ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Miner jailed for shooting four-wheeler during confrontation
Mineral Estate G...
post Apr 9 2009, 04:35 PM
Post #1


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 12-February 09
Member No.: 6,851



Down Load and listen to this:

http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/?pa...aspx%3fid%3d629

Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 517 — Mining and Mining Claims
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/517.html
517.133 Interfering with a mining operation. (1) As used in this section, “lawful mining operation” means any small scale mining operation that is in full compliance with state and federal laws.
(2) A person commits the crime of interfering with a mining operation if the person intentionally:
(a) Interferes with a lawful mining operation; or
(b) Stops, or causes to be stopped, a lawful mining operation.
(3) Interfering with a mining operation is a Class C misdemeanor. [1999 c.354 §6]

Note: See note under 517.120.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Apr 10 2009, 04:17 AM
Post #2


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



the report didnt really tell us of all that happened or what lead up to this boiling point!.so in fairness i cant say if he was justified or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mineral Estate G...
post Apr 10 2009, 09:49 AM
Post #3


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 12-February 09
Member No.: 6,851



I would ask that anyone believing in what the Forest Service and BLM tells you about not having the right to the property of your mining claim go and read the Disclaimer posted on the agencies' web page...or just read it from here: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Myth.html

Note: The Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife...are all members of this union: IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature; Eco/Spiritual practices, a United Nations Cancer on American soil…an international anti private property organization.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Coalbunny
post May 18 2009, 02:38 AM
Post #4


Master Mucker
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,432
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 98



From what I have seen so far is most if not all of your links going to a site that has it's audio automatically blasting. You provide information, but most of it in mp3 audio files. Why is there nothing in print?

Why is there very little about this story, other than quoting the laws?


--------------------
Today's socio-political climate is rock solid proof that Adam and Eve weren't prospectors.
If they were they'd have eaten the snake instead of the apple and we'd still be in heaven....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mineral Estate G...
post Jul 18 2009, 07:49 PM
Post #5


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 12-February 09
Member No.: 6,851



http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewth...&postnum=60


Apologizing for the delinquency of this response... Yes I am that busy addressing these issues behind the scenes... And it has taken this long to come up with an answer which is sufficient yet concise and of which I hope will not continue the confusion over these matters so well propagandized by the BLM to its unlawful advantage and impositions to date. But the tide is beginning to turn.

Besides promising chickengold an answer to 30 USC 612 and that mineral family, I have been asked by a number of people, including Jim Foley, and in discussions with Jerry Hobbs, to address the 1955 Multi Use act, so-called, and its applicability upon the granted mineral estate. Because of mis or dis information, or omissions by BLM or of plain ignorance of the laws, I wanted to show how you can understand the 1955 Common Varieties Act, i.e. "Surface resources Act", eg., Multiuse act, to read that it does not pertain to our granted mineral deposit locations and nothing in it provides authority to the BLM to regulate the suface of your granted mineral deposit locations; Which is why FLPMA has all those exceptions to SoI/BLM Management and Enforcement authority under 43 USC 1732 and 1733 prohibiting interference with our vested properties.

By reading too fast it is easy to over look the answer.

30 U.S.C. 612(b) states:

"Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof
(except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States).

Observe that "mining claim" located is not the same as a "mineral deposit" located.

Because if any "mining claim" is the exception "mineral deposits", then the first sentence is excepted from the statute making 612 meaningless. If however, the exception, "mineral deposit" is a different mineral class than what is being referred to in the first sentence amending the Mineral Materials act of 1947 act, .i.e., common materials such as sand and gravel, then this makes complete sense. The exception, in the 612 (b) parenthesis above, conforms to the law, recognizes the prior valuable mineral deposit disposal, and is the savings clause identifed in the Congressional Record of 2000 as required in all subsequent land disposal acts of Congress after the act of 1866 regarding the mineral estate, or as is expressed in the Act of 1866 "the mineral lands of the public domain" removing from application of this subpart the valuable mineral deposits.

For reference, notice the text in the 1872 http://goldplacer.com/1872MiningLaw.htm:

"That all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States"

"or other valuable deposits heretofore located"

Which expanded and clarified this:

of the 1866 H.R. 365: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Law.html

" That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed

4 and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to

5 exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United

6 States,"

And then we have Section 505 confirmation of all this that 600-613 and others in this ADMINISTRATIVELY DISPOSABLE class pertain only to leasables and salables.

For further reading and clarification, deliniation, comprehension, and scope I've compiled some information which, I hope, clears this matter up. From this you should come away with the proof that BLM has no authority over your granted valuable mineral deposit locations granted in 1866 though perfected through the 1872 Act. The acts of 1947, 1955, or 1960 were never meant to apply. And if the BLM is going to challenge you it must be by a probable cause supported challenge to the validity of your presumed bona fide location and valid discovery. By this, there is no authority in the BLM or Secretary of the Interior to interfere, by any act of Congress, with your private, as patent, property which includes the surface because those public domain locations are excepted from the purposes for which the 1947, 1955, and 1960 the actual Multi-Use Act, and FLPMA statutes were intended which could not interfere with the 1866 prior land disposal, including NEPA, either Part 228 or the 3809/3715's .

Thank you for your time to research these matters to protect your valuable mineral property against Special Interest encroachment, trespass, or theft. For more information be sure to download any number of programs which explain the mining law at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/archives/?show=Behind the Woodshed or tune in Noon O'clock Pacific Daily Mon thru Fri at http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/

If there are any other questions, do not hesitate to ask. We don't have any more time to be ignorant of our property, rights, or entitlements.


IV. Federal Mining Laws

Federal minerals can be acquired three different ways: (1) location of mining claim, (2) sale, and (3) lease. The locatable and saleable minerals are pertinent to this article.

Title 30, United States Code, Mineral Lands and Mining, contains the federal mining laws. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Public Lands, contains the principal regulations relating to mining on federal lands.

Locatable minerals include any valuable mineral deposit which is not saleable or leasable and is locatable under the Mining Law of 1872 8, as amended. The term also includes uncommon varieties of sand, stone and other building materials. Saleable minerals include common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, clay and other mineral materials. The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 9, as amended, governs exploitation of saleable minerals on BLM and other federal lands.

The history of locatable minerals and saleable minerals is intertwined. Prior to passage of the Materials Act19 deposits of common sand, stone, gravel and clay were unavailable under any system. Uncommon deposits were locatable. After the Materials Act, those common materials could be purchased. Certain types of ordinary material, even with commercial value, have never been locatable under the mining laws, including fill, sub-base, ballast, riprap and barrow.20

On July 23, 1955, an amendment to the Materials Act was passed known as the Common Varieties Act21. The Common Varieties Act codified the prior law that common varieties of certain building materials are not locatable and provided an exception for "uncommon varieties":

"No deposit of common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders and no deposit of petrified wood shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws. . . .

"’Common varieties’ as used in sections 601, 603, and 611 to 615 of this title does not include deposits of such materials which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving it distinct and special value." . . .

The uncommon varieties reference in the Common Varieties Act and the effective date of that statute form the heart of the BLM – crushed stone industry cases described herein. Generally the producer was seeking a way to categorize minerals as locatable rather than saleable.

BLM can challenge mining claims administratively within the United States Department of the Interior or through litigation in the federal courts, but not both simultaneously.29 The cases cited involve all of these methods: administrative action, litigation and a combination of the two.

BLM challenges include notices of mineral trespass, which can involve the Mining Law of 1872, the Materials Act of 1947, the Common Varieties Act of 1955, the Building Stone Act of 189230, other parts of a mining claim’s validity or a combination of all of them. Litigation initiated by BLM can involve the same issues and usually include temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions requesting immediate termination of the mining operations.

7 Arizona Yearbook: A Guide to Government in the Grand Canyon State 1997-1998.

8 30 U.S.C. § 22, et seq.

9 30 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.

18 1 American Law of Mining, Second Edition, § 30.05[6], p. 30-16.

19 Supra.

20 United States v. Webb, 132 IBLA 152, 183 (1995).

21 30 U.S.C. § 611.

29 2 American Law of Mining, Second Edition, § 50.02; p. 50-5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 02:24 AM