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 

1870 Placer Mining Act
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:44 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

I'm thinking all questions have been answered on this lesson. If there are any questions still lingering in anyone's mind please speak up so we can address them before we move on to the big kahuna - the 1872 Act.

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



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 46
Location: N San Juan, Ca

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding Filing a Placer Claim by legal subdivision, also known as Aliquot Part description. as some seem a little confused I will share what I have learned in getting ready to go to court with someone who thinks he can tie up large tracks of land with association placer claims.     You can file right over the section lines, say you had a claim with a section corner right in the middle of where you wanted to file your claim, and you were standing there looking north, on your left side the claim would be in the south east corner of that section, if it was only part of the south east corner, than it would be in the south east corner of the south east corner, the part of the claim that is on the right would be the south west corner, behind you on your right would be the north west corner of that section, and behind you on your left would be the north east corner of that section.  if you are still confused look at a quadrant map. and then look at your placer claim location papers, for them to be filed correctly they HAVE TO BE FILED IN THIS MANNER. And another party can file on them and win in court, and or the BLM can annul them if they are not. another important point, when you are reading Aliquot Part description you read from right to left. Thats my two cents worth, Big Al
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



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

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your 2 cents Al.

You do seem to understand the PLSS system. Your explanation fits as long as the Sections are regular and they have been surveyed down to the  quarter quarter - not always the case. A lot of the West is still unsurveyed.

Unless the placer deposit is shaped square and north/south (very rare) I suggest describing your location by metes and bounds with reference to a surveyed corner. This is more accurate, allows you to meet the every 10 acres mineralized rule and gives the BLM a quadrant for their informational filing.

I think you may be disappointed with your efforts to over file on pre-existing claims. It is perfectly legal to "tie up large tracks* of land with association placer claims" (*tracts).

The courts have consistently ruled that the intent of the senior locator, along with the actual location on the ground, are the ultimate claim and any defects in filing will be overlooked as long as the claim meets the other requirements. I know of no cases where an adverse claimant won on the basis of irregular paperwork by the senior locator.

You should also be aware that an adverse filing is not valid should the senior claimant drop their claim. Overfiling in hopes of being first in line should the senior claim drop is foolish. An adverse claimant has 30 days to  file suit and serve the senior claimant or their claim is void ab initio - from the beginning - as if it never existed.

You say the BLM can annul a claim that has not been filed "in this manner". I am unaware that the BLM has a right to annul any claim. To my knowledge the BLM can only declare a claim abandoned for lack of a timely informational filing, as per the FLPMA. I would be very interested to study the law that allows the BLM to annul a claim for not filing by the legal subdivision. Please share with us.

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



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 46
Location: N San Juan, Ca

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Woof, I will dig up the case law in the next few days on blm. What my partner and I did was file on some KNOWN load claims, the other guy has Placer claims, he has tried to claim clipper v eli says we could not do what we did, clipper v eli says you cannot trespass to locate UNKNOWN loads. but the case law is very clear that if a placer owner does not file on the known loads his claim encompasses, they are open for anyone to claim.   The law says you must file by legal subdivision as a first preference, or by metes and bounds. by law the claim has to be traceable on the ground. So if the legal subdivision language is not correct, you are vulnerable until it is amended, as the claim would not be traceable on the ground.   The guy I am about to take to court, has a history of locating claims for sale, not mining them, one of things he is doing is quit-claiming claims of to friends and then a couple of years go by and he shows up as the owner on the assessment work filed at the county, thus staying under the ten claim limit on blm paperwork so he can get the waiver. I have several other things that I will be bringing up in court, that show serious bad faith. but do not want to put anything out there where he could possibly see it yet. Big Al
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigAl



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 46
Location: N San Juan, Ca

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am aware that a claim filed over another valid claim would be invalid from the beginning, ab initio if my spelling from memory is correct. then I realize you had it in your post and yes, I had it misspelled.  And I am also aware that the courts are VERY sympathetic to the senior locator, but thank you for your input. I have spent the last two years researching case law, and researching what this fellow does, he is very tricky. I will share more when I take him to court, and have shown my hand so to speak. Big Al
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BigAl wrote:
Hi Woof, I will dig up the case law in the next few days on blm. What my partner and I did was file on some KNOWN load claims, the other guy has Placer claims, he has tried to claim clipper v eli says we could not do what we did, clipper v eli says you cannot trespass to locate UNKNOWN loads. but the case law is very clear that if a placer owner does not file on the known loads his claim encompasses, they are open for anyone to claim....
Big Al


I think we have cleared up the matter of locations conforming to the survey in our PMs Al. It's also clear there is no law allowing the BLM to annul a claim for filing irregularities. We will be visiting that subject in our next lesson. I look forward to your participation there.

As far as locating a known lode within and over an existing placer claim - there is a lot more to learn there than what is offered in Clipper v. Eli.

You might want to consider the standard of "discovery" necessary to make a mineral deposit "known" to you.

From SAMUEL McMILLEN , v. FERRUM MINING COMPANY:
Quote:
The substance of the plaintiffs' argument was that the mere knowledge of the Eulalia locator of the existence of a vein in the Pocket Liner, the previous lode, made his location valid, provided he performed the other things requisite under the statutes of the state of Colorado, besides the actual discovery of mineral.

In its opinion the court reiterated what it had previously said, that, admitting that the plaintiffs might have availed themselves of the previous discovery within the Eulalia location, and adopted the same as their own without making a valid discovery for themselves, they had not brought themselves within this principle, since in their offer of proof they merely relied upon a former knowledge of such location.


McMillen (the Plaintiff) lost because he relied on former knowledge to establish his location.

Read more here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/343

It's kind of hard to discover a location, that to your direct knowledge and experience, contains a valuable mineral deposit when that location is found in the middle of another's exclusive mineral claim. Relying on other's past discoveries obviously isn't good enough according to the Supreme Court in McMillen.

I really do dislike claims mongers. I am of the opinion that most of these 160 acre blanket claims will be disappearing soon due to the placer claim BLM fee hike. Perhaps patience will win over force in your battle?

In any case the methods you are employing are well known to the courts. The term is "claim jumping" and it has a long and dishonorable practice among mining attorneys. What has been earned by the skill, knowledge and hard work of a miner has often been taken by a glib tongue and some little white lies on paper.

I am not suggesting you are a claim jumper Al - far from it - I wish you luck in your endeavors. I am suggesting the methods you are employing will not find favor in the courts. A single decision does not make a right. If you study the Mining Acts you will see there was never the intention to allow one grantee to claim over another grantee. The intent was to ensure the United States got their full $5 per acre for known lode deposits found within proven placer patents.

The import of Clipper v. Eli and McMillen is all about patent rights. Attempting to bring administrative patent decisions into a local equity court is mixing venues way beyond what any local magistrate should be willing to consider. I wish you well in your efforts and hope you will consider some of my points about sufficiency of location.

Woof!


Last edited by Woof! on Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigAl



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 46
Location: N San Juan, Ca

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Woof, for the case law, when I started down this path four years ago I knew very little about mining law. If my research had supported the other claimants position believe me when I say I would have dropped it like a hot potato. But all the case law that I have found thus far, and I have found numerous cases, supports my position. and since I found where three of the judges referred to Lindley on mines, I found and bought the book. A known load is defined in it and the case law to support it. Also, my partner has personal knowledge of this mine, as he was in it when his brother worked there back in the early 1950s. The other claimant had filed on two of the hardrock mines we now have, he had them for a few years, he then filed a notice of abandonment on them, we filed on them about three months later. The discovery that the other claimant is using will not support the prudent man test, he is using some old hydraulic workings, less than two acres, to tie up 158 acres of hardrock ground, mostly serpentine, and he is using the hyd workings as a corner and the discovery for two claims. 99 percent of what he has tied up is hardrock ground, not placer. but he is trying to sell it as hardrock ground. thus getting around filing a bunch of hardrock claims with the resulting cost of that. last but not least, his aliquot part description puts his sideline around 600 east of our portal on the one mine.  Anyway, enough grousing about this guy. I do appreciate any knowledge  that you share, and I am more than willing to share my research on this forum. thanks again, Big Al
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigAl



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 46
Location: N San Juan, Ca

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Woof, you said that McMillen lost because he relied on former knowledge to establish his location.      He lost because the discovery shaft that he dug did not have mineral in it,  according to the case he did not have mineral in his discovery,  he should have used the original discovery shaft and dug it ten feet deeper according the the miners customs for that district. the judge even said he could have used it, but since he did not and Ferrum came along and filed on it before McMillen decided to use the original shaft, McMillen lost it.     The judge cited a (then) recent case, Baker city Water Co V Baker. if you haven't read it, you might want to, it talked about the rights of mining districts to make rules. I also because of this research discovered an old publication called the Mineral Reporter, I will be doing a lot of reading next winter when it's storming. Thank you again, Big AL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your reply Al.

Although McMillen did lose for lack of an actual discovery his complaint was very specifically based on prior knowledge of a valid discovery. That is what the court ruling was based on. McMillen claimed that his location was valid based on his prior knowledge. The courts consistently found that theory to be invalid. I gave you the link to the Supreme Court appeal. The justices wording in that appeal is not ambiguous it clearly states that locations by prior knowledge are not discoveries.

Quote:
Plaintiffs did not claim by virtue of a discovery of their own, but by virtue of their knowledge of the existence of a vein within the surveyed limits of that claim, though several hundred feet distant from the discovery shaft of the Eulalia, which he, McMillen, together with his co-owner, had previously discovered in the process of its development; and insisted that this knowledge was equivalent to an actual discovery by him of a vein within the Eulalia location.

The proposition of plaintiffs, as stated by their counsel, was this:
'That Mr. McMillen, as an owner and a locator of the Eulalia lode, knew at the time he placed his stake upon the Eulalia claim on the 30th of May, 1893, that he in company with the co-owners of the Pocket Liner claim had discovered ore in the shaft of the Pocket Liner claim; that at the moment that he placed his stake upon that ground, claiming the Eulalia claim as abandoned and unoccupied territory, that theretofore there had been a discovery of mineral within the requirements of the statutes of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and that that knowledge within the mind of Mr. McMillen constituted a complete, final, and perfect location of that mining claim, provided he did the other things requisite under the statutes of the state of Colorado, by sinking a discovery shaft 10 feet in depth, etc., etc., etc.'

The substance of the plaintiffs' argument was that the mere knowledge of the Eulalia locator of the existence of a vein in the Pocket Liner, the previous lode, made his location valid


As the original trial court pointed out it is not their duty to show how the McMillen claim could have been made valid. It was not valid and the fact that another did make a valid discovery on the same location does not prove a discovery for McMillen.

If you have a real interest in gleaning the actual details of McMillen's failed legal theories about known locations you should read the original trial court record. You might be surprised to find out that McMillen worked for the mining company that did make a successful discovery on that location. In fact McMillen participated in making the valid discovery. His personal knowledge of that discovery is what he was relying on to make his later claim a valid discovery.

My point in bringing up McMillen was to show that the courts have insisted on the actual discovery of mineral in place rather than a prior knowledge that a valuable mineral deposit existed at one point in time. Your friend having been inside a producing mine does not amount to a prior known location.

I hate to quote myself but I'd like to illustrate that I've made this very same point previously in our discussion.
Quote:
It's kind of hard to discover a location, that to your direct knowledge and experience, contains a valuable mineral deposit when that location is found in the middle of another's exclusive mineral claim. Relying on other's past discoveries obviously isn't good enough according to the Supreme Court in McMillen.


Now how are you going to legally dig a discovery shaft and discover a valuable mineral deposit, without trespassing, while a senior locator has exclusive rights to the surface and the minerals? The senior locator may give written permission to explore his claim but from what you have said he's pretty unlikely to do that.

As I have pointed out in a previous post on this forum a real understanding of the difference between mineral and non-mineral land would have led you to the conclusion that the abandoned previously known mineral lode would be non-mineral land until a current proven lode discovery is made. Past discoveries do not make for a currently valid claim.

Could you point out where in the 1870 Placer Act or the 1866 Act the issue of lodes located within placers is addressed? Both this lode over placer issue and the location by survey issues are properly discussed in the 1872 Act thread when the pertinent sections are addressed. This particular issue of lodes over placers would be better left to our discussion of Section 11 of the 1872 Act. I hope you will continue your study of this matter. I look forward to your informed input when we reach that portion of our studies. Alternatively you might wish to pursue your theory on a part of the forum that is not committed to lessons based on specific Acts of Congress.

Jumping ahead in these lessons before getting a grounding in the basis of these grants will lead to conclusions based on a desired outcome rather than the law. You seem to be pretty good at research Al. That is a valuable skill, I hope you will continue to research and bring your findings to this forum.

Woof!

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
Page 4 of 4

 
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