT APPLY TO LANDS SHOWN TO BE MINERAL. They were even specific and said sections 473-482 and section 551 can not prevent you from making a claim!!!  So what are these Forest Laws that have no effect on your right to claim a mineral discovery (location and entry)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 473

Section 473. Revocation, modification, or vacation of orders or proclamations establishing national forests

The President of the United States is authorized and empowered to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all Executive orders and proclamations or any part thereof issued under section 471 [1] of this title, from time to time as he shall deem best for the public interests. By such modification he may reduce the area or change the boundary lines or may vacate altogether any order creating a national forest.

So if the President modifies or eliminates a National Forest the claims are still valid.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 474

Section 474. Surveys; plats and field notes; maps; effect under Act June 4, 1897

Surveys, field notes, and plats returned from the survey of public lands designated as national forests undertaken under the supervision of the Director of the United States Geological Survey in accordance with provisions of Act June 4, 1897, chapter 2, section 1, thirtieth Statutes, page 34, shall have the same legal force and effect as surveys, field notes, and plats returned through the Field Surveying Service; and such surveys, which include subdivision surveys under the rectangular system, approved by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate as in other cases, and properly certified copies thereof shall be filed in the respective land offices of the districts in which such lands are situated, as in other cases. All laws inconsistent with the provisions hereof are declared inoperative as respects such survey. A copy of every topographic map and other maps showing the distribution of the forests, together with such field notes as may be taken relating thereto, shall be certified thereto by the Director of the Survey and filed in the Bureau of Land Management.

Makes sense that they aren't allowed to modify your claim by making a survey.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 475

Section 475. Purposes for which national forests may be established and administered

We already looked at 475 above. This just makes it clear that an existing claim is not to be included in a new National Forest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 476

Section 476 has been repealed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 477

Section 477. Use of timber and stone by settlers

The Secretary of Agriculture may permit, under regulations to be prescribed by him, the use of timber and stone found upon national forests, free of charge, by bona fide settlers, miners, residents, and prospectors for minerals, for firewood, fencing, buildings, mining, prospecting, and other domestic purposes, as may be needed by such persons for such purposes; such timber to be used within the State or Territory, respectively, where such national forests may be located.

The right to the timber found on your claim was established in the 1872 Mining act and is repeated here. Notice that timber for all the ordinary uses for mining are specifically free.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 478

Section 478. Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting

Nothing in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers residing within the boundaries of national forests, or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof. Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.

Well they can't lock you out or prevent you from prospecting or mining. Remember that these laws are specifically NOT applicable to claiming mineral land. Your right to travel to your claim is already preserved in the 1866 and 1872 Acts. Congress seems to want to make that fact doubly clear for the Forest Service.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 479

Section 479. Sites for schools and churches

The settlers residing within the exterior boundaries of national forests, or in the vicinity thereof, may maintain schools and churches within such national forest, and for that purpose may occupy any part of the said national forest, not exceeding two acres for each schoolhouse and one acre for a church.

I don't think I need to explain this one. The right of the people to use the public lands for education and worship are well established.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 480

Section 480. Civil and criminal jurisdiction

The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.

The reason this one is explicitly excluded is that when you are on your claim you are not legally IN the National Forest. You are ON a mineral estate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 481

Section 481. Use of waters

All waters within the boundaries of national forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.

The prior right to the water needed for mining was already granted in the 1866 Act.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 551

Section 551. Protection of national forests; rules and regulations

The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this section, sections 473 to 478 and 479 to 482 of this title or such rules and regulations shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Any person charged with the violation of such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge specially designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided for in section 3401 (b) to (e) of title 18.

As a mineral estate grantee your mining claim entry is specifically exempted from this law under Section 482. The very nature of mining disrupts the natural environment. One way or another, if you are going to mine a valuable mineral at some point you WILL dig a hole and you WILL need a place to store,and work, the results of your digging. Your right to extract minerals is by definition NOT a destruction or depredation - it is a RIGHT pure and simple. These laws giving power to the Forest Service are very clear the mineral grant is to be respected and prospecting and mining were to be accomodated.

The lands outside your mineral estate, that have not been shown to be mineral in character, ARE a subject of this law. You have no right to destroy or depredate the Forest lands that are not contained within your claimed mineral grant. The Forest Service has every right and duty to protect those lands NOT proven to be mineral in character. Please do not exceed your mineral grant - it only injures the people's land and gives ammunition to those Forest employees who have a limited understanding of their obligation to those who have chosen to participate in the mineral grant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few more sections of the Forest law that don't refer to minerals specifically but DO have legal effect for miners and prospectors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 532

Section 532. Roads and trails system; Congressional findings and declaration of policy


The Congress hereby finds and declares that the construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service is essential if increasing demands for timber, recreation, and other uses of such lands are to be met; that the existence of such a system would have the effect, among other things, of increasing the value of timber and other resources tributary to such roads; and that such a system is essential to enable the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter called the Secretary) to provide for intensive use, protection, development, and management of these lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.

I don't think most Forest Supervisors have been paying much attention to the Congressional findings and declaration of policy. This is supposed to be binding guidance from Congress to the Secretary of Agriculture on what they mean when the issue of roads and development and use of the land comes up. It's a law instructing the Secretary to favor more roads and more development of the Forest lands. It actually says "intensive use" - not less. It mandates the principle of "sustained yield of products and services" and insists the Forest Service allow "multiple use".  Congress says a system of roads and trails are "essential" to meet increasing demands of Forest use. The Congress says that a system of roads would have the effect of... "increasing the value of timber and other resources tributary to such roads".

Keep this law in mind the next time a Forest employee says something stupid like "It's our job to keep development out of the Forest". These are direct instructions from that Forest employee's biggest boss, the people speaking through Congress, that just the opposite is true.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 524

Section 524. Rights-of-way for dams, reservoirs, or water plants for municipal, mining, and milling purposes

Rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of dams, reservoirs, water plants, ditches, flumes, pipes, tunnels, and canals, within and across the national forests of the United States, are granted to citizens and corporations of the United States for municipal or mining purposes, and for the purposes of the milling and reduction of ores, during the period of their beneficial use, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and subject to the laws of the State or Territory in which said forests are respectively situated.

Bet you didn't know that you had another Grant besides the mineral estate grant did you?

Here is a grant of the right to build and maintain "dams, reservoirs, water plants, ditches, flumes, pipes, tunnels, and canals" across the Forest for "mining purposes, and for the purposes of the milling and reduction of ores". That wasn't spelled out in the brochure on Forest Use your local National Forest provides for education, was it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these laws are current Federal law on National Forests (USC Title 16 Chapter 2 - National Forests). In the Eastern United States there are purchased Forests known as "Weeks Law" Forests and many of these laws do not necessarily apply to them. In the 11 Western States these are the current, and applicable laws. Each Section is presented in whole with no excluded words or phrases.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember - under the mining acts if you are not a citizen of the United States or have not stated your intention to become one you may NOT participate in the mineral estate grant. If you are not in the actual act of prospecting (exploring), staking (locating), claiming (making entry) or mining ALL of these National Forest laws apply to you. Avoid camping or "recreational" prospecting and mining if you wish to enjoy the right to the mineral estate that Congress has been so careful to preserve for you.
Glindberg

John another link and paste:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/30/22

Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.

now a def by bouviers dictionary

OCCUPANCY. The taking possession of those things corporeal which are without an owner, with an intention of appropriating them to one's own use. Pothier defines it to be the title by which one acquires property in a thing which belongs to nobody, by taking possession of it, with design of acquiring. Tr. du Dr. de Propriete n. 20. The Civil Code of Lo. art. 3375, nearly following Pothier, defines occupancy to be "a mode of acquiring property by which a thing, which belongs to nobody, becomes the property of the person who took possession of it, with an intention of acquiring a right of ownership in it."

2. To constitute occupancy there must be a taking of a thing corporeal, belonging to nobody with an intention of becoming the owner of it.

3. - 1. The taking must be such as the nature of the time requires; if, for example, two persons were walking on the sea-shore, and one of them should perceive a precious stone, and say he claimed it as his own, he would, acquire no property in it by occupancy, if the other seized it first.

4. - 2. The thing must be susceptible of being possessed; an incorporeal right, therefore, as an annuity, could not be claimed by occupancy.

5. - 3. The thing taken must belong to nobody; for if it were in the possession of another the taking would be larceny, and if it had been lost and not abandoned, the taker would have only a qualified property in it, and would hold the possession for the owner.

6. - 4. The taking must have been with an intention of becoming the owner; if therefore a person non compos mentis should take such a thing he would not acquire a property in it, because he had no intention to do so. Co. Litt. 41, b.

7. Among the numerous ways of acquiring property by occupancy, the following are considered as the most usual.

8. - 1. Goods captured in war, from public enemies, were, by the common law, adjudged to belong to the captors. Finch's law, 28; 178; 1 Wills. 211; 1 Chit. Com. Law, 377 to 512; 2 Wooddes. 435 to 457; 2 Bl. Com. 401. But by the law of nations such things are now considered as primarily vested in the sovereign, and as belonging to individual captors only to the extent and under such regulations as positive laws may prescribe. 2 Kent's Com. 290. By the policy of law, goods belonging to an enemy are considered as not being the property of any one. Lecon's Elem. du Dr. Rom. §348; 2 Bl. Com. 401.

9. - 2. When movables are casually lost by the owner and unreclaimed, or designedly abandoned by him, they belong to the fortunate finder who seizes them, by right of occupancy.

10. - 3. The benefit of the elements, the light, air, and water, can only be appropriated by occupancy.

11. - 4. When animals ferae naturae are captured, they become the property of the occupant while he retains the possession; for if an animal so taken should escape, the captor loses all the property he had in it. 2 Bl. Com. 403.

12. - 5. It is by virtue of his occupancy that the owner of lands is entitled to the emblements.

13. - 6. Property acquired by accession, is also grounded on the right of occupancy.

14. - 7. Goods acquired by means of confusion may be referred to the same right.

15. - 8. The right of inventors of machines or of authors of literary productions is also founded on occupancy. Vide, generally, Kent, Com. Lect. 36; 16 Vin. Ab. 69; Bac. Ab. Estate for life and occupancy; 1 Brown's Civ. Law, 234; 4 Toull. n. 4; Lecons du Droit Rom. §342, et seq.; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

OCCUPANT or OCCUPIER. One who has the actual use or possession of a thing.

2. He derives his title of occupancy either by taking possession of a thing without an owner, or by purchase, or gift of the thing from the owner, or it descends to him by due course of law.

3. When the occupiers of a house are entitled to a privilege in consequence of such occupation, as to pass along a way, to enjoy a pew, and the like, a person who occupies a part of such house, however small, is entitled to some right, and cannot be deprived of it. 2 B. & A. 164; S. C. Eng. C. L. R. 50; 1 Chit. Pr. 209, 210; 4 Com. Dig. 64; 5 Com. Dig. 199.

OCCUPATION. Use or tenure; as, the house is in the occupation of A B. A trade, business or mystery; as the occupation of a printer. Occupancy. (q. v.)

2. In another sense occupation signifies a putting out of a man's freehold in time of war. Co. Litt. s. 412. See Dependeney; Posession.

OCCUPAVIT. The name of a writ, which lies to recover the possession of lands, when they have been taken from the possession of the owner by occupation. (q. v.) 3 Tho. Co. Litt. 41.

OCCUPIER. One who is in the enjoyment of a thing.

2. He may be the occupier by virtue of a lawful contract, either express or implied, or without any contract. The occupier is, in general, bound to make the necessary repairs to premises he occupies the cleansing and repairing of drains and sewers, therefore, is prima facie the duty of him who occupies the premises. 3 Q. B. R. 449; S. C. 43 Eng. C. L. R. 814.

Gary
Glindberg

One more link and paste about the surface statement made:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/30/26

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.

I think that pretty much sums it up, I'm sure others may be able to include more info on the subject

Gary
Glindberg

Also realize all this is pointless if you have signed away your rights for the benefit of being regulated (the loaded gun) ie POO or NOI for example.

Gary
Glindberg

Posted by Bejay under GPAA thread:

Current Mining Law;


Per the "United States Code"



The following text contains laws in effect on Jan 7th 2011.........so it is current law....not old stuff.



But really it is as it is verbatum of the 1872 Mining Law.




§26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.

(R.S. §2322.)




§35. Placer claims; entry and proceedings for patent under provisions applicable to vein or lode claims; conforming entry to legal subdivisions and surveys; limitation of claims; homestead entry of segregated agricultural land

Claims usually called “placers,” including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands. And where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the 10th day of May 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral land in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead purposes.

(R.S. §§2329, 2331; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §4, 26 Stat. 1097.)








Amazing stuff.  And if you apply the words of "Public Domain" it excludes USFS and BLM authority.



But then lets look at where the USFS and BLM gettheir authority ...FLPMA.....and see what it says:



Consider this as well:


Where both the Forest Service and the BLM are required to adhere the congressional public land management man

date of the Federal Land Management Policy Act, FLPMA, which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that, “.


. . 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





any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, impairing, obstructing

or closing access against, or managing the surface of Locatable mineral deposit property on public domain

in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States

of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort.

{Now just how do they think they have power over any miner who exists under the Mineral Estate Grant on the public domain?}



Puiblic Domain is not Public Land.  The miner enters public lands and as soon as he begins to prospect and search for gold or other valuable minerals the Public Land he entered becomes "HIS" Public Domain.  



But of course a miner can throw away this aspect of the law and agree to accept and acquire a permit from an agency and remove himself from the "Public Domain" Mineral Estate Grant and stay on the Public Lands which are under the authoritative rule of the USFS, BLM and other agencies wanting a piece of the miner.



americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org




bejay



Gary
lastchancelarry

John,
did you file a NOI and a POO? I cannot remember and if you did then you do have to foloow their "lead." And if not then you risk the chance of going to court or getting fined but what we post is the law..they just refuse to go by the law...The professors on here say we need to start standing up one at a time and challenging their authority and eventually they will have to adhere to the law when they are shown to be in the wrong repeadetly..
lastchancelarry

boise national forewst and no permits saw it on the other thread
John Crossman

No permits

Sorry got busy with getting equipment ready for this years adventure.
Never filed a permit other than the first year when we got a water permit, and it was ten dollars per person even my kids had one so they could operate the equipment. Hey if I didn't need a water permit can I sue them for requiring me to obtain one? I want my money back!
lastchancelarry

John, I would just hang low,not bring attention to yourself and they should leave you alone...then kick ass and take names when/if they do come

       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