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 Previous  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
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

This may be off subject, but I just learned another piece of law today that I believe gives an example of how the presentation to a law enforcement officer or a court might happen.

A friend of mine got pulled over on a traffic issue.  The officer came up to him, and in the process of all that goes on in such situations, my friend disclosed that he had a concealed weapon in the truck. The officer asked if he had a permit to carry in Oregon.  My friend replied "NO".  The officer was ready to take his firearm and site him.  My friend asked if he could show the officer that he had the right to carry the concealed weapon.  The officer was relunctant but agreed.  My friend pulled out a 3 page law:  Chapter 166---"Offenses Against Public Order; Firearms and Other Weapons; Racheteering." Section 1666.260 tells of all who are in violation of the conceal law.

Highlighted was 166.260-- Persons NOT affected by ORS 166.250. Sec 2....(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using ANY of the firearms referred to in ORS166.250 upon such target ranges, OR WHILE GOING TO OR FROM SUCH RANGES.  (b) Licensed hunters or fisherman while engaged in hunting or fishing, OR WHILE GOING TO OR FROM A HUNTING OR FISHING EXPEDITION.  (3) The exceptions listed in subsectio (1)(b) to (h) of this section consitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166,250.  He always carries a valid hunting and fishing license and there is always a fishing pole hanging in his truck....with some assorted tackle.  The officer was not aware of those exceptions, but after reading the law agreed my friend was ok and allowed my friend to leave with everything.  (Of course my friend was returning home after a fishing exscursion...and he always is)

Earlier 1866 pointed out a similar scenario on the Rogue River.  It is obvious a clear and consceis document(s) needs to be available.  When presented with such a situation the ball is in your court.....so you better be ready to enter the game and play ball......according to all the rules.  I used to umpire baseball and I always had the rule book in my pocket at all times.....and I pulled it out and used it often.  Same applies to mining.  Just a piece of information I thought I would share about "Permit to Carry" or lack thereof.

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



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
Location: Waldport, Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bejay:   Thanks for the story.  I think a sidebar to the story is, that those that enforce the laws, can not retain a minute recall of every law... and the defense of.

You are correct in showing that this situation can be and is, no different than situations you may have as a miner or a claim owner.

Having the right information available has shown many times over, that conflicts can be set aside, by reasonable people.
_________________
" America is at that awkward stage......... It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
legalminer



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey 1866,

Thanks for the reply.  Very helpful.
The Executive Summary is lengthy and redundant.  I was attempting to boil it down to its essence and have on hand one page that would convey the laws which I am operating under as a mineral estate grantee and claim holder.  

So, is it your opinion that my one-page summary is insufficient?
Your advice is appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a redundancy in the Executive Summary, by intention, mainly to show the relation of each aspect to the next. Remember: the Mining Law must be interpreted altogether as a body of law opposed to being reduced to "one idea", ie. a magic bullet. In my opinion, one page on its own is entirely insufficient.

Also keep in mind that some areas where you are mining may require special considerations and information that is not needed elsewhere.

In otherwords, there is no solitary magic bullet that will save you everywhere. Keep in mind, that if you are ever cited, "they" are going to spend A LOT of time and resources to try to successfully prosecute you. Don't make the mistake of spending too little time and too little effort to prevent this.

As a single example of how this can work, in your post, you write: "the laws which I am operating under as a mineral estate grantee and claim holder". If you were a miner in the water and I was an agency plod, and you had used that one sentence to defend yourself, I would have enough to rope you into agency jurisdiction and enough to hang you too. "Operating" is agency-speak and alludes to you conducting an "operation" and being an "operator". These are terms utilized in administrative policy that has a color of law and authority. They have definitions in their policies. You may think it is splitting hairs to think that someone would use ONE word against you, but the fact is, I've seen it. I once saw a miner brilliantly assert the agency's lack of authority over him, but make ONE mistake of utilizing an agency term and watched as the cop immediately began scribbling notes furiously. For a second, we really thought he was a goner. He almost was too.

Remember, these people are trained to listen to what you say and to listen for the use of particular language.

That said, be VERY careful about summarizing the mining law into a neat little package. Removing words that may seem unnecessary or changing words to something easier to understand, can have a very disastrous effect (especially if you insert a word you should not be using, like "operation" or "dredge").

That said, there is nothing wrong with having a one page cover sheet to provide fast easy reference to the documents that are behind it. In fact, that is probably a good idea.

Personally, my "Bag o' Law" is about 50 pages in length and includes an eight page notice that specifically addresses the current situation on the Rogue River. The 8 pager not only outlines my rights, but it also addresses the land and water. At the end of the document, it also includes adequate lawful notice of the penalties that may result from infringing not only my rights, but those of another miner. The last time I used this notice, a citation issued against a fellow miner that carried penalties of up to a year in jail and/or up to $100,000 in fines VANISHED. The fish cop issued the citation to the miner, but did not present his duplicate to the court. I suspect that he must have read those eight pages and probably came close to having a coronary when he looked at the penalties section. The miner survived to mine again.

The miner who escaped that ticket by the way, was the same miner who had been brilliantly defending himself and then slipped up and used that agency term.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eastcreek



Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 19
Location: Owasso, OK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:49 am    Post subject: confused... Reply with quote

1866,

Thanks for your input. I'm a tad confused with this post. By the term "Executive Summary" I assume you are referring to the Mining Laws we use as a basis to defend ourselves, correct?

Are you stating these began in Oregon by local miners then compiled and addressed to Sheriff Gilbertson? Who was/is Gil?

Sorry....and thanks in advance



1866 wrote:
Personally, I would carry the ENTIRE Executive Summary with you (and carry extra copies). Remember what this document was for and what has come about as a result of it. It was a protest from local miners to Sheriff Gilbertson and a request for him to protect mining rights, with the limitations of federal authory summarized in the document. This document in turn, through Gilbertson, has created an uprising among sheriffs in this country that is burning like a wildfire and spreading far behind one small county in Oregon. Much of this credit belongs to Gil, of course, for having the courage to question the agencies and to share the document with other sheriffs. Without him, the document would not have spread.

That said, EVERYTHING in that document is important. None of it should be removed.

While I realize that everyone wants a "magic bullet", the Mining Law does not work this way, as it must be interpreted altogether opposed to reduced to one single concept.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me Gold Seeker



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 29
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

!866,

 Thank you for that information on "Agencies terms/words/phrases!

 It has been suggested that we have a thread that has abbreviations of terms used by the Mining Laws and agencies with explanations of those abbreviations, which I think is a very good idea.

 I also think now that you have pointed out the pitfalls of using these agencies words a thread/list of these terms should be added to these forums as well.

Your help would be greatly appreciated in compiling this list, I will start the thread after I get off work, it can be edited to add words as they come up in discussion or posted by members.

 Skip
_________________
God. Family, Friends, and Gold
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
legalminer



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1866,

Thanks for the reply.  

..."I once saw a miner brilliantly assert the agency's lack of authority over him, but make ONE mistake of utilizing an agency term and watched as the cop immediately began scribbling notes furiously. "
What did the miner say that unleashed the bureaucratic fury?

..."Remember, these people are trained to listen to what you say and to listen for the use of particular language."
Ok, so "operation" and "dredge" are bad words.  
What word should be used instead of dredge?

As Me Gold Seeker just suggested.... Which other words should be avoided?  It's starting to seem like a miner shouldn't say a damn thing without a lawyer present.  Confused

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The word the miner used was "dredge", even though the cop earlier said to him "I know you're going to say this is not a dredge" to which the miner responded "That's right. I'm not going to call it what you want me to call it. I'll call it a cracksucker, if I like. I'm not subject to your authority." Now that was good, but further on into the contact, the fish cop starts saying "Oh, your turbidity can kill fish" and the miner mistakenly responded "You know damn well that fish love dredges. I can throw a bare hook behind my dredge and catch fish because there are so many of them". One cop responded by scribbling furiously and then began to ask seemingly innocent questions that were designed to get the miner to proceed down this path of using terms that he shouldn't. The miner slipped up several more times until the cop asks "So is there much gold here?", which allowed me to rattle off about all the 100 year old tailing piles they'd been walking on and how this spot on the river was named for a miner and I pointed all the hydraulic workings across the river to illustrate that this was no "pristine" river. Mid way, the other miner turns white. He had just realized what happened. (Keep in mind that these cops came in intending to cite someone and as well as that miner defended himself, he became the weak link and the one to pick on, even though I was practically begging them to cite me. That's not to say that the other miner was a pushover. Apart from that one mistake, he did REALLY well and I would mine with him ANY time and ANY place).

As for the "D" word. It is your equipment and you've probably made your own modifications. We all have our own ideas and employ different little modifications to a concept. Call it what you will. "Mining machinery", "mining incident tool", "vaccum rummager", "hydraulic concentrator" or whatever. And if they ask you how it works, respond with "I mine for my business. That's my proprietary secret. Sorry, but I just can't share that sort of information." (Don't forgot that you DO have the right to be silent. You aren't required to incriminate yourself. Ask them questions instead.)

Other terms to avoid are ANYTHING you see that is specifcally defined in administrative policies and have a color of law behind them. Just take a look at the the NOI, PoO and the varying permits and you will start to see these terms over and over again. Another good source are the mineral manuals used by the agencies such as FS 2810 and others. Here again, you will the same terms crop up. In most cases, you will find that these are specifically defined by the agency policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
legalminer



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, it's Fish Cops that mostly are doing the harassing in Ca and Or?
I don't think we have Fish Cops in Az (where I mine).
I will read the NOI and POO requirements carefully, but intend to use a backhoe and perhaps a small wash plant someday without any agency permits.
First, I need to fully understand my rights under the mining laws and what to say and what not to say to any Federal agency.
If I am to believe the SWOMA Executive Summary is accurate and true, then I already should have all the protection under the law that I need.
It seems that the problem lies in convincing the Federal agencies that they are irrelevant and have no authority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is importanrt to not only understand the Federal mining laws, but also the agency rules/regs/policies as well.  It is important to realize how they differ and where they are applicable or not applicable.  Probably the most difficult is knowing how to proceed into and through any court or hearings process....should it come to that.   Then of course there are intrusions of a State to regulate mining.  Lots of very important stuff to know.  Failure in any part can cause a miner to fail in his attempts to maintain a lawful position.  Once one studies everything it becomes very apparent that WORDS are extremely important and have dramatic importance.  

In reference to the following:  (Stated by legalminer).
"It seems that the problem lies in convincing the Federal agencies that they are irrelevant and have no authority."
Regarding a POO
The words in the CFR and the words the Secretary attempts to bring forth have two different implications.  Knowing how to address this different application is the key to bringing forth the AUTHORITY in its intended lawful authority.  

I must apologize for leaving it said at that for now but when I have a moment I will bring forth the examples for your consideration.

bejay


_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 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