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 -> Videos, etc.
GoldPatriot

The Forest Service Loses Another Battle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJgA8Yls9Ro

Just another example how knowing the law helps to defeat the Forest Service and other agencies such as the BLM and DEQ.
lastchancelarry

mineral entry

i want to make sure I have this definition down as well...Closed to mineral entry means no claims but I can prospect,correct??
Was that you singing Den?
1866

Re: mineral entry

lastchancelarry wrote:
i want to make sure I have this definition down as well...Closed to mineral entry means no claims but I can prospect,correct??
Was that you singing Den?


That is exactly correct, but two points.

1. USFS and BLM employees like to "interpret" closed to mineral entry to mean "no mining, no nothing". There is nothing lawful about it, but that is the direction they have been going for years. Ready yourself to be challenged by these criminals.

2. Based on my research, there are serious lack of authority issues, as well as administrative violations that took place involved in EVERY mineral withdrawal I've ever studied. Over the coming years we need miners who are willing to study these withdrawals from top to bottom and to specifically decode, challenge and defeat them by filing claims in withdrawn areas and the committment to fight for the claim. I cannot stress too much here, that doing this takes research, research and more research just to address each withdrawal.
GoldPatriot

Re: mineral entry

1866 wrote:


1. USFS and BLM employees like to "interpret" closed to mineral entry to mean "no mining, no nothing". There is nothing lawful about it, but that is the direction they have been going for years. Ready yourself to be challenged by these criminals.

2. Based on my research, there are serious lack of authority issues, as well as administrative violations that took place involved in EVERY mineral withdrawal I've ever studied. Over the coming years we need miners who are willing to study these withdrawals from top to bottom and to specifically decode, challenge and defeat them by filing claims in withdrawn areas and the committment to fight for the claim. I cannot stress too much here, that doing this takes research, research and more research just to address each withdrawal.


1866:

1.  You can add "DEQ" to that list. The problem that these agencies have, is that they have never been empowered by any act of Congress to "interpret" anything other than their own rules, which have no basis in Constitutional law, nor do they trump the 1872 Congressional Mining Law.

2.  While I agree with the general premise of your post, I would also point out that these agencies depend on threats and force, rather than law in withdrawing land.  While I have not reviewed any quantity of these "withdrawals”, knowing what I do about these agencies, their actions will almost certainly be basic “boilerplate” rhetoric.  In each of these filings by each of these agencies, they use key words to provide themselves with “plausible adherence” to the rule of law.  If there is a new twist, it will be the use and dependence on  “Executive Orders”, as the “authority” for their actions, which is a legal car wreck waiting to happen to these agencies.

BTW, Welcome Aboard!!  Always glad to see a new member.

Den
lastchancelarry

there are many oregunyns on here so i assume you are familiar with cascade locks area, specifically herman creek...The old maps show many a claim and a coworker speaks of a miner on the side of the mountain he used to watch from the mill at the locks....My point or question is the area is Col.Gorge nat senic area..I have panned some there and plan to explore more in the spring....it has been withdrawn...Iguess I need to load for bear? As I wwill eventually understand, through knowledge,I will be able to mine the area and possibly challenge the no claims in the area?
GoldPatriot

I'll have to do some research on the matter, but off hand I don't know if "withdrawl litigation" has made it's way through the courts and been reviewed by the Supreme Court.  I suspect it hasn't.  While the Feds seem to think it's "game over" on this matter, I believe it's more bluff & huff than a fact of law.
1866

All true. In addition to DEQ, insert anyone with a uniform or clipboard and they will interpret all day long and cause some miner or other person a headache.

You are right about the Executive Authority element. It is indeed a serious train wreck waiting to happen. About a year ago, a partner and I began to challenge a withdrawal which turned out to be something completely different than what we assumed it was. Ultimately, we did find that not only is there is a very serious limitation on executive authority, not too mention a very serious problem with the other so-called withdrawal "authority" that has ultimately enabled every mineral withdrawal not performed by Congress. It's too soon to put the details out there in black and white, but the time will come. Currently, this case is making its way through IBLA and as we understand it, is causing the agencies a very serious headache and making noise in DC. But, we're not the only ones.

So you're right, the idea that the agencies have a forseeable end game is bluff and bluster. The fact is, at the moment, even though miners have only begun to push back with the Mining Law, the handful of people pushing seem to be causing all kinds of serious problems for them. As more miners push and even more importantly, when they take off the kid gloves, these problems will get far more severe for the agencies and some day soon we'll see the agencies offering up some of their employees as sacrificial lambs.

To summarize a bit on the withdrawals, basically, unless Congress makes the withdrawal, it's not lawful on its face and even then, there are some strong arguments that the grantor cannot lawfully come back and take property that was subject of a public grant, whether or not it is in tangible possession of a grantee or not. In addition, there remain "issues" with these Congressional withdrawals, particularly the Wilderness Act. The bottom line here is that we need miners to look into these withdrawals and to commit themselves to not only research, but to take a stand once they find an issue.
GoldPatriot

These agencies are attempting to hide behind every rock they can find, including the President's E.O.'s.  Won't work.

I have a slightly different take on what will happen when these agencies find their butts up against the wall.

No question but that they will do what they do best. They will bluster, threaten, promise, cry, and yell, but with miners all over the country, now educating themselves on the laws, taking a hard stand against the government will face a political, legal and in some cases, physical beatdown not seen since the WWF.

I would remind my fellow miners, that once a federal or state employee wilfully acts illegally (outside the law), they are in fact personally responsible and have exposed themselves to both criminal and civil actions.  This is no small thing.

In this case, the government is committing suicide, as you NEVER target a man's abilty to earn a living or keep him from trying. Miners are finally understanding what the stakes are and losing is NOT an option.. not now... not ever.

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Videos, etc.
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