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

Public land>>>Public Domain
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Public land>>>Public Domain  Reply with quote

ok so it is my understanding that public lands vs public domain is important to understand in the beginning.......public land is for all use, when you file a claim, the land in question becomes public domain..for the filers private use and no longer is governed under public land rules/laws

The mining acts state something like the president can appoint officers where necessary to enforce these acts...are the forest service and blm officers such officers?
_________________
keep it simple stupid


Last edited by lastchancelarry on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bad word here....I wrote a whole very very long reply and lost it in the process of review.  I am fit to be tied.  To those who do write in this little box and go to preview you can not come back to this little box and expect to see what you have wrote, and continue to add to it.  If you go to preview you can edit or submit.....no going back. Evil or Very Mad
I may try again when I cool off!

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok here it goes again.  I am going to go one step further down the layer cake concept than has been presented.  I have given it a lot of thought to it......as it is kind of like what came first...the chicken or the egg.
Lets see if I can go to the very beginning of U.S. land aquisition.  There were territories that were aquired and opened up.  Congress, through Acts/Laws began to dispose of those territorial lands. Thus much was disposed of by Congressional Acts for a specific use or as an accepted use. The filing of a valuable mineral deposite claim places the land (within the boundaries of that claim) into 'Public Domain"....thus the disposal of said land into the Public Domain.

Now you have to realize the "Chain of Command" if you will as to how this is all laid out.  Think of it as a cake.  The very bottom of the cake is Public Domain per the Acts/laws of Congress (1872 Mining Law and subsequent acts supporting it).  The next layer above that is Public Lands which can be further designated under the authority of Dept of Int per some reservations to the (BLM) and USFS per Nat Forest Lands.

The layers of the cake continue to rise (read the transcript of Layer Cake Behind the Woodshed I prepared.)

It is of utmost importance to understand "this": ONE LAYER ABOVE CAN NOT TOUCH THE LAYER BELOW (LOWER LAYER).  Not in authority...no way no how.  Since the USFS and BLM are surface management agencies they can NOT touch the lower layer of Public Domain.  Congress so made that determination in the language of the Acts. This is what I understand to be: "The Mineral Estate Grant"  The grant is the Act given the activity...in this specific case mining.

Now it is also important to understand that the layers of the cake are many, and there are servitudes and such (CFR's) that come into play on layers above the layer of public domain. We have not discussed these and I feel it will be some time before we do. The layer Cake Transcript is vital in understanding the issue you raise Larry. And I believe also correlates to the Acts themselves.

Important to understand is this:...... you may own your land where your home sets....that does not mean you can do anyting you want on that land....there are codes/rules/zoning etc that come into play.  BUT you do possess it and you do live and use it.
I believe the same thing applies to Public Domain and the Minersal Estate Grant.  There is an exclusive right of possession and use of both the surface and subsurface for the activity (Mining).

Earlier on the GPAA forum thread Boxy said "shame on you" to Max for bringing up the issue of CFR's.  It would be my observation; that even though the USFS and the BLM are strictly surface management agencies only; the issue of CFR's may come into play at some time/layer.

I hope that sheds some light on your question. I think you will begin to come out of the dark and see some light.

BUT the Mineral Estate Grant can be lost and put on a very far-off back shelf if a miner fails to protect the Grant.  Most noticeably if the miner enters into a contract via an action with a surface management agency.

Just think...I did not understand any of this 1 week ago  When it was talked about I just scratched my head and said huh?.

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hefty



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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bejay...No disrespect...but when you use terms..."This is what I understand it to be" and "I believe"  kinda for me, throws your answers to the wind, or back up into the air. As we all want hard facts to these laws. I can not go into court with "I believe" or "This is what I understand it to be".

Once again Bejay...No Disrespect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

then no one can touch it from the above public layer unless I let them touch it by getting a permit and therefore agree to be governed by the issuing body of officers in that agency

here is something else that is got me wondering....the acts talk about officers can be assigned and as long as there is no conflict with laws of the U.S. etc.....this was 140 years ago...are there no the laws inacted since then affecting the original acts...And if not, why not if we are so out numbered?? reading these acts makes me fear the end is coming as we know it.....make me feel better people.....See possessionary law in red  below

USC 30 § 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.

bejay...you can preview and then it posts then just edit
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I am in the process of learning and this thread  is being utilized in that respect.  I use those phrases/terms in such a manner as to allow further discussion.  I am not the individual, at this time, who would be your advocate beside you in court.  However I plan to be able to do it myself with the aid of what I will learn on this forum.  I believe Mineral Estate Grant stated such earlier on the GPAA forum discussion....."We need to learn the Law".  The only lead I am taking in this issue is one of presenting a discussion that allows us the opportunity of enabling ourselves to be our own advocates.  The Layer Cake Hal Anthony transcript I presented says what it says. The Acts we are reading and going to discuss say what they say. BUT....there is more language that surely has to be brought forth to give us the necessary tools to go into court.  But, to take issue with your comment:  I find that once in court there is NEVER certainty in an outcome.....court cases are won and lost on the presentations of law/rules/regs.  Which is what this forum is going to address. So my remarks are NOT meant to be cast in stone as I am a student not the teacher.  I will however share what I understand along the way of learning.  This allows those who are skilled in the law to correct me if I error.  Seems prudent after 1 week of discussion. But I hope it helped Larry read and achieve some comprehension pertaining to the question he had.  When learning I find it valuable to discuss what I interpret from that which I read.  So my response to you would be that when it is back up into the air; you can read what I just read and take issue with anything you find incorrect.  I welcome the opportunity for us to learn together, otherwise I would simply do it by myself and say to heck with this forum discussion thread.....but then again I would have no one to challenge what I think I know.

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and I am throwing these out here for discussion....
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larry, I read and questioned in my head the very thing you wrote in red. I thought...OK there is more to this picture than first meets the eye.  There is no doubt in my mind that the question you raised will be brought forth in this learning process.  Just like I brought forth the issue of your Private land and home and how there are rules you must follow on your land. (Note, I chaired the West Lane County Planning Commission for many years so I have some expertise in Private Land use Rules per state statutes).  But give consideration to this.  Lets say there is a law that says you can not pollute a waterway.  When mining you would be subject to that rule of law.  But you would not be subject to the USFS coming and saying you got the water dirty and it is now polluted.  Where does the law say some cloudy water is pollution?  If the USFS or BLM came onto your claim and wanted to cite you for the dirty water because their CFR's consider cloudy water to be bad, you would not be subject to their consideration.  You are NOT under their authority.....Public Domain escapes their authority. You are however subject to any law that says 'YOU can not cloud the water with sediment in a waterway".  Now of course you as a miner you would have to know all the laws that pertain to your activity under the Public Domain.  So YOU have a responibility to know what you are doing is correct under the law.  Is cloudy water pollution?  But you are not subject to the USFS as they have no surface authority over you.  You are your own authority under the rules and regulations that apply to your activity.  Those rules can be Fed...State....District and probabl;y even county or city. But please understand I am learning along with you and attempting to convey what I believe we are being taught.  On the other GPAA forum Boxy, MEG, Goldpatriot would jump in and correct our errors in thinking and help clarify such issues.  But I think we have to allow some time for such questions that you raised to be addressed....we can't wiggle our nose and have instant expertise.  If all this was simple we would probably not be discussing it on the forum and the adverse conditions of authority that confront the miner would have never happened.   But a good question Larry....I immediately took the same language to mind and asked myself  where is this going to come into play and how.

Hopefully I shed some light on what the answer might be.   I think it is more complicated than "Simple".

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you say no one can touch it from the above layer unless I let them do so you are correct in regards to the Authority from the USFS or BLM. Their authority is to Public Lands surface management.  Not to Public Domain Surface management.  Unless you enter into a contract with them allowing them that authority.  The question will surely be: What and how do I NOT give them that authority.  What actions did I just do that disposed of my Mineral Estate Grant.  AND that is the question I and many others will be wanting to learn.  No doubt about that.
bejay

PS:   Gve some thought to this.  The State of Calif. passed law that bans dredging.  So there is a State Law.  But if you have a dredge claim on Fed Domain does that State law apply to you.  Some have said no and are still dredging on their claims...and no citations have been issued.....Per my reading the news and such.  When does an authority's law apply to public domain?  And yes I know you are wanting to know the answer....as do I.
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn


Last edited by beebarjay on Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hefty



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Bejay for clearing that up for me.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

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

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