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 

BLM/Taylor Grazing Act/Idaho
Page Previous  1, 2
 
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
Woof!



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:21 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

beebarjay wrote:
So understandably the actual Law trumps the USC which in turn would trump CFR's.  But the law is the basic foundation from which all else stems.   Thus it would seem that each would have a different venue by which a contested argument would/could be adjudicated.  I would be willing to say arguing against the US Code would entail some great expertise in legal matters.

thanks

bejay


The actual law trumps all. If the Act of Congress is not the same as the USC the Statute will prevail over the code.

The fact that the USC is Prima Facie evidence of law means that there is a rebuttable presumption that the actual law is the same as the Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rebuttal

The courts regularly act on presumptions whether they are true or not.
Examples:

    The court presumes to have jurisdiction over the case unless someone objects. (demurrer, challenge of jurisdiction, motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or move etc.)

    If someone states that such and such is true the court will presume it is true unless someone else provides evidence that it is not a true statement, this is known as a rebuttal.

    If the CFR or USC is offered as the controlling law it is up to another party to show otherwise (rebut). If no objection or offer of contrary law is given the court will proceed as if the CFR or USC is the controlling law. It does not matter if the USC is wrong or a statement is untrue if no one shows otherwise.


For myself I find the Acts of Congress to be simple compared to administrative regulations (CFR) or searching through the 50 chapters of the USC. You may have a different experience.

Attorneys argue. They do so because they can not present evidence themselves. The evidence in any case must be presented by someone with first hand knowledge. If the attorney had first hand knowledge of a fact he can not give evidence of that fact and represent a party to a case at the same time.

Never argue in court. Present the facts and the law. If the facts you present rebut the facts presented by the other party and the law supports your position you will win.

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



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Letter and play Reply with quote

johncrossman wrote:
this is how they (BLM) have locked up most of the Payette river from being claimed.


I'm not quite sure what you are writing about John. I've looked at the Payette and very little of that area is under BLM management. It seems there is a little on the meanders south of McCall and a bit more south of Banks. There are current, active, placer claims in both those areas.

If you PM me a Township Range and Section(s) I will look a bit closer for you. What land management map are you using that shows the BLM as surface management agency on the Payette?

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



Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Thanks Woof Reply with quote

Thanks Woof, I believe it was township 9 range 4 east sec 35 & 36 we are just east of Garden Valley one mile on the Banks Lowman Hwy. The BLM has this area mixed with USFS lands and it seems neither has a straight answer to who manages it but BLM signs are here I will try to post the plat from BLM Friday.
John
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 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry this took so long John, it's been busy here.

The North Half , the Southeast quarter and the Northeast quarter and the Southwest quarter (ALL of Section 36) is Idaho State School Trust Land granted in the March 3, 1863: Idaho Territorial Act (12 Stat. 808) and Patented July 3, 1890.

In most Townships in the western States Sections 16 and 36 are reserved to State School Trusts.

Lot 8 of Section 35 is a power withdrawal. This is the triangle on the Southeast corner of Section 35 just South of the river. It also appears to be part of the Boise Reclamation Project.

The SW of the SW quarter of Section 35 was patented to John Bordly on April 7, 1890. There were no mineral reservations.

The SE quarter of the NE quarter of Section 35 (40 acres) Patented to Mathias Zapp in November of 1910. No mineral reservations.

Lots 3 & 4 and the NE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 35 Patented to Nicholaus Wetzel in January of 1885/ No mineral reservations.

It looks like most of section 35 was patented at one time. It's either been reconveyed or is private land (I didn't check for that). In either case it is unlikely the minerals are available with the exception of the power withdrawal (PLO 5444) lands. A quick status check showed no orders opening any acquisitions.

Obviously the BLM is BSing you about the Taylor Act. Section 36 is State land. I don't know what the status of State lands vis a vis minerals in Idaho is but I doubt they would make anything easy.

If portions of Section 35 have been reconveyed you will probably run up against the Acadia exception. That is a bag of worms even I stay out of ... for now.  Very Happy

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



Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:53 am    Post subject: You in the right area Reply with quote

Woof, you are in the correct area, the triangular piece is the one we want, and if you look, we also are interested in the area to the east as well. I guess I need to take a copy of this info minus names of course with me to the BLM and see what we can do. The little triangular section, if it is for a power withdrawl, the lady at BLM said they the (BLM) send a letter to the powers in control (I forgot what she called them) of said ground, and it would be most likely approved for claiming. Is there anything else I/we should be aware of or we should do?

Thanks, John
_________________
If you always do what you always did
you will always get what you always got
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



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

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you make your location on the powersite withdrawal triangle the Secretary of the Interior has 60 days to determine if your placer claim will interfere with the powersite operations. You are not supposed to "operate" during those 60 days but I don't see anything wrong with continuing your discovery work during your non-operational occupation.  Very Happy

You will be held strictly liable for any damages you may suffer from the powersite operation. If they flood your works, destroy your equipment and kill your friends you can't sue them.  Shocked

Of course this is only true if the land is open to location.  Cool

Here is the USC on powersite withdrawals:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/30C16.txt



Good Gold to you.

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 -> Mining Law Tibits All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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