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
dorado

Technical Question

If I have written permission to be on another person's claim, does that make me an operator in the legal sense?

Thanks Confused
Woof!

What an interesting concept!

You come on a law forum and want others to give their opinions about what the law is?

I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of law dorado. Law is not based on how you feel about something and no matter how many people vote on what they think a law is it does not change the actual meaning of the law.

Perhaps you would like to start again dorado. A reasonable examination of the term "operator" might be an appropriate study to begin with.

Or were you thinking this was facebook or a reality "mining" show call in?
dorado

" You come on a law forum and want others to give their opinions about what the law is?"  

 I joined this forum to learn about my rights as a miner and to network with other people.  I did this on the advice of some good folks I met in other forums.  I posted this question I had, after I studied my materials and could not find the answer.
 Additionally, I posted on the advice of another member of this group whom I spoke with over the phone. He suggested I do so because "It's a real good group" and I am "one more in the pot" learning and standing against the regulators with like minded people.

"I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of law dorado. Law is not based on how you feel about something and no matter how many people vote on what they think a law is it does not change the actual meaning of the law. "

 I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of how to speak to someone and make new folks feel welcome.    I know what the hell law is you rude ass. I wanted to see how many others had the same question I did. That's why I set up the poll. Jeez.  

"Perhaps you would like to start again dorado. A reasonable examination of the term "operator" might be an appropriate study to begin with."

Perhaps you would like to get a drink and calm the hell down.  You have no idea who you're talking to.  I thought you wanted to strengthen the ranks with like minded people?

"Or were you thinking this was face book or a reality "mining" show call in?"

No, I was thinking this was a place where I could go to learn amongst mature like minded people , but it's clear this is a place where you ask a simple question and get treated like a friggin 12 year old.

You have essentially attacked me stupidly and you have seriously pissed me off so I'll tell you what, you can kiss my ass you rude bastard, I'm done here.  I got in 1 post and then got ran off.  Wow.  Way to go Woof.  You're really rakin' in the members now.  Such a classy fellow.  No thanks, I'll do the home study course.  Delete my account before the rest of the normal people can see what you've done.
Woof!

dorado wrote:
" You come on a law forum and want others to give their opinions about what the law is?"  

 I joined this forum to learn about my rights as a miner and to network with other people.  I did this on the advice of some good folks I met in other forums.  I posted this question I had, after I studied my materials and could not find the answer.
 Additionally, I posted on the advice of another member of this group whom I spoke with over the phone. He suggested I do so because "It's a real good group" and I am "one more in the pot" learning and standing against the regulators with like minded people.

You did not post a question - you posted a poll.

dorado wrote:
"I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of law dorado. Law is not based on how you feel about something and no matter how many people vote on what they think a law is it does not change the actual meaning of the law. "

 I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of how to speak to someone and make new folks feel welcome.    I know what the hell law is you rude ass. I wanted to see how many others had the same question I did. That's why I set up the poll. Jeez.  

Perhaps your poll should have asked if anyone else had the same question dorado. As it stands your poll in no way could tell you how many other people had the same question.

dorado wrote:
"Perhaps you would like to start again dorado. A reasonable examination of the term "operator" might be an appropriate study to begin with."

Perhaps you would like to get a drink and calm the hell down.  You have no idea who you're talking to.  I thought you wanted to strengthen the ranks with like minded people?

I don't drink nor am I upset. I don't know who I am talking to but I'm starting to get a feel for your way of dealing with those who might disagree with you.  Laughing

You are mistaken, I have no desire to strengthen any "ranks". My purpose for posting here is to discuss the law of mining. I would hope that others may may use the knowledge I have obtained through hard work and experience.

dorado wrote:
"Or were you thinking this was face book or a reality "mining" show call in?"

No, I was thinking this was a place where I could go to learn amongst mature like minded people , but it's clear this is a place where you ask a simple question and get treated like a friggin 12 year old.

You have essentially attacked me stupidly and you have seriously pissed me off so I'll tell you what, you can kiss my ass you rude bastard, I'm done here.  I got in 1 post and then got ran off.  Wow.  Way to go Woof.  You're really rakin' in the members now.  Such a classy fellow.  No thanks, I'll do the home study course.  Delete my account before the rest of the normal people can see what you've done.


I'm pretty sure your "home study course" does not include instructions in how to deal with an aggressive pine cone cop or an uncooperative judge. Should you choose to use the same social skills you demonstrate in this post when dealing with uninformed LEOs or Administrative law "judges" you may very well get a harsh lesson in how not to win friends and influence people.

As for myself - I'm pretty used to pissing people off. You know winning cases against gov agencies and shutting down BSers is kind of my MO. They tend to be pretty POed when they lose. I'm surprised that any miner would be so thin skinned they couldn't take some constructive criticism. I will repeat:

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to start again dorado. A reasonable examination of the term "operator" might be an appropriate study to begin with.


I am not a moderator dorado. You will have to find an administrator or moderator to do your bidding, If you wish to remove yourself from this forum it will probably require an effort on your part..

I would hope you would reconsider your decision to stomp off in indignation. Not for my sake but for the person that felt you might find some value on this forum.
beebarjay

Dorado.....I am the moderator.  I believe you injected a "tone" by Woof that does not exist.  I know Woof is trying hard to convey that you should take a step back and re-think how you approached the issue that you wanted to obtain an understanding of.  Woof is trying to bring you up to speed with how the law is applicable and how to move forward.

Often times the "TONE" aspect of these discussions is taken out of text.  Woof has no interest in name calling and is not trying to discount your inqirey......re-direct and correct yes!     Understand one thing:  Woof is a technician of the law....and he is a stickler for being more than precise.  If you allow him to advise without mistaking his precision for a personal attack you will find that your ability to gain great knowledge is obtainable.

Woof is a master of precision.....and it is what makes the application of law so important.  His directing you is not an attack as you so perceive it.

bejay
dorado

Bejay,

 I have seen your posts from the other forum and view you as an asset to what the collective is trying to accomplish here.
 I respect your very well written and directed response to this mess as much as I respect your contribution and knowledge on these issues.  If only others could be conscientious enough to do the same. I understand what you are saying.  Point taken.

 But I don't know Woof from Adam.  Now that I have read your response, I can place him in that personality type.  I can see his mindset.  But this guy is a bit rough around the edges.  He pushes buttons and pisses people off.  He has so stated.  
 
 I just want to learn the facts so I am an asset, not a burden to this fight we are all waging.  I am seeing that he is tolerated because of his considerable knowledge and experience.  I get it.  I will concede that I probably need him for those reasons as well.

 I am not going to go round and round with him or anybody else about this incident.  I took his response as a slap and he needs to know that.  Now he does.  The thing that bothers me the most  is I still do not have an answer to  my question which was the original object of the exercise.  I can see that I need to go over my documents again, dig deeper, and find the answer myself  because I did not word it correctly or follow a format that was to his liking.  

 I wish to apologize to the rest of the group for my words which were Exactly what I meant to say although I realize now I should have done it in a Private message to Woof and spared everybody else the drama.  I am at fault for that.  

 Woof, I handled that badly because you pissed me off.  I did the poll as a last minute thing.  An exercise to generate interest and response; and to gauge others' knowledge or the lack thereof.  I will concede that I should have made the poll question different than the Original question that I DID ask.  We rubbed each other the wrong way right outta the gate. Passionate people tend to do that sometimes.

One last thing to bejay:

"If you allow him to advise without mistaking his precision for a personal attack you will find that your ability to gain great knowledge is obtainable."

 I will allow him to advise me on Mining issues and the like, and I will appreciate and respect his precision as long as he understands and does not mistake my precision;  if you poke me with a sharp stick I'm gonna take it from you and shove it in your eye socket.  Just the way I am.  I am a stickler for mutual respect among humans.
Woof!

Let's see if we can move forward with this subject.

First let's look and see what mining law governs "operators".

Who can come up with the precise number of times that the words "operator" or "operation" are written in the Mining Acts? Please give the number of times as well as the entire sentence the word is found in.

This should be a pretty easy exercise as all you have to do is search the text of those Mining Acts. They are are right on this site to make it easier. Simply choose "Edit" then "Find" from your browser menu, type in the word and hit the Enter" key on your keyboard.

Woof!
Hefty

1870 act = 0
1872 act = 0

Anybody else?
Hefty

1866 act = none, nada, zippo.
dorado

I re-read the acts and again, did not find anything.  I did notice some other language though that I need to review while I was reading the PDF copies I have in my binder.  

I did not know about "choose "Edit" then "Find" from your browser menu, type in the word and hit the Enter" key on your keyboard. "

Good tip.  Thanks  Very Happy

I see no language defining an operator or an operation.  It must be in some other document I do not have.
beebarjay

Remember the law is the law...wwritten by Congress.  The words in the law determine the direction/action that can be taken by an agency per US Code and further guidlines such as FLPMA.  Now agencies tend to extrapolate their rules/regs from their interpretation of what the law means.  Words matter!  So in your question dorodo you ask it pertaining to the legal aspect of "operator".  So Woof is going to take your question apart and make you focus on the words you used and the method by which you tried to ask it pertaining to law.   Again he will focus you towards YOUR method and words used.  The relevancy is in the details.

I know one thing for sure.  Woof is not going to do it for you.  He is going to put you on a leash and help lead you down the right path.
So where in the LAW is the word operator.  Rethink your question and approach in asking it.

Surely you have seen enough legal lawyer movies to know that often it is how you ask the question as to whether or not the question can be legally asked in a court of law.  A question can be asked with objection or it can be asked and allowed without it.  I can see other ways of writing your inquirey that will be applicable.  But I am not sure what application you seek as I am not sure how you want it applied.  It (operator) is not pertinent to the law.  It may be pertinent to some agency rule/reg but then I don't know which one.....you would have to cite it.  Then of course the USFS and BLM do NOT make law(s).  So far I find it difficult to grasp your question and your reasoning for using a poll.

So Woof's point is well taken.....by those of us who have been led down this path many times.  I know he can find it very "chuckling" to see things thought of in such abused applications and he tends to make all of us look stupid......because his knowledge is so great.  But compared to his knowledge we are.  I don't think Woof has a mean bone in his body. Maybe a straight forwardness that can be agetating.  But remember the TONE is hard to distingquish by writting.  Words mean everything.

bejay
Woof!

Hefty wrote:
1870 act = 0
1872 act = 0
1866 act = 0


Nice work Hefty!

The "Find" instruction can be pretty useful dorado. You can also use the keyboard combination "Ctrl" + "f".

Now we know "operator" and "operation" don't apply to the Mineral Estate Grant. That leaves leasable and salable minerals.

Let's look at the original question with our new knowledge:
Quote:
If I have written permission to be on another person's claim, does that make me an operator in the legal sense?


Are mineral estate claims ever governed by the laws of leasable and salable minerals?

or

Are leasable and salable materials claimable under the mineral estate grant?

Woof!
dorado

As I was pondering things last night I realized my question needed to be reworded.  I needed to convey the core of what I wanted to learn.  Asking my question in the way it was worded was not going to get me there.

 Essentially I wanted to know several things and should have asked a multi part question something like:

 When working on a claim for which I have written permission, what are the specifics of the following that should I expect to incur:

Liability, responsibility, rights, and what legal title would be appropriately placed on me that would assign said specifics as application of the law?

I think that is a better stated question.  Forgive my limited vocabulary and grammar, some terms may be borderline.

The term operator....now I realize that I got the term from another document.  CFR or maybe US code, I've been reading so much overlapping crap lately it's all starting to run together.  You are right bejay, I got it from some other document.  So the initial question was erroneous in nature to begin with.

woof asked:

Are mineral estate claims ever governed by the laws of leasable and salable minerals?  I need to find the answer to these questions tonight.

or

Are leasable and salable materials claimable under the mineral estate grant?  

Gotta get a day's work in now.  Will post my findings tonight.  Thanks for the help you guys.
Woof!

Please do research those questions.

As a help in understanding the meaning of "mining operation" I researched Supreme Court cases for that phrase. There are 17 such cases. They deal with:

Mineral, Oil and Gas leases.
Sand, gravel and building stone "operations".
Coal Mining.
Mining Company share issues.
RICO and interstate commerce.

It's been nearly 140 years since the 1872 Mining Act was passed. The Supreme Court has never heard a case in that time that used the phrase "mining operation" to describe a claim made under the mineral estate grant.

We now know that the mineral estate grant (law) does not refer to those words.

Since "mining" describes many more activities than those granted under the 1866 - 1872 Acts you will have to look in the Acts permitting those activities.

Since the purpose of this forum is to educate miners about the law governing the mineral estate grant I'm inclined to believe that discussion of those Acts relating to leased and sold minerals and their operation is best left to another time or forum.

Just one man's opinion.

Woof!
Hefty

The FS does have their own definition of the word operations....
under...
2817.25 - Access

Operations are defined as “[a]ll functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads and other means of access on lands subject to the regulations in this part, regardless of whether said operations take place on or off mining claims.”  (36 CFR 228.3(a).)  Unless modified by the Forest Service and agreed to by the operator/claimant, approval of an operating plan includes approval of the means of access and modes of transport described in the plan.  Road construction or restoration on mining claims covered by an operating plan requires no separate permit or written authorization and neither are subject to charge.
Woof!

Yep those definitions come directly from 36 CFR 228.3 (a) Hefty.
But the CFR is not law and the regulations found in the CFR must be based on an actual law. The law behind the regulations are known as the authority for that regulation.

Let's look at the Purpose given for the whole of 36 CFR § 228:

Quote:
36 CFR § 228.1
Purpose.
It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54 ), which confer a statutory right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.


Sounds like they have pretty well proven their point eh?

Not until we see some authority.  Wink

Here is the authority for 36 CFR § 228:

Quote:
30 USC 226 - Lease of oil and gas lands

30 USC 352 - Deposits subject to lease; consent of department heads; lands excluded

30 USC 601 - Rules and regulations governing disposal of materials; payment; removal without charge; lands excluded

30 USC 611 - Common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders, and petrified wood


How about that! When we look at their authority for these regulations it's all about leasable and salable minerals. Nothing there about locatable minerals at all.  Question

Whoops! There is just one more authority given 94 STAT. 2400:

Quote:
94 STAT. 2400

Valid mining claims.
PUBLIC LAW 96-487—DEC. 2, 1980
(f)(1) Subject to valid existing rights and the provisions of this Act, the lands within the Monuments are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation or disposal under the public land laws, including location, entry, and patent under United States mining laws, disposition under the mineral leasing laws, and from future selections by the State of Alaska and Native Corporations; (2)(A) After the date of enactment of this Act, any person who is the holder of any valid mining claim on public lands located within the boundaries of the Monuments, shall be permitted to carry out activities related to the exercise of rights under such claim in accordance with reasonable regulations promulgated by the Secretary to assure that such activities are compatible, to the maximum extent feasible, with the purposes for which the Monuments were established. (B) For purposes of determining the validity of a mining claim containing a sufficient quantity and quality of mineral as of November 30, 1978, to establish a valuable deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States within the Monuments, the requirements of the mining laws of the United States shall be construed as if access and mill site rights associated with such claim allow the present use of the Monuments' land as such land could have been used on November 30, 1978. (g) MINING IN THE PARKS ACT.—The Act of September 28,


So now we know where their authority to call you an operator and demand POOs applies to - pre existing mineral estate claims within the boundaries of Parks and Monuments.

So they weren't exactly lying - they were just trying to stretch their authority by convincing you there rules might apply to claims on the public domain.

Woof!
Hefty

Thanks Woof...
More Ammo for all to use.

I was just showing Dorado their definition...
All functions.....wonder if they consider wiping my A** in the morning a function?
dorado

Wow!
Woof!

Wow??

Woof!
1866

Since Dorado is now seeing how this works in research, let's address the actual question.

The answer is, no, you are not an "operator" - no, not even by the definitions of their intended-to-be-tricky CFRs.

If you are on another person's mineral deposit property, you are however, probably one of the following:

1. A tenant, by way of lease or similar arrangement.

2. An agent, by way of written conveyance of the property owner to have some form of authority, while not necessarily having any sort of property interest.

3. A guest or visitor.

Unless you have some sort of written arrangement with the owner, chances are, you are just a guest/visitor.

If you are asking this question because you are being leaned on to file some sort of notice/plan by the agency while working the claim, probably the easiest way to address this is to simply respond by saying: "I'm a guest of the owner and as a visitor, I have no lawful authority to enter into any agreement with your agency".

If you lack authority over the land, the agency cannot lawfully make ANY demands upon you.
dorado

"Wow" is for the depth and complexity of the application of law, authority, and the layers we must dig through.

1866, I an thankful you answered my question perfectly.  
I am going to shoot for: "I'm a guest of the owner and as a visitor, I have no lawful authority to enter into any agreement with your agency".

I carry with me some binders that have the acts, the relevant  CFR's, the USFS handbook, and several other documents citing cases where miners have won over jurisdictional or non jurisdictional agencies.  I could not find the answer in anything I carry with me or elsewhere.  I was at a loss as to how I would best protect the interests of the claim owner should I be confronted by a "faux regulator".

The claim owner is good enough to let me locate and recover minerals on his claim. I figure I can at least protect his /our interests by being able to speak intelligently about my position/role while locating and extracting there.

Still a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of "law" and it's correct application, no wonder it's so hard to get anything done.

Thanks again gentlemen for your expertise and experience and sharing it with those of us who seek it.
Woof!

dorado wrote:
"Wow" is for the depth and complexity of the application of law, authority, and the layers we must dig through.

Still a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of "law" and it's correct application, no wonder it's so hard to get anything done.


Thanks for your reply dorado. I thought that might be what you meant but I wanted to make sure.

Let me make the point that when you brought the issue of "operator" into this forum you were introducing a concept that is foreign to the laws of locatable minerals. Those locatable mineral laws have all been posted in their complete form in this forum.

The complexity you perceive is the result of bringing agency regulations and the laws of leasable and salable minerals to a discussion of those few simple laws governing locatable minerals. This creates a situation where we end up discussing in detail why what you believed were applicable laws were not. There is a very big world of laws out there and none of them have anything to do with the mineral estate grant found in those few simple Acts. Add in agency regulations and you have a situation where if you don't keep your eye on the ball (mineral estate grant) you will drown in a sea of laws and regulations that do not apply.

I'm aware that surface management agencies help create this confusion. Until you become knowledgeable and comfortable with the law establishing the right to your valuable mineral discoveries you will continue to be distracted by myths and rumors created by agencies and sadly other miners.

My advice to all who come here is to leave behind your questions about the CFR or agency rules and regulations and actually learn the mining Acts  in their original form. Once you do you will have a sound basis for viewing all that complexity and layers of law and regulation as just what it is - nothing to do with the mineral estate grant.

OR

You can keep posting agency regulations and I can keep swatting them down like lazy flies for your entertainment. I must caution that while this method may be fun, playing "stump the teacher" is an endless game with no lack of non-applicable regulations and laws. There is no payoff in proving all that nonsense has nothing to do with the right to mine your valuable mineral discoveries.

As always the choice is yours.

Woof!
dorado

Woof! wrote:
dorado wrote:
"Wow" is for the depth and complexity of the application of law, authority, and the layers we must dig through.

Still a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of "law" and it's correct application, no wonder it's so hard to get anything done.


Thanks for your reply dorado. I thought that might be what you meant but I wanted to make sure.

Let me make the point that when you brought the issue of "operator" into this forum you were introducing a concept that is foreign to the laws of locatable minerals. Those locatable mineral laws have all been posted in their complete form in this forum.

The complexity you perceive is the result of bringing agency regulations and the laws of leasable and salable minerals to a discussion of those few simple laws governing locatable minerals. This creates a situation where we end up discussing in detail why what you believed were applicable laws were not. There is a very big world of laws out there and none of them have anything to do with the mineral estate grant found in those few simple Acts. Add in agency regulations and you have a situation where if you don't keep your eye on the ball (mineral estate grant) you will drown in a sea of laws and regulations that do not apply.

I'm aware that surface management agencies help create this confusion. Until you become knowledgeable and comfortable with the law establishing the right to your valuable mineral discoveries you will continue to be distracted by myths and rumors created by agencies and sadly other miners.

My advice to all who come here is to leave behind your questions about the CFR or agency rules and regulations and actually learn the mining Acts  in their original form. Once you do you will have a sound basis for viewing all that complexity and layers of law and regulation as just what it is - nothing to do with the mineral estate grant.

OR

You can keep posting agency regulations and I can keep swatting them down like lazy flies for your entertainment. I must caution that while this method may be fun, playing "stump the teacher" is an endless game with no lack of non-applicable regulations and laws. There is no payoff in proving all that nonsense has nothing to do with the right to mine your valuable mineral discoveries.

As always the choice is yours.

Woof!


 Yes, I see that now.  It was a stupid question for me to ask in the first place...... no I will say ignorant because I did not know or make the connection.  
 I'm still cowering under my rock for the way I responded to you on your initial "swatting down".  
 I seriously apologize to you for telling you to kiss my ass and for the rude bastard part.  I completely misjudged you and I see that your work here is especially good for all of us.  You addressed things in a fashion that is unfamiliar to me, but  I think I know you a little better now and take what you said in it's intended context.

Ok, this thread is done.  Stick a fork in it. Laughing

       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