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 

Classroom # 1 - Homework Assignment #1
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> THE CLASSROOM
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Woof!



Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 90
Location: Gold Trail

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:48 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Glindberg wrote:

#4)locating, marking claim, filing appriopate paper work


I am sorry to interrupt here but despite Glindberg's and 1866's valuable contributions and hard work I feel I must object to the phrase in bold above.

If we were not including a discussion of the 1872 Act Glindberg's answer might be considered substantially correct.

The 1872 Act specifies the act of "making a recording". This is very different than filing paper work. A Recording is the process of making a public record. This is in it's very nature a Judicial act and rises far above the notion of "filing".

-----------------------------------------------
Bouviers 1856

TO RECORD, the act of making a record.

2. Sometimes questions arise as to when the act of recording is complete, as in the following case. A deed of real estate was acknowledged before the register of deeds and handed to him to be recorded, and at the same instant a creditor of the grantor attached the real estate; in this case it was held the act of recording was incomplete without a certificate of the acknowledgment, and wanting that, the attaching creditor had the preference. 10 Pick. Rep. 72.

RECORDER. 1. A judicial officer of some cities, possessing generally the powers and authority of a judge. 3 Yeates' R. 300; 4 Dall. Rep. 299; but see 1 Rep. Const. Ct. 45. Anciently, recorder signified to recite or testify on re-collection as occasion might require what had previously passed in court, and this was the duty of the judges, thence called recordeurs. Steph. Plead. note 11. 2. An officer appointed to make record or onrolment of deeds and other legal instruments, authorized by law to be recorded.
----------------------------------------------

This is a particularly important point since 1976. The filing of a claim at a BLM office is specifically not a record because the BLM has no power to certify under oath that they possess a true and correct copy of the original document.

It might be wise to note that in every County there are two officers that always take office upon the election by the people of the County. Those two officers are the Sheriff and the County Recorder. They must have an oath on file before they can be seated in their elected office. The County Recorder forms their office at the County Seat.

Location notices are not valid until a public record has been formed.

Copies of BLM filing notices have no authority in a court of law. At best they provide prima facie evidence of intent. They are always trumped by a certified copy from the County Recorder.

Your Location is the Grant. The proof of that Grant lies in your record made at the County Recorders Office. That proof is under seal.

Woof!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goldriver



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Redmond, Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

called back to wonder . . .  WHO enforces the mining law? . . . I understand that the BLM plays no role in claim law and their only role is to record the claim as filed. it is not their role to challenge anything. Challenges go into civil or criminal courts and a judge or jury decides mining law issues . . . but this is only what I have been taught. I have had, or put in over 50 claims and have never been challanged or contacted by anyone for any reason.
_________________
"Have Dredge . . . Will Travel"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
lastchancelarry



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Where is the grant in the Mining Law?

The grant is located in the 1866 act,  CHAP;CCLXII An act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the senate and House of Re……….That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the US, and those………And in regard to whose possession there is no controversy or opposing claim, it shall and may be lawful for said claimant or association of claimants to file in the local land office a diagram of the same, so extended laterally or otherwise as to conform to the local laws, customs, and rules of miners, and to enter such tract and receive a patent therefore, granting such mine, together with the right to follow such vein or lode with its dips, angles, and variations to any depth………
I think  we are granted the right to search for minerals freely and then able to claim those minerals when they were located, therefore receiving a grant to mine the land for minerals as we see fit..

2. Who is eligible to be a grantee

All citizens of the US as well as those that declare to become US citizens.

3. What rights are granted by the Mining Law?
The right to search for minerals, occupy and possess under the law of possession the land that contains the minerals and receive a patent for such lands.
4. How are these granted rights enacted by a potential mineral estate grantee?
By searching, locating and filing a claim for tsaid minerals

5. Did the Act of 1872 eliminate the rights contained in the two previous acts? If so, why? If not, why not? No they did not.

All claims and patents issued under act 1866 shall convey the rights and privileges of the 1872 act as well as those still pending under the 1866 act.
Sections 1,2,3 and 6 were repealed, but such appeal shall not affect existing rights. And were replaced with sections six and seven of the 1872 act.
The act of 1870 shall remain in full force except for the proceedings to obtain a patent, which were amended in the 1872 act
Disclaimer..this was done quickly and I gotta go to work. hammer me and Ill be humbled tonight
Larry
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
1866



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

goldriver wrote:
Not sure how this works . .  was that the whole assignment? I basically operate on a "need to Know Basis"  . .  are you suggesting that we be able to quote the mining law to people who can't even hear a word your saying. We have Caliban like operatives imbedded into all governmental agencies who seek to subterfuge the law thru insurrgency.


While you raise an interesting point (ie. that these people have little regard for the law), in my experience, the agencies are always looking for miners that represent an "easy mark" to pursue. I have been in a number of situations and also am privy to some other situations, that clearly illustrate that the agencies are reluctant to take on a miner who seems to know their rights and may know something about the law that they do not. While they will still harass and threaten those miners, the situation rarely goes beyond that and the agency will move on to the easier mark. As such, it is VERY important that miners cease to be "easy marks". As such, it is very important to not only know the Mining Law, but to learn how to excercise it to defend yourself, as this alone may mean the difference between basic harassment and prosecution.


Last edited by 1866 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woof! wrote:
Glindberg wrote:

#4)locating, marking claim, filing appriopate paper work


I am sorry to interrupt here but despite Glindberg's and 1866's valuable contributions and hard work I feel I must object to the phrase in bold above.

If we were not including a discussion of the 1872 Act Glindberg's answer might be considered substantially correct.

The 1872 Act specifies the act of "making a recording". This is very different than filing paper work. A Recording is the process of making a public record. This is in it's very nature a Judicial act and rises far above the notion of "filing".

-----------------------------------------------
Bouviers 1856

TO RECORD, the act of making a record.

2. Sometimes questions arise as to when the act of recording is complete, as in the following case. A deed of real estate was acknowledged before the register of deeds and handed to him to be recorded, and at the same instant a creditor of the grantor attached the real estate; in this case it was held the act of recording was incomplete without a certificate of the acknowledgment, and wanting that, the attaching creditor had the preference. 10 Pick. Rep. 72.

RECORDER. 1. A judicial officer of some cities, possessing generally the powers and authority of a judge. 3 Yeates' R. 300; 4 Dall. Rep. 299; but see 1 Rep. Const. Ct. 45. Anciently, recorder signified to recite or testify on re-collection as occasion might require what had previously passed in court, and this was the duty of the judges, thence called recordeurs. Steph. Plead. note 11. 2. An officer appointed to make record or onrolment of deeds and other legal instruments, authorized by law to be recorded.
----------------------------------------------

This is a particularly important point since 1976. The filing of a claim at a BLM office is specifically not a record because the BLM has no power to certify under oath that they possess a true and correct copy of the original document.

It might be wise to note that in every County there are two officers that always take office upon the election by the people of the County. Those two officers are the Sheriff and the County Recorder. They must have an oath on file before they can be seated in their elected office. The County Recorder forms their office at the County Seat.

Location notices are not valid until a public record has been formed.

Copies of BLM filing notices have no authority in a court of law. At best they provide prima facie evidence of intent. They are always trumped by a certified copy from the County Recorder.

Your Location is the Grant. The proof of that Grant lies in your record made at the County Recorders Office. That proof is under seal.

Woof!


Thanks for catching that Woof. As you probably know, I am a little "out of it" with a major tooth issue. (In fact, I had to go back to the emergency room in the time since I was last on here). Being in a little better state right now, you have seen something I missed at the time and you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I appreciate you jumping in there and having my back.

Ultimately, I concur with what you have put forward, and again, appreciate you jumping in there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Woof! for correcting my error !! I still have to constantly remind myself to watch my choice of words.
_________________
Navy Vet 1983-1992 (Submariner SSN-612)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

we are also granted the right to t get to and from the minerals on the claim under the mining law and addition to my answers above...

Can someone give me a quick critique so I can read the whole thread...
I can assume the questions have been gone over but I want to see how close I came thanks

I missed the opening of the classroom due to work...
I got really busy at work...It is sunny here and very cold and it seems everyone and their dog wnats to pour concrete..
_________________
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: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I have made it back on, after a 3 day travel/road trip.  I will have to give thought to what Woof says.  But for me the question always became:  How much emphasis do I give the language pertaining to ditches/canals/etc.  In other words it seems that the Acts give law to other factors that at first glance do not appear to pertain to mining.  I have to do some catch up on all that has been said so far.

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 Jan 14, 2012 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I understand, the issue raised by Woof, as it specifically states that... (County Recording of documents).....in the Act(s).  Some time ago I raised the question as to whether notifying the BLM with a filling of docs was a mechanism by which the Mineral Estate Grant could be negated allowing the claimant to fall prey to a contractural agreement to abide by BLM authoritative rule.  This question I asked of Boxy on the GPAA forum quite some time ago and his answer was not to QUIT my BLM notification. But it does raise an interesting issue.  One may construe the BLM notifications as a practice of miners per local mining customs.....as opposed to a contractural agreement.  As an observation it could be said that the BLM filings are simply a tool by which the Mineral Estate Grant is monitored.  But that is speculation on my part.  

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, BeJay, the best way to look at these BLM filings and related fees is that it is something we currently do under duress, until we can remedy the issue. Basically, if you don't file the varying documents with BLM, you lose your claim to the extent that another miner can come in and "file" on your location. It's not supposed to work this way and there are also other issues pertaining to these BLM filings related to FLPMA, but for now, we pay our "protection money" to BLM.

I know that some people really feel that BLM is providing us with a valuable service in maintaining records and offering a semi-reliable platform to access those records at the touch of a few buttons, but in my opinion, this service is not a "fair trade" and I for one would like to see a day when the districts come back and reassume their recording roles.

I am basing this in part on a recent experience with BLM relating to an old lode. In this case, BLM wanted to seal several old shafts on the claim and were leaning on the owner to not only remediate the workings but to also file an NOI and a PoO. The claim owner could not deal with this issue due to his own time constraints, so he signed the claim over to a partner and I with the agreement that we'd fight.

Having the quit claim completed at the county and the previous owner notifying the BLM employee he was dealing with, that the claim had changed hands, we promptly noticed the same BLM employee that we would NOT be filing an NOI or PoO and further, that the shafts were our property and that any damage to them would be responded with by legal action. In the meantime, the completed quit claim went to the main BLM office.

Months went by and in addition to BLM not answering the notice regarding the shafts, we also did not receive notice of the ownership transfer.

When we followed up on the quit claim, the guy at the main BLM desk pulled the lead file to check its status. He promptly told us that the lead file was mostly empty. Not only was the quit claim not there, but the assessment records were also missing.

Ultimately, you can see what they were doing. Records had been pulled and their "lack of existence" would ultimately justify a decision of abandonment come Jan. 1st. Since we had recently pounded someone in that office with notices of wrong doing on another issue, we suspected that it was probably "personal".

Fortunately for us, the previous claim owner kept very good records. He had not only duplicates, but copies of cashed checks, USPS return receipts, etc. We also had duplicates of our notices to BLM and also a record that BLM had successfully cashed our check for the quit claim.

As you might guess, once BLM were informed that we had duplicates, including proofs of their receipt, those missing records in the lead file magically reappeared without explanation or fanfare and they promptly processed the quit claim!

This experience is not unique. In fact, a year ago, I argued and WON an IBLA case for a miner over a very similar situation. In his case, he had purchased the claim from a miner whom BLM regarded as a "trouble maker". BLM's "revenge" was to invalidate every claim that miner had ever quit claimed and to instruct the new owners to "sue the previous owner" when they complained about the invalidations. Ultimately, we were able to prove that the fault actually lied with a rogue BLM employee. Not only does the miner still own his claim, but the BLM employee was severely reprimanded by DOI.

Ultimately though, you can see a major problem here.

BLM is a routine nemesis of miners and in maintaining the records of miners, it is very easy for rogue elements inside their agency to manipulate those records in such a way that "belligerence" to the agency can be punished by invalidating claims through various means of under-handedness.

Clearly, this system does not work, so "cracking the code" in FLPMA that allowed BLM to get in the claim filing business and successfully defeating their authority in this regard is very important.

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 -> THE CLASSROOM All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
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