Claim Jumpers, Altering Patented Mining Claim Boundaries Options

[Gold Hill Miner]

I have thwarted a claim jumper and an adverse possession. I am in possession of 6 survey plats showing the accurate location of my claim and 1 inaccurate setback line by an inexperienced surveyor and an incorrect Cadastral Survey/ meets and bounds survey from the BLM. I have been able to prove my claim jumper has rotated his claim 75' disrupting several mountain communities and 10 immediate adjoining parcels. I found what I needed buried in BLM case files that were missing listed documents/photos and also hidden in inaccurate case files. I am the 4th land owner since 2010 to have my claim locations fixed in my area. 4 other immediate land owners are next since I have completed my investigation. I am filing a lawsuit against this claim jumper. I have contacted the local authorities and I have contacted the BLM. I thought this was the BLM's fault. It was not.

What I am struggling with, is protection from the crazed claim jumper. I have also found there have been many land disputes over the mining claims in my area because of this ripple effect. The claim jumper claim is at the top of our mountain section. This has rippled into multiple mountain areas because the claim jumper altered his claim lines to encompass trespass issues on government land. The BLM, the County and the sheriffs department are not showing any accountability with this. All of us in the immediate area are filing the BLM letter to the claim jumper (ordering removal of trespass issue) and a recent survey showing the movement of many claims in our area by BLM to be inaccurate with the county planning department and with our deeds.

Who will finally arrest the claim jumper. His lawyer sent a letter wanting to settle out of court. Since I received the letter, the claim jumper has become more aggressive, destroys marked boundary lines and threatens my family continuously. Who will let the rest of our adjoining mountain communities know about this. I do have a TPO and will hopefully get a permanent one soon. My lawyer will be filing our lawsuit in July to recoup some of the damages caused by the claim jumper. I followed advise from a previous thread, took my land back, posted no trespassing signs and called the sheriff. Any of the remaining property in trespass on my land is mine now. How do I get this guy removed off the mountain. I can not believe the lack of accountability with the BLM, the County and the Division of Mine Reclamation. The Forest Service did help help me in 2011 and 2012 with survey equipment and we found every original stone corner monument for three of my parcels. No metal monuments unless they were thrown in mine shafts. We could see them. The forest service also proved all my GPS coordinates were a match to our county coordinates at the time. I have wasted a lot of time and money proving the same thing over and over again. No one wants to deal with this guy. I am afraid the claim jumper will cause serious damage with his bulldozer as he has in the past. Anyone remember Heemeyer in Granby or Kremmling?
On a good note, I have found my first gold flakes. At the rate I'm going it might be 10-20 years before I have an ounce. I am finding silver and gold in specific stones that have what I believe could be fluoride? It looks dark red and seems lucid or almost crystal like?

[Clay Diggins]

If these are indeed mining claims on public lands neither the Sheriff nor the BLM have any authority at this point. If these are patented private lands the situation may be different as Gene shows in the Colorado Statutes.

Disputes between mining claimants has been a civil matter since before the 1866 and subsequent mining Acts. The 1865 Act addressed this issue solely and very simply. Here is the entire text:

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

Simply put it may be the United States public lands but it's up to miners to settle their disputes through mitigation and if necessary the civil courts. Also the only law you can rely on for the court to settle your dispute is the law of possession.

Generally the proper civil court to bring suit will be the first court of record that has the jurisdiction to award real estate in their judgement. Each State is different so you should research which court is your proper venue before you file suit. Proof of mitigation is also generally required in these matters so you may need to establish that you have made a genuine effort to settle this matter before bringing suit.

Colorado has some of the best mining attorneys in the Country. It might be a good idea to talk to one of them to see where you stand.
If you do sue and win the Sheriff might be the right authority to enforce your judgement. First you will need to get a court order - then the Sheriff will have something he can act on.

Good luck.

[swizz]

If these are indeed mining claims on public lands neither the Sheriff nor the BLM have any authority

I didn't catch where he stated that his claim was patent or location.
Please elaborate. How did you come to this conclusion for his claim? My location claims are on BLM managed public lands and the elected County Sheriff is the Federal mining law enforcer in my neck of the woods. You are implying that NO agency is responsible for law enforcement at "mining claims on public lands". This makes things sound a little grim for the miners, don't ya think? Should I just go ahead and shoot claimjumpers at my discretion, like in the good ol days? Nah. My County Sheriff will respond to my mining claims when called. It's not my job (nor desire) as a civilian to confront criminals and enforce laws, we elected him for this. Will he investigate, file reports, and cite for mineral trespass, theft, or vandalism? You bet. Property line disputes can be handled in court without the Sheriff's intervention as long as no criminal offenses such as theft or vandalism are witnessed and provable. Gold Hill Miner has reasonable complaints in regard to vandalism, theft, etc. in addition to property line disputes. Not sure what his evidence consists of, but I'm assuming he has evidence.
If the County Sheriff and I are wrong on this... please explain. Perhaps I misunderstood your response.

[Clay Diggins]

My location claims are on BLM managed public lands and the elected County Sheriff is the Federal mining law enforcer in my neck of the woods. You are implying that NO agency is responsible for law enforcement at "mining claims on public lands".

I never implied anything. I simply presented the law on mining location disputes. I never wrote that the Sheriff couldn't enforce federal mining laws swizz? I'm not sure a Sheriff can go over the heads of the BLM on federal mining laws but that's a discussion for another time. This thread is specifically about claim jumping.

No federal mining law has been pointed out on this thread but the one I quoted?. That law left claim location disputes to the miners involved to settle among themselves or in a court. That court is restricted to deciding their disputes based on the law of possession only. There are federal laws on the possession of mining claims but as I'm sure the Sheriff would tell you he's not a judge and can't decide who should possess a mining claim without a court order.

Until the location dispute is settled there is no evidence that there is a mineral trespass. Mineral trespass (higrading) is a separate and distinct issue from location trespass (claim jumping). A claimant has to first clear any cloud on their title before law enforcement can act on mineral trespass. The place to clear that title dispute is in a civil court proceeding. The Sheriff's hands are tied until the possession issue is resolved.

All BLM employees in the minerals and records divisions are instructed in this. (BLM Manual 3833.74)
If the BLM employees don't get the point the IBLA is known to correct their error.

From Interior Board of Land Appeals Decision 2012-186, Robert O'Day, Decided June 13, 2013:

1.Mining Claims:

The Board has long held that it is inappropriate for BLM to engage in disputes over the right of possession of rival claimants at the request of one of the claimants. Such disputes are more appropriately resolved by an appropriate local judicial forum, not by BLM or this Board.

BLM has a well-established policy against responding to third party assertions that a mining claimant has failed to file documents with the local recording office. See BLM Manual 3833.74. Consistent with that policy, the Board has long held that it is inappropriate for BLM to engage in disputes over the right of possession of rival claimants at the request of one of the claimants. See, e.g. , Sandra Memmott (On Reconsideration) , 93 IBLA 113, 114-15 (1986), and cases cited. Such disputes are properly resolved by an appropriate local judicial forum, not by BLM or this Board. See, e.g., Recon Mining Co. , Inc ., 167 IBLA 103, 109 (2005). In this case, BLM’s response to appellant comes perilously close to such inappropriate engagement.

This is well established law. There are hundreds if not thousands of IBLA and civil court cases that restate the same principle. You now have the law and the implementation of that law to help you understand. Neither the Sheriff nor the BLM can settle a dispute between mining claimants about their locations.