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 

Clifford Tracy
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> COURTS & CASE LAW
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
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

I went back and reviewed some of the info on this forum and under homework 1 Gold Patriot posted this: Start with the 1866 Act and the 1872 Act. Keep them as a reference when you are reading or discussing mining law. When a term (word) is used, such as operation or disturbance, look at those acts to see if those terms are used there. If there is no such term used in the Mining Acts then those terms are not a part of the Mineral Estate Grant and do not apply to that grant.( I missed this part even though I read it when this forum first started)

Now that little quote makes absolute sense as to why Woof! was politely telling us to quit getting hung-up. I fear we are about to get hung up on "significant disturbance" again. Those words do not exist in the Grant.
_________________
Navy Vet 1983-1992 (Submariner SSN-612)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daubster



Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Point taken. I will stick to the grants.

Thanks,
B
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We already discussed what aauthority the States have within the law of the U.S.  What gives Oregon the right to dictate authority?  Someone show me where that part exists.

Of utter most importance is staying within the realm of the grant.  Shooting yourself in the foot can simply be arguing your case where no need exists.  It is constantly being pointed out that the law speaks specifically and each word is of utmost importance.  

Once in the public domain the issue of public lands oversight should be exempt.   The arguement would always have to be a means by which nothing can be said to remove you from the Mineral Estate Grant.  

It would be my observation that those finding fault with a miner will always atempt to take the miner away from the grant or show that the miner removed himself from the grant by an action of his own making or undertaking.

Woof and others are ALWAYS pointing at specifics within the laws that enable a  MINER to stay within the lawful authority of the grant.  But there are many layers of administtrative rules and statutes that can lead to a mis-representation by applying all the different layers of authority.

1866 took issue with the fact that miners fail to remain under the grant.  This failure is a result of incorrect stature when standing your ground....again shooting yourself in the foot.  Goldpatriot brings attention to the very same condition.

I would offer this for consideration.  How does a person prove that the Mineral Estate Grant superceeds/trumps all other layers of authority.  If a person can achieve that then staying within the grant can be achieved and the miner can feel confident in is activity.  But there are many layers of authoritative language that MUST be understood.  

Understanding the power of the Grant is one thing.  Understanding how to defend it is another.  But first and foremost; a miner must be within the realm of the grant prior to any defense using it.

But it seems we need to go back and re-study the power of State authority if they can dictate terms applicable to what a miner does on his claim within the public domain.

So it is obvious more classroom study must occur.  But I agree there is a vast amount of information available to use and read.  Maybe at some point we can undertake a a classroom court case scenario, but I personally am not ready for that yet.

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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From a Boxy comment posted  on the GPAA forum Learning Mining law thread.

"The nature of a grant is that it is made once. Once given it can not be taken back. Congress can not take back what it has already given away."

(Prove this, and if you are within the grant, you have a slam dunk do you not?  bejay)


Originally posted by The Supreme Court in Fletcher v. Peck

"When a law is in the nature of a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot devest those rights.

A party to a contract cannot pronounce its own deed invalid, although that party be a sovereign State. A grant is a contract executed.

A law annulling conveyances is unconstitutional because it is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."



You are already the owner of that grant as are all the other's who discover valuable mineral deposits. The "discover valuable mineral deposits" part combined with the "citizen of the United States or one who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States" equals a key to the grant that was made more than 140 years ago.

I could post law and Supreme Court decisions all day to show you that you had the grant all along but you already hold the proof right in your claims. Look at how the County Recorder classifies your Notice of Location establishing a Claim of Right to the Discovered minerals.


You are listed as the Grantor.
The Claim name is listed as the Grantee.

That's right - legally you gave the claim to yourself . You had the right to it all along, you just had to find the treasure (Locate) before you could claim it."

This is worth remembering should you need it.

bejay
_________________
Proud of my generation and never to old to learn


Last edited by beebarjay on Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beebarjay



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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More information worth reading and then give thought to the Tracy case.  

U.S. Code Title 30 Chapter 2.  Now what part of this did Tracy use prior to his NOI or POO?


CHAPTER 2—MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL


• § 21. Mineral lands reserved
• § 21a. National mining and minerals policy; “minerals” defined; execution of policy under other authorized programs
• § 22. Lands open to purchase by citizens
• § 23. Length of claims on veins or lodes
• § 24. Proof of citizenship
• § 25. Affidavit of citizenship
• § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment
• § 27. Mining tunnels; right to possession of veins on line with; abandonment of right
• § 28. Mining district regulations by miners: location, recordation, and amount of work; marking of location on ground; records; annual labor or improvements on claims pending issue of patent; co-owner’s succession in interest upon delinquency in contributing proportion of expenditures; tunnel as lode expenditure
• § 28-1. Inclusion of certain surveys in labor requirements of mining claims; conditions and restrictions
• § 28-2. Definitions
• § 28a. Omitted
• § 28b. Annual assessment work on mining claims; temporary deferment; conditions
• § 28c. Length and termination of deferment
• § 28d. Performance of deferred work
• § 28e. Recordation of deferment
• § 28f. Fee
• § 28g. Location fee
• § 28h. Co-ownership

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 -> COURTS & CASE LAW 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