This great act of July 26, 1866, legalized the miners' rules and regulations, …
http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/jou.../article_6.html
Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums > Land Rights, Laws and References > Fight For Your Rights!
This great act of July 26, 1866, legalized the miners' rules and regulations, which were not in conflict with the laws of the United States, and made it possible to acquire a title in fee simple to the precious-metal bearing lands. The first section reads:
The mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States.
The mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States.
Miners' Rules and Regulations. These miners' rules and regulations, 46 which seemed to suit the interest of the miners so well, were the outgrowth of necessity and experience, built upon the foundation of the European and Mexican mining laws, and adjusted to the needs of the new environment. By 1860 there grew up a miners' code based on equitable principles, democratic in character. The main object of these rules and regulations was to fix the size, manner of recording, working, and holding the claims. The size varied according to the richness of the placers, ranging from ten to one hundred and fifty feet square. In general a reasonable amount of work had to be done in order to establish and hold a claim to a placer mine. The purpose of limiting the size of the claims, and defining the condition of holding them, was to guard the mines from being monopolized. Here we notice the common aversion of the frontier democracy to monopoly. The promulgation of the rules and the settlement of disputes were also handled in a typical frontier democratic fashion. The rules were generally framed and amended at a public mass meeting, conducted in an informal manner. The disputes were settled by an arbitrary board of miners, selected by the disputants from the neighboring mining camps, or by a miners' jury previously appointed at a miners' meeting.
The state legislature, after some consideration, declared by statute that in "actions respecting 'Mining Claims' proof shall be admitted of the customs, usages, or regulations established and in force at the bar, or diggings, embracing such claim; and such customs, usages, or regulations, when not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state, shall govern the decision of the action. 47 Thus the legislature declared the miners' law to be binding in matters relating to mining claims. The "let alone" policy of the Federal government was interpreted by the miners as a tacit approval by the Federal government of their mining code.
The state legislature, after some consideration, declared by statute that in "actions respecting 'Mining Claims' proof shall be admitted of the customs, usages, or regulations established and in force at the bar, or diggings, embracing such claim; and such customs, usages, or regulations, when not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state, shall govern the decision of the action. 47 Thus the legislature declared the miners' law to be binding in matters relating to mining claims. The "let alone" policy of the Federal government was interpreted by the miners as a tacit approval by the Federal government of their mining code.
Thank you to Zooka for the contribution of a link, on another forum, those interested in further researching/understanding mining matters have another source of information to study from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bULSAAAAM...tor&f=false
MEG...Hal's defacto publicist
http://books.google.com/books?id=bULSAAAAM...tor&f=false
MEG...Hal's defacto publicist
Although I have just barely got started in my read, I find this particularly interesting and in line with what Hal has been saying…found in his studies as well:
The right of a locator of a mining claim to the enjoyment of the surface is limited to uses incident to mining operations, and the lands in a forest reserve embraced in a mining claim continue to constitute a part of the reserve notwithstanding the mineral location, subject to all the legal rights and privileges of the locator.
United States v. Rizzinelli, 182 Fed. 675, p. 684.
A valid location of a mining claim entitles the locator to the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface ground included within the lines of his location, and this right does not mean the right to use it for mining purposes only, but means an absolute sale when the terms and conditions are complied with.
Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378, p. 413.
Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. I^ngstedt, 1 Alaska 439, p. 450.
Mantle v. Noyes, 5 Mont. 274, p. 290.
Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76.
7. RIGHT AS AGAINST INTRUDER.
A locator has the right of possession against all intruders and the right to protect his possession and to work the land for valuable minerals.
Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440, p. 450.
Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541.
Like Hal has told others, Google Books is an excellent source for information.
The right of a locator of a mining claim to the enjoyment of the surface is limited to uses incident to mining operations, and the lands in a forest reserve embraced in a mining claim continue to constitute a part of the reserve notwithstanding the mineral location, subject to all the legal rights and privileges of the locator.
United States v. Rizzinelli, 182 Fed. 675, p. 684.
A valid location of a mining claim entitles the locator to the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface ground included within the lines of his location, and this right does not mean the right to use it for mining purposes only, but means an absolute sale when the terms and conditions are complied with.
Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378, p. 413.
Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. I^ngstedt, 1 Alaska 439, p. 450.
Mantle v. Noyes, 5 Mont. 274, p. 290.
Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76.
7. RIGHT AS AGAINST INTRUDER.
A locator has the right of possession against all intruders and the right to protect his possession and to work the land for valuable minerals.
Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440, p. 450.
Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541.
Like Hal has told others, Google Books is an excellent source for information.
i wish i have all the energy you have in being able to sit and read all of this really good information. i was going to print it out for referance but a couple hundred pages is a lot. there is so much info for a small scale miner to read and understand, and knowing how these laws intertwine and relate to other laws and their relationships is beyond my comprehension. thankyou for helping us see another veiw point and explanation.
No worries Russ, thankfully you can print off the law itself concerning Locators' rights of possession, which is quoted in the Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc. section of the Colorado Prospector forums for everyones convenience, take your time, print it off when ever you like. 
Look for "30USC26 - Locators' rights of possession" page 2 of the section.
Anyone want to look up your own law section (USC) or regulations (CFR)? There is a handy link in the Valuable References section for that too!
Look for the pinned thread titled "GPO Access Website"
CP
Look for "30USC26 - Locators' rights of possession" page 2 of the section.
Anyone want to look up your own law section (USC) or regulations (CFR)? There is a handy link in the Valuable References section for that too!
Look for the pinned thread titled "GPO Access Website"
CP
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_699.html
Mineral Estate Grantee February 23, 2009, 2:04am
Ladies/Gentlemen:
Though this letter pertains to the attempt last Session to interfere with the mineral estate trust property, it would answer the current, apparent attempt; though in actuality it may not actually affect our property being H.R. 699 pertains to the "legal and beneficial title" both being held by the United States, in contradistinction to the 1866 trust property where the "beneficial title" is held by qualifying American men or women.
I have been, previously, authorized to distribute the letter of Ron Gibson, the Vice President of the Southwestern Oregon Mining Association, responding to the threat H.R. 2262 posed to mining for the widest possible dissemination.
The images attached are of the letter sent to Oregon Senator Smith on January 18, 2008, with "CC:" to Oregon Congressman Walden regarding the H.R. 2262 matter currently at committee in the Senate as of January 24, 2008.
Feel free to distribute to all who may be interested in understanding how fundamental the right to "mining" is and that the grant of 1866, made no provision for any continuing regulation authority over mining development, access, or occupation, those activities so-called "reasonably incident to" developing the mineral estate on the public domain.
Thorough review and study of the authorities contained in the letter show the absoluteness and far-reaching ramifications, the complete "unconditionability," of the grant of 1866, and how the law supporting it interposes itself successfully against any purported authority an agency of government might believe it wields to regulate "mining" activities. It is mind-boggling to see how far "we" have strayed from the simple law expressed in the grant:
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter1.jpg
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter2.jpg
Mineral Estate Grantee February 23, 2009, 2:04am
Ladies/Gentlemen:
Though this letter pertains to the attempt last Session to interfere with the mineral estate trust property, it would answer the current, apparent attempt; though in actuality it may not actually affect our property being H.R. 699 pertains to the "legal and beneficial title" both being held by the United States, in contradistinction to the 1866 trust property where the "beneficial title" is held by qualifying American men or women.
I have been, previously, authorized to distribute the letter of Ron Gibson, the Vice President of the Southwestern Oregon Mining Association, responding to the threat H.R. 2262 posed to mining for the widest possible dissemination.
The images attached are of the letter sent to Oregon Senator Smith on January 18, 2008, with "CC:" to Oregon Congressman Walden regarding the H.R. 2262 matter currently at committee in the Senate as of January 24, 2008.
Feel free to distribute to all who may be interested in understanding how fundamental the right to "mining" is and that the grant of 1866, made no provision for any continuing regulation authority over mining development, access, or occupation, those activities so-called "reasonably incident to" developing the mineral estate on the public domain.
Thorough review and study of the authorities contained in the letter show the absoluteness and far-reaching ramifications, the complete "unconditionability," of the grant of 1866, and how the law supporting it interposes itself successfully against any purported authority an agency of government might believe it wields to regulate "mining" activities. It is mind-boggling to see how far "we" have strayed from the simple law expressed in the grant:
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter1.jpg
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter2.jpg
QUOTE (Mineral Estate Grantee @ Feb 17 2010, 11:37 AM) 
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_699.html
Mineral Estate Grantee February 23, 2009, 2:04am
Ladies/Gentlemen:
Though this letter pertains to the attempt last Session to interfere with the mineral estate trust property, it would answer the current, apparent attempt; though in actuality it may not actually affect our property being H.R. 699 pertains to the "legal and beneficial title" both being held by the United States, in contradistinction to the 1866 trust property where the "beneficial title" is held by qualifying American men or women.
I have been, previously, authorized to distribute the letter of Ron Gibson, the Vice President of the Southwestern Oregon Mining Association, responding to the threat H.R. 2262 posed to mining for the widest possible dissemination.
The images attached are of the letter sent to Oregon Senator Smith on January 18, 2008, with "CC:" to Oregon Congressman Walden regarding the H.R. 2262 matter currently at committee in the Senate as of January 24, 2008.
Feel free to distribute to all who may be interested in understanding how fundamental the right to "mining" is and that the grant of 1866, made no provision for any continuing regulation authority over mining development, access, or occupation, those activities so-called "reasonably incident to" developing the mineral estate on the public domain.
Thorough review and study of the authorities contained in the letter show the absoluteness and far-reaching ramifications, the complete "unconditionability," of the grant of 1866, and how the law supporting it interposes itself successfully against any purported authority an agency of government might believe it wields to regulate "mining" activities. It is mind-boggling to see how far "we" have strayed from the simple law expressed in the grant:
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter1.jpg
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter2.jpg
Mineral Estate Grantee February 23, 2009, 2:04am
Ladies/Gentlemen:
Though this letter pertains to the attempt last Session to interfere with the mineral estate trust property, it would answer the current, apparent attempt; though in actuality it may not actually affect our property being H.R. 699 pertains to the "legal and beneficial title" both being held by the United States, in contradistinction to the 1866 trust property where the "beneficial title" is held by qualifying American men or women.
I have been, previously, authorized to distribute the letter of Ron Gibson, the Vice President of the Southwestern Oregon Mining Association, responding to the threat H.R. 2262 posed to mining for the widest possible dissemination.
The images attached are of the letter sent to Oregon Senator Smith on January 18, 2008, with "CC:" to Oregon Congressman Walden regarding the H.R. 2262 matter currently at committee in the Senate as of January 24, 2008.
Feel free to distribute to all who may be interested in understanding how fundamental the right to "mining" is and that the grant of 1866, made no provision for any continuing regulation authority over mining development, access, or occupation, those activities so-called "reasonably incident to" developing the mineral estate on the public domain.
Thorough review and study of the authorities contained in the letter show the absoluteness and far-reaching ramifications, the complete "unconditionability," of the grant of 1866, and how the law supporting it interposes itself successfully against any purported authority an agency of government might believe it wields to regulate "mining" activities. It is mind-boggling to see how far "we" have strayed from the simple law expressed in the grant:
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter1.jpg
http://s581.photobucket.com/albums/ss254/M...bsonLetter2.jpg
Please find below Zooka's reply to this same thread on Alaska Gold Forum ( http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewth...&thread=665 ):
"This is simply an incorrect thesis. The 1866 law itself says it is "subject to such laws as may be enacted". That means that the rules can indeed be changed by Congress, and even by states, as has happened several times since 1866.
-Z "
Answering to Zooka's Reply:
The limiting phrase, "not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title" seems to be missing from every snippet provided by those misapprehending the mining law and asserting that an agency of government has any regulation power over a granted exclusively possessed as patent property. Only rules not in conflict with the laws of the United States are controling. And the only remaining rules available through valid laws of the United States for purposes of regulation regarding these properties held as patent are those in perfecting the claim, to the "possessory title", the muniment. Those rules may not interfere with the grant of exclusive possession of the land and the entire surface. Any rule or regulation touching the granted mineral deposits is in conflict with the intent of congress or the laws of the United States in disposing of those uncommon valuable minerals on public domain. Regarding the emphasis that "ALL US mining laws" be applied, remember, that also includes the savings clauses as explained in the Congressional Record of October 2000 are required in every act to preserve the granting of the exclusive possession of the valuable mineral deposits and all the surface.
Download the file at the bottom and scrub up to 32:35 where the conversation on the 1955
Act starts:
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...55_Hr1_podcast/
Then continue to listen from the link below. Listen for where the BLM states regarding the non-inclusion of valuable mineral deposits under the 1955 Act. See some of the text.
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...55_Hr2_podcast/
And so when you see that Zooka says "It says that on ALL US claims filed under ALL US mining laws after this law's enactment in 1955" I have to agree, He is correct. Anyone surprised? I whole-heartedly agree with Zooka as to his statement, but only to the point of it's limit, the US Claims. So who knows what that is? Us Claims are also known as federal claims. And how can it be that I am also correct if Zooka is correct?
Zooka does not explain the entire intent of Congress in his statement. And in one respect, if his intention was to act like an all-knowing attorney, he is correct to do so; Because the 1955 act, amending the common varieties act of 1947, did not speak to the entire intent of Congress regarding all mineral classes when he excludes the exception in 612 (b) and refuses to answer why.
Zooka does not mention public domain in his statement. He only points to the affect of the law upon "US claims". What you Locators discover and make claim for are not "US Claims" are they? Your claims are an exclusive possessions on public domain, privately possessed. Zooka tells the truth but not the entire truth. So where are "US Claims" "located"? on Public land or public domain? Where are private claims located? public land or public domain? Go read the grant of 1866 for the answer to the private claims. Any one practiced in minerals for sale or lease will know where those are.
The problem comes when any one ignores the intent of Congress and applies law relating only to common material US Claims, federal claims, made on public land to uncommon mineral deposits located on public domain. Remember the 1955 Act amended the 1947 act, not the 1866 intention incorporated into the 1872.
So how is it we can both be correct? I speak to the exception or the uncommon locatable minerals, distinct from the common, excepted in the 1955 act that even the BLM acknowledges, as heard from its Arizona paper. If Zooka confines his "US Claims" statement to leaseable and saleable minerals he is correct and then we are both correct as a matter of law. If he applies that 1955 act to all classes of minerals across the board he is wrong as a matter of law.
So I guess it's all-your-all's choice. Listen to Zooka or just understand that intention of Congress and begin to protect yourselves and your exclusively possessed mineral deposits and all the surface as expressed in the 1866 Act and 1870 Act amending.
But be aware. Where it has been shown his opinion for blanket mineral estate coverage by the 1955 act comes in conflict with cited congressional intent in the 1865 law, the law heard on the broadcast, his failure to properly understand that intention, his opinions flouted as authority are dangerous. Even if they do nothing more than to lull you back to sleep as to your power.
Again, people can ridicule me or they can contribute to the answers we need.
And this brings us to the more pressing point of the subject matter of HR 699. Some of us have been diligently researching about this approaching problem for a long time, preparing and responding to the various adaptations over time. You will notice that act has been around a while and in many forms. It was about to be passed recently when we responded, just like H.R. 2262 the year before. We also stopped the proposed 228's using the intent of Congress and the administrative Rules and oversight SBA authority to defeat that encroachment. Whether some amoung us understand or don't, is of no matter. Despite their denials here and across forums, some of us are making a difference asserting the full intention of Congress regarding valuable mineral deposits. The BLM differentiates the mineral classes and where those exist. This differentiation also shows those distinguishable mineral classes reside differently; The exclusively possessed locateables on public domain, and those under lease or sale on public lands. With this distinction in mind as applied to the apparent threat H.R. 699 poses, What exactly is the land which the United States holds BOTH the equitable AND beneficial title to identified in the new land designation called "Public Domain Lands"? My research has lead to an answer. I'd like independent confirmation. This knowledge might lead any comment made upon this proposed Act.
I have asked for help on this question a long time ago. This need has not disappeared.
~MEG
QUOTE
Again, people can ridicule me or they can contribute to the answers we need.
No one has ridiculed you here or is in this argument. What answers are you looking for or input? We here at the ColoradoProspector website are openly discussing many things as always.
Your post above (like many of the "M.E.G." posts) are quite confusing, being partials of threads from other locked forums where only registered members of that forum can read them.
Just how are those who aren't registered suppose to get the rest of your story? We around the CP forums are here because we like an open forum where everyone can read and we have no interest in registering in another forum just to find the rest of your story or arguments whatever.
QUOTE
We also stopped the proposed 228's using the intent of Congress and the administrative Rules and oversight SBA authority to defeat that encroachment.
You stopped the proposed changes to 36CFR228? Wow! Thanks who ever "you" are. All by yourselves eh? Hmmmm
But you won't say who "we" are.
BTW......36CFR according to it's own scope "may not be used to regulate mining". However it can be used to regulate "surface use and occupancy on FS lands" ...... ie "recreational uses", but thanks for stopping changes to the recreational restrictions, I'm sure the recreationalists nationwide will appreciate that.
These topics and many others we've been discussing for years, glad to have you join in too, and if you'd like more folks to follow and read your information here, might I suggest, you idnetify yourself and or actual group, and post complete details to your information here for discussion if you'd like our participation.
It's rather tiring trying to sort through partial info and chase more at other forums, or was it just a point of putting in those other forums links?
CP
In attemping to bring my research to the mining community, my de facto publicist (Jon) has been making the posts. He thought the mining community could benefit from the info. It seems, I have collected up some people that would rather ridicule my work than to study and discuss without traverse. And though I do not think any negative response has originated from your site at all the general posting of the information has caused some bleed over. Jon posts the bulk of the information. He tells me of a question, I attempt to provide an answer, or more often I create a body of work and he disseminates it. Though I am currently recuperating, I normally do a daily broadcast on the internet and from time to time devote it to mining law. I'm also going to make presentation at the Roseburg Oregon GPAA show this weekend on my studies and research. Because of the nature of the information and that we did not want to hide anything from anyone, in particular because some forums are for members only, Jon has been posting the responses broadboard. The links I'm sure is just a way to refer to existing information without printing it over and over. The membership problem I think is an unanticipated oversight. And I, we apologize if it has caused any problems or confusion, Don't mean it to be, for sure. That won't help any one.
I must say, I don't have any affinity to the forums, or frankly the time, But I have noticed your responses to us do tend to bring some comfort in that you work to keep the discussions on-point. And that is very important, indeed. I believe, I noticed too that your site is more organized to present the mining law. I just haven't had time to investigate. There really is a lot going on. Trying to keep up is very difficult. This is no game we are playing and miners are in trouble, needing help daily. But we are making progress, if ever so slowly.
I'm not sure about, or don't understand your recreationalists comment, but the mining law does not recognize recreational mining. In fact, the term is killing the industry. Special Interest is using that as a whipping boy against us. The mining association I work with is called South West Oregon Mining Association. "We" just filed a proposed mineral resource Coordination plan section requested of us by the County which attempts to deal with the "recreational" problem plaguing us. Any relief would have been because the agencies are finding out they can't regulate outside of special use areas under agency management.
The 228's hearing happened to coincide with the HR 2262 legislation threat. They were essentially made for each other. I do work closely with the local mining association and we worked to put out the call for miners to write. This was a couple years ago now, I think. HR 2262 didn't pass. The FS 228's were going full steam ahead and over 2000 miner's hit them administratively with comments. I'm sure there are many that responded without hearing it from us. But I know the word back to us was that the FS was shocked at the response. That didn't stop them however. Another miner I work with extensively in another mining association contacted Small Business Association Advocacy and they stepped in to investigate the administrative sufficiencies of the Forest Service rules promulgation. They were found wanting, Advocacy would not let the Forest Service continue until it could meet its APA administrative requirements regarding effects of the rules on small business. [Another proof mining is not recreational.] This stopped the FS dead in its tracks. That's why if you listen carefully you'll hear the Forest Service refer to the "proposed 228's". They are invalid. And everytime we tell them the proposed rules are not promulgated, the FS backs-off. Besides the 228's don't apply being they are implementing NEPA. Private mining claims are not federal actions.
So "we", the "you", is all the miners that answered the call contributing their comments together with our research and special help from a couple of mining associations and the contacting of Advocacy.
One last point, once we locate a valuable mineral deposit in the forest reserve, what this agency would say is "Forest Service Lands", by the act of 1897 that located deposit is restored to the public domain. In Short, these are no longer under FS regulation authority as the 1905 transfer Act will also confirm. Unless you locate a leasable or saleable mineral your "occupancy", actually "occupation" under the grant, is on the public domain, not Forest Service Lands, and is inherent to your mining and a right of your exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire surface within the monuments of your claim. That' why they call it a mine, cause if I locate it then it ain't yours, it's mine.
The question I feel the mining community needs to answer right now sits in HR 699. I have done research which identifies what "public domain land" is. I wanted independent confirmation of the fact because these new "hardrock":bills are a big threat if not properly identified for the particular land they will affect. Like the new water bill legislation most people think it will blanket the nation in its effect. But I don't think so. My frustration to date, and not directed at you in any way, is that those that tell Me they are the experts will not answer this question, they would rather vilify my research and ridicule me.
My name is Hal.
The forum handle MEG stands for a status. That of the Mineral Estate Grantee.
~MEG
I must say, I don't have any affinity to the forums, or frankly the time, But I have noticed your responses to us do tend to bring some comfort in that you work to keep the discussions on-point. And that is very important, indeed. I believe, I noticed too that your site is more organized to present the mining law. I just haven't had time to investigate. There really is a lot going on. Trying to keep up is very difficult. This is no game we are playing and miners are in trouble, needing help daily. But we are making progress, if ever so slowly.
I'm not sure about, or don't understand your recreationalists comment, but the mining law does not recognize recreational mining. In fact, the term is killing the industry. Special Interest is using that as a whipping boy against us. The mining association I work with is called South West Oregon Mining Association. "We" just filed a proposed mineral resource Coordination plan section requested of us by the County which attempts to deal with the "recreational" problem plaguing us. Any relief would have been because the agencies are finding out they can't regulate outside of special use areas under agency management.
The 228's hearing happened to coincide with the HR 2262 legislation threat. They were essentially made for each other. I do work closely with the local mining association and we worked to put out the call for miners to write. This was a couple years ago now, I think. HR 2262 didn't pass. The FS 228's were going full steam ahead and over 2000 miner's hit them administratively with comments. I'm sure there are many that responded without hearing it from us. But I know the word back to us was that the FS was shocked at the response. That didn't stop them however. Another miner I work with extensively in another mining association contacted Small Business Association Advocacy and they stepped in to investigate the administrative sufficiencies of the Forest Service rules promulgation. They were found wanting, Advocacy would not let the Forest Service continue until it could meet its APA administrative requirements regarding effects of the rules on small business. [Another proof mining is not recreational.] This stopped the FS dead in its tracks. That's why if you listen carefully you'll hear the Forest Service refer to the "proposed 228's". They are invalid. And everytime we tell them the proposed rules are not promulgated, the FS backs-off. Besides the 228's don't apply being they are implementing NEPA. Private mining claims are not federal actions.
So "we", the "you", is all the miners that answered the call contributing their comments together with our research and special help from a couple of mining associations and the contacting of Advocacy.
One last point, once we locate a valuable mineral deposit in the forest reserve, what this agency would say is "Forest Service Lands", by the act of 1897 that located deposit is restored to the public domain. In Short, these are no longer under FS regulation authority as the 1905 transfer Act will also confirm. Unless you locate a leasable or saleable mineral your "occupancy", actually "occupation" under the grant, is on the public domain, not Forest Service Lands, and is inherent to your mining and a right of your exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire surface within the monuments of your claim. That' why they call it a mine, cause if I locate it then it ain't yours, it's mine.
The question I feel the mining community needs to answer right now sits in HR 699. I have done research which identifies what "public domain land" is. I wanted independent confirmation of the fact because these new "hardrock":bills are a big threat if not properly identified for the particular land they will affect. Like the new water bill legislation most people think it will blanket the nation in its effect. But I don't think so. My frustration to date, and not directed at you in any way, is that those that tell Me they are the experts will not answer this question, they would rather vilify my research and ridicule me.
My name is Hal.
The forum handle MEG stands for a status. That of the Mineral Estate Grantee.
~MEG
Hello Hal and welcome to the Colorado Prospector forums, we all hope your recovery is speedy.
Thank you for taking the time to pen a personal response. We would love to have more of your input too as time allows in your schedule. Thank you also for noticing that we are set up alot differently than any other clubs or websites. Our club and websites main goal is eduational for the general public and it's club members, and we keep a small portion of the website reserved for our club members only. Please make yourself right at home browsing around and register your own username too. Registration is free for posting abilities and we would all like to know when in fact you've penned a response yourself.
I can understand how busy life can be especially when one does the type of research you do when not on the radio. I also spend alot of time reading similar material (when not working on this site/business) trying to sort out the hoops the officials would like us to jump through as miners, vs the hoops they the officials should be jumping through according to law. I think we agree on many topics and look forward to reflecting off of one anothers views as well as all the other forum users here. Many of whom are claim owners themselves and knowledgable in the laws, codes, regs, and guidelines.
Our forums are set up for a good reference of mining law material as well as land/claim research how to's. As far as I know, this is the only club in the U.S. that does not hold claims for it's members either. Our club members are offered the chance to learn about and file their own claims as a bona fide miner both in the field and in the offices when needed. Their paranoia or greed is not played upon here either, things are bad enough as is without blowing smoke into anyones eyes, like you said that won't help anyone.
Much like your research and postings indicate, we feel the "authority" to regulate miners in actual mining activities is many times abused or even ignored by the officials, or even worse, unknown by a prospector in the field proclaiming to be protected under the mining law.
We've also been ridiculed over the years, just like you are experiencing, because our views don't coincide with the "main stream" views of some recreationalists clubs and other organizations.
The difference here is ....... we are openly discussing these topics with the general public and in an educational fashion with their participation as citizens and miners in mind. If we the citizens don't understand the exsisting laws and regulations that back them up, then how can we expect to be treated as miners in the field, and of even more concern....change the law without knowing what exsists already, that could be really bad news for the people!
Those that don't know or wish to learn the law and act as a bona fide miner in the field really have no business proclaiming protection under the mining law......they are recreationalists who should be in a recreational area with extra guidelines and supervision.
Although there is no legal definition for "recreational prospector" there sure is in the eyes of the bona fide prospectors / miners out there in the field. The clear definition would be ......the individuals choices made in the field and as to knowledge of the law for their activites and acceptance of their own actions. Real prospectors / miners are knowledgable on their rights, and the laws, regs, and guidelines that further uphold them.
Enough of my rant about a recreational definition though. My sacarstic recreational remark was not intended toward you Hal.
Sarcasim aside, my view is, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, 36CFR by it's own scope is not to be used to regulate mining. So if it's not to be used to regulate mining then what is it regulating?
Tracking back through the CFR's from the ground up so to speak, lets take a quick review of the "chain of command" through the laws.
CFR's are written in blocks working together as a whole unit with the USC's and laws. USC's back up and enforce the actual laws such as the 1872 mining law.
36cfr is for FS use, and 43cfr is BLM's "public land mining" CFR.....that is for ALL PUBLIC LANDS.
FS (Dept of Agriculture) was created long after BLM (Dept of the Interior) was created, as such all FS lands were once BLM lands and the FS was (through law, USC, and CFR) "delegated authority" to regulate "surface use and occupancy".......never was the FS delegated any authority over mining......period!
This is further impied and enforced through many "interagency agreements" as well as the FS handbook and manuals for how to do their jobs.....ie specifically referring to "mining claims". Not only are the guidelines written and specific how the FS deals with mining claims via the BLM ....it also states in 43CFR3809 ...... "even though a FS regulation or states laws/rules maybe more restrictive, they MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OF 43CFR3809!
Now, if the fed's are going to require by law that other federal entitites comply as well as states, then why would any county need to be suggested to, or have a proposal submitted, on how they should work with miners?!
Even though I think that paper was very well written.......was it needed? I think the law already states how the government entities are to work "with the miners" to uphold the federal policy and laws.
Again, this gets back to knowing what exsists and expecting/forcing the officials to know and do their job accordingly.......ie in the field and court when needed. Much of what is written in law already would help the miners who learn the pertanent information and properly apply it. In other words, maybe we learn to use the hoops already up for the officials to jump through rather than the other way around!
So, that breaks down to....the FS has no authority over mining activities and they MUST COMPLY with 43CFR3809.
I don't care how many times in 36CFR itself in it claims to regulate mining......its own scope defines it as not to regulate mining and further CFRs and law back this up.
Meaning that if 36CFR can not regulate mining, then conclusively, it must regulate other things.....ie camping, fishing, logging, leasable surface operations and?
Right or wrong folks? What do you think Hal and everyone else?
I think Hal and I are pretty much on the same page here as I've said, and we are both saying......"Hey folks, do they have the authority"?
Further into this........surface resources definition is another that is not understood by most.
What are they, well that is what the FS can regulate so wouldn't it be prudent to know?
By my research I've found that to be two things by BLM public land law definitions.......
Timber and agriculture. Also as I understand it, that to consist of the top 6" of soil.
Ok, this makes further sense of the madness then too, timber/agriculture is regulated by the Dept of Agriculture.......also meaning, the only mining authority is still the BLM as minerals do not fall into timber or agriculture!
Yes, on FS lands the BLM is the mining authority folks, not the FS!
Another quirk some don't seem to comprehend about the US chain of command so to speak.
There are also laws for "consistent application of federal law" from one FS/BLM district to the next throughout FS and BLM. Many folks seem to be of the concept that any states FS or BLM districts can do as they wish without regard to the federal level.......this is in fact not true. The only time any seperate district can make it's own rules (by law) is through congressional desigation of a "specially designated area" such as a "recreational/high use or impact" areas.......due to any and all activities, not just prospecting.
Many times these areas are withdrawn from mineral entry and recreational prospecting activities are encouraged there. Why? Because as the officials, they have reasonable assumption to believe there aren't claims and folks can try out prospecting there......and these are very much needed areas in todays world where folks can recreate, learn with others as well as learn the starting out points of prospecting properly without leaving undue degradation the officials will have a hay day with!
Those who start there and continue onto prospect as a bona fide prospector in the field away from the rec areas has clearly made the decision to move forward on from the "recreationalists" and is a prospector.
Not withstanding the real prospectors rights to prospect, develop, and mine deposits as the law states, there is a real problem going on with these misinterpretations and usage in the field and on the internet trying to influence where folks spend their money and time.
Real miners do not only frequent these recreational areas, nor do they expect anyone else to "deal with the officials" for them, or expect a club to have a claim for them to use. Real miners prospecting in the field take the responsibility for their own actions and knowledge.
As I said Hal, we'd all love to hear your take on these and I think we are on the same page of authority granted or not. You've dug further into the past and history of the 1872 mining law/ Mineral estate grant of 1866 than most of us. Sorry if my terminology's were used incorrectly.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I personally think I know it all........I'm constantly learning along with everyone else and our discussions as a citizens group here are valuable, as we all get a better understanding together for any of the topics when discussed as a collective.
One advantage to the forum is, the information collected and posted by everyone is easily referenced at any time later for those who do wish to further their reading/knowledge! Hope everyone finds time to read and interact here.
Thank you for all your efforts Hal, we look forward to your future participation too.
Sorry for my lengthy rant on here everyone but I think there are several points worth making within this thread.
CP-Dan
Thank you for taking the time to pen a personal response. We would love to have more of your input too as time allows in your schedule. Thank you also for noticing that we are set up alot differently than any other clubs or websites. Our club and websites main goal is eduational for the general public and it's club members, and we keep a small portion of the website reserved for our club members only. Please make yourself right at home browsing around and register your own username too. Registration is free for posting abilities and we would all like to know when in fact you've penned a response yourself.
I can understand how busy life can be especially when one does the type of research you do when not on the radio. I also spend alot of time reading similar material (when not working on this site/business) trying to sort out the hoops the officials would like us to jump through as miners, vs the hoops they the officials should be jumping through according to law. I think we agree on many topics and look forward to reflecting off of one anothers views as well as all the other forum users here. Many of whom are claim owners themselves and knowledgable in the laws, codes, regs, and guidelines.
Our forums are set up for a good reference of mining law material as well as land/claim research how to's. As far as I know, this is the only club in the U.S. that does not hold claims for it's members either. Our club members are offered the chance to learn about and file their own claims as a bona fide miner both in the field and in the offices when needed. Their paranoia or greed is not played upon here either, things are bad enough as is without blowing smoke into anyones eyes, like you said that won't help anyone.
Much like your research and postings indicate, we feel the "authority" to regulate miners in actual mining activities is many times abused or even ignored by the officials, or even worse, unknown by a prospector in the field proclaiming to be protected under the mining law.
We've also been ridiculed over the years, just like you are experiencing, because our views don't coincide with the "main stream" views of some recreationalists clubs and other organizations.
The difference here is ....... we are openly discussing these topics with the general public and in an educational fashion with their participation as citizens and miners in mind. If we the citizens don't understand the exsisting laws and regulations that back them up, then how can we expect to be treated as miners in the field, and of even more concern....change the law without knowing what exsists already, that could be really bad news for the people!
Those that don't know or wish to learn the law and act as a bona fide miner in the field really have no business proclaiming protection under the mining law......they are recreationalists who should be in a recreational area with extra guidelines and supervision.
Although there is no legal definition for "recreational prospector" there sure is in the eyes of the bona fide prospectors / miners out there in the field. The clear definition would be ......the individuals choices made in the field and as to knowledge of the law for their activites and acceptance of their own actions. Real prospectors / miners are knowledgable on their rights, and the laws, regs, and guidelines that further uphold them.
Enough of my rant about a recreational definition though. My sacarstic recreational remark was not intended toward you Hal.
Sarcasim aside, my view is, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, 36CFR by it's own scope is not to be used to regulate mining. So if it's not to be used to regulate mining then what is it regulating?
Tracking back through the CFR's from the ground up so to speak, lets take a quick review of the "chain of command" through the laws.
CFR's are written in blocks working together as a whole unit with the USC's and laws. USC's back up and enforce the actual laws such as the 1872 mining law.
36cfr is for FS use, and 43cfr is BLM's "public land mining" CFR.....that is for ALL PUBLIC LANDS.
FS (Dept of Agriculture) was created long after BLM (Dept of the Interior) was created, as such all FS lands were once BLM lands and the FS was (through law, USC, and CFR) "delegated authority" to regulate "surface use and occupancy".......never was the FS delegated any authority over mining......period!
This is further impied and enforced through many "interagency agreements" as well as the FS handbook and manuals for how to do their jobs.....ie specifically referring to "mining claims". Not only are the guidelines written and specific how the FS deals with mining claims via the BLM ....it also states in 43CFR3809 ...... "even though a FS regulation or states laws/rules maybe more restrictive, they MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OF 43CFR3809!
Now, if the fed's are going to require by law that other federal entitites comply as well as states, then why would any county need to be suggested to, or have a proposal submitted, on how they should work with miners?!
Even though I think that paper was very well written.......was it needed? I think the law already states how the government entities are to work "with the miners" to uphold the federal policy and laws.
Again, this gets back to knowing what exsists and expecting/forcing the officials to know and do their job accordingly.......ie in the field and court when needed. Much of what is written in law already would help the miners who learn the pertanent information and properly apply it. In other words, maybe we learn to use the hoops already up for the officials to jump through rather than the other way around!
So, that breaks down to....the FS has no authority over mining activities and they MUST COMPLY with 43CFR3809.
I don't care how many times in 36CFR itself in it claims to regulate mining......its own scope defines it as not to regulate mining and further CFRs and law back this up.
Meaning that if 36CFR can not regulate mining, then conclusively, it must regulate other things.....ie camping, fishing, logging, leasable surface operations and?
Right or wrong folks? What do you think Hal and everyone else?
I think Hal and I are pretty much on the same page here as I've said, and we are both saying......"Hey folks, do they have the authority"?
Further into this........surface resources definition is another that is not understood by most.
What are they, well that is what the FS can regulate so wouldn't it be prudent to know?
By my research I've found that to be two things by BLM public land law definitions.......
Timber and agriculture. Also as I understand it, that to consist of the top 6" of soil.
Ok, this makes further sense of the madness then too, timber/agriculture is regulated by the Dept of Agriculture.......also meaning, the only mining authority is still the BLM as minerals do not fall into timber or agriculture!
Yes, on FS lands the BLM is the mining authority folks, not the FS!
Another quirk some don't seem to comprehend about the US chain of command so to speak.
There are also laws for "consistent application of federal law" from one FS/BLM district to the next throughout FS and BLM. Many folks seem to be of the concept that any states FS or BLM districts can do as they wish without regard to the federal level.......this is in fact not true. The only time any seperate district can make it's own rules (by law) is through congressional desigation of a "specially designated area" such as a "recreational/high use or impact" areas.......due to any and all activities, not just prospecting.
Many times these areas are withdrawn from mineral entry and recreational prospecting activities are encouraged there. Why? Because as the officials, they have reasonable assumption to believe there aren't claims and folks can try out prospecting there......and these are very much needed areas in todays world where folks can recreate, learn with others as well as learn the starting out points of prospecting properly without leaving undue degradation the officials will have a hay day with!
Those who start there and continue onto prospect as a bona fide prospector in the field away from the rec areas has clearly made the decision to move forward on from the "recreationalists" and is a prospector.
Not withstanding the real prospectors rights to prospect, develop, and mine deposits as the law states, there is a real problem going on with these misinterpretations and usage in the field and on the internet trying to influence where folks spend their money and time.
Real miners do not only frequent these recreational areas, nor do they expect anyone else to "deal with the officials" for them, or expect a club to have a claim for them to use. Real miners prospecting in the field take the responsibility for their own actions and knowledge.
As I said Hal, we'd all love to hear your take on these and I think we are on the same page of authority granted or not. You've dug further into the past and history of the 1872 mining law/ Mineral estate grant of 1866 than most of us. Sorry if my terminology's were used incorrectly.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I personally think I know it all........I'm constantly learning along with everyone else and our discussions as a citizens group here are valuable, as we all get a better understanding together for any of the topics when discussed as a collective.
One advantage to the forum is, the information collected and posted by everyone is easily referenced at any time later for those who do wish to further their reading/knowledge! Hope everyone finds time to read and interact here.
Thank you for all your efforts Hal, we look forward to your future participation too.
Sorry for my lengthy rant on here everyone but I think there are several points worth making within this thread.
CP-Dan
Dan,
Thank you Dan I got that now about the recreational. I was laughing before you said it. I got you.
Refreshing to make this discussion.
Now this is a brief look. I hope it is instructive, if I be so bold to believe I know anything. The Forest Service land management rules seem to be regulating the "forest service land" and Forest Service "Projects", for things that are not provided for by other legislation and for "special use", not specific use lands. One problem with the rules is that they suggest that part 228 can be used to regulate minerals. However, because Part 228 is actually rules to implement the NEPA, by Executive Order transfer no less, these imply, at least, those rules are only for major federal projects. Even Part 261, in the 228 family of rules, is found to be inapplicable through Part 251.5. Note: We used this Part 251 to defeat the Government's complaint in the Hicks 2009 case. In following, if part 261 is inapplicable, then Part 293 penalties can't be applied either, further showing Part 228 is not actually applicable though recent court cases erroneously impose so. But notice, those cases throw the miners under the Sections 612 bus, leaseable and saleables, and then do not enforce the exception for mineral deposits at 612 (b). See the Doremus case for proof of that. The simple answer is regarding valuable mineral deposits, the rules do not apply, and in that limited mineral deposit context, I don't care where the rules apply. It ain't on what we do. And your observation that the Scope says the same thing shows the fact. Although, I won't be so quick to say it regulates everything else. Let's get the mining independent again and then we might be able to free up all other lawful purposes.
"Even though I think that paper was very well written.......was it needed?"
If your are speaking to the Coordination Plan proposal, yes, with the Special Interest corruption in the agencies and the failure to acknowledge the law, it is needed. I agree with you absolutely as to the uncommon minerals, no need for a plan since the Congressional Plan Of Operations for uncommon minerals conveyed the property out of all government possession and management discretion. But to the extent that the agencies maintain management authority of the lands and disposal of the common minerals and that Withdrawal has become the tool of choice, there is a need. It also asserts property rights enforcements through the county and county D.A., essentially, if not technically correct in effect, waiver of federal agency immunity. But it isn't the last word, the teeth are actually in an ordinance that the county must enact which provides the county may act to remedy a transgression of an agency. There is a lot to learn. In fact, as I understood better how these plans work there is a very particular mindset that must be held to write them correctly. I'm still figuring that out.
"never was the FS delegated any authority over mining......period!"
That is correct.
The 3809's, for the BLM, have the same deficiencies as the 228's. They don't apply to our exclusive possession but do apply to special use or designed lands. Even the BLM 3809 Pamphlet it hands out says so. We have defeated Notices of Noncompliance with this fact. And I did a program on this early last year. This all said, the Forest Service promulgates Rules through the FLPMA and that says, specific use lands are not treated under the FLPMA. Read some of the exceptions in sections 1701 (a) (3), and 1732.
"expecting/forcing the officials to know and do their job accordingly"
This is a mouthful. We just got the word. The BLM rules are the bible, their jobs depend upon asserting their bible and they don't care what the law says. I'm not kidding you here. My colleague just had a meeting with the BLM Mineral Tech. That's what she said. So get ready for a new wave of oppression.
"Much of what is written in law already would help the miners who learn the pertanent information and properly apply it. In other words, maybe we learn to use the hoops already up for the officials to jump through rather than the other way around!"
Education of the officials is just as important. When my colleague asked the Tech if she knew that it was a crime to interfere with or harass a miner under state law, she said she did not. He didn't offer that as a threat more than to show her there is a law and she had better understand it better before she inteferes by rule with a miner as her BLM district had just done and lost in the recent Dusty Ford case. And as we come to speed on the law we are also needing miners to learn their remedies and affecting that. And this is all ongoing learning for Me, trying to keep ahead, as these matter progress.
"Yes, on FS lands the BLM is the mining authority folks, not the FS!"
That's correct, the 1905 Transfer Act says this, except it is left to the Secretary of the Interior, the BLM by delegation. Now this delegation has very big implication in court, which I might address later, but need to pull out that research of USC Title 28 for proof.
"without leaving undue degradation"
For our purposes, this is not applicable until they have found trespass, the finding of fraud, activity not incident to mining. Being presumed, our right to create surface disturbance is incident to the possession. Surface disturbance is the Plan Of Operation intended by Congress when it granted exclusive possession.
As far as any "proper terminology". I suggest just sticking to the terms in the congressional acts. I know it might be tedious or boring, BUT. That cleans things up very nicely and keeps us on point, as I have observed. That way I/ you / we don't have to make it up either. If Congress said it, that's good enough for Me. Although, I don't know why there is a question regarding whether Congress made a grant, the act H.R 365, the 1866, clearly expresses in the first section it is "granting" "," That the mineral lands of the public domain are free and open to occupation. And I will be addressing this very soon in a very short "reverse" proof using a couple of concise court citations based in the existence of title.
There is very fertile ground even before the 1866. Well, fertile enough to advise Me to advise PLP not to file in federal court which was just confirmed by the judge not finding jurisdiction. So those intrepid amoung you plot your course beyond. There is an old world to find and marvel at and remember again.
Thank you again for the discussion Dan.
MEG.
Thank you Dan I got that now about the recreational. I was laughing before you said it. I got you.
Refreshing to make this discussion.
Now this is a brief look. I hope it is instructive, if I be so bold to believe I know anything. The Forest Service land management rules seem to be regulating the "forest service land" and Forest Service "Projects", for things that are not provided for by other legislation and for "special use", not specific use lands. One problem with the rules is that they suggest that part 228 can be used to regulate minerals. However, because Part 228 is actually rules to implement the NEPA, by Executive Order transfer no less, these imply, at least, those rules are only for major federal projects. Even Part 261, in the 228 family of rules, is found to be inapplicable through Part 251.5. Note: We used this Part 251 to defeat the Government's complaint in the Hicks 2009 case. In following, if part 261 is inapplicable, then Part 293 penalties can't be applied either, further showing Part 228 is not actually applicable though recent court cases erroneously impose so. But notice, those cases throw the miners under the Sections 612 bus, leaseable and saleables, and then do not enforce the exception for mineral deposits at 612 (b). See the Doremus case for proof of that. The simple answer is regarding valuable mineral deposits, the rules do not apply, and in that limited mineral deposit context, I don't care where the rules apply. It ain't on what we do. And your observation that the Scope says the same thing shows the fact. Although, I won't be so quick to say it regulates everything else. Let's get the mining independent again and then we might be able to free up all other lawful purposes.
"Even though I think that paper was very well written.......was it needed?"
If your are speaking to the Coordination Plan proposal, yes, with the Special Interest corruption in the agencies and the failure to acknowledge the law, it is needed. I agree with you absolutely as to the uncommon minerals, no need for a plan since the Congressional Plan Of Operations for uncommon minerals conveyed the property out of all government possession and management discretion. But to the extent that the agencies maintain management authority of the lands and disposal of the common minerals and that Withdrawal has become the tool of choice, there is a need. It also asserts property rights enforcements through the county and county D.A., essentially, if not technically correct in effect, waiver of federal agency immunity. But it isn't the last word, the teeth are actually in an ordinance that the county must enact which provides the county may act to remedy a transgression of an agency. There is a lot to learn. In fact, as I understood better how these plans work there is a very particular mindset that must be held to write them correctly. I'm still figuring that out.
"never was the FS delegated any authority over mining......period!"
That is correct.
The 3809's, for the BLM, have the same deficiencies as the 228's. They don't apply to our exclusive possession but do apply to special use or designed lands. Even the BLM 3809 Pamphlet it hands out says so. We have defeated Notices of Noncompliance with this fact. And I did a program on this early last year. This all said, the Forest Service promulgates Rules through the FLPMA and that says, specific use lands are not treated under the FLPMA. Read some of the exceptions in sections 1701 (a) (3), and 1732.
"expecting/forcing the officials to know and do their job accordingly"
This is a mouthful. We just got the word. The BLM rules are the bible, their jobs depend upon asserting their bible and they don't care what the law says. I'm not kidding you here. My colleague just had a meeting with the BLM Mineral Tech. That's what she said. So get ready for a new wave of oppression.
"Much of what is written in law already would help the miners who learn the pertanent information and properly apply it. In other words, maybe we learn to use the hoops already up for the officials to jump through rather than the other way around!"
Education of the officials is just as important. When my colleague asked the Tech if she knew that it was a crime to interfere with or harass a miner under state law, she said she did not. He didn't offer that as a threat more than to show her there is a law and she had better understand it better before she inteferes by rule with a miner as her BLM district had just done and lost in the recent Dusty Ford case. And as we come to speed on the law we are also needing miners to learn their remedies and affecting that. And this is all ongoing learning for Me, trying to keep ahead, as these matter progress.
"Yes, on FS lands the BLM is the mining authority folks, not the FS!"
That's correct, the 1905 Transfer Act says this, except it is left to the Secretary of the Interior, the BLM by delegation. Now this delegation has very big implication in court, which I might address later, but need to pull out that research of USC Title 28 for proof.
"without leaving undue degradation"
For our purposes, this is not applicable until they have found trespass, the finding of fraud, activity not incident to mining. Being presumed, our right to create surface disturbance is incident to the possession. Surface disturbance is the Plan Of Operation intended by Congress when it granted exclusive possession.
As far as any "proper terminology". I suggest just sticking to the terms in the congressional acts. I know it might be tedious or boring, BUT. That cleans things up very nicely and keeps us on point, as I have observed. That way I/ you / we don't have to make it up either. If Congress said it, that's good enough for Me. Although, I don't know why there is a question regarding whether Congress made a grant, the act H.R 365, the 1866, clearly expresses in the first section it is "granting" "," That the mineral lands of the public domain are free and open to occupation. And I will be addressing this very soon in a very short "reverse" proof using a couple of concise court citations based in the existence of title.
There is very fertile ground even before the 1866. Well, fertile enough to advise Me to advise PLP not to file in federal court which was just confirmed by the judge not finding jurisdiction. So those intrepid amoung you plot your course beyond. There is an old world to find and marvel at and remember again.
Thank you again for the discussion Dan.
MEG.
Thanks Hal,
Yes this information will be very informative to many in the future I'm sure.
I'm not trying to tag any other activities with 228 applicability either which is why I ended that with a ?.
Yes lets get mining seperated as it should be.
I took sometime to dig out the FLMPA you spoke of and I've also posted a link to download a copy for anyone who's wishing to read up on this material. Although I had read this document several years ago, I've learned alot more since then.....and it's still quite a heap of information to dig through.
Quoted below is the part Hal is talking about folks, stating the FLMPA does not change the mining law.
Do take the time to download and read your own copy though, it's well worth it so you can see the big picture.
For your own copy folks, check the "laws, regulations and guidelines section" of the forum or just follow this link Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 forum thread
Excerpt from Sec. 302 (43USC1732) page 21 of the FLMPA pdf - BLM 2001 .............
"no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. "
For the officials and their jobs...... aren't they working for us the people? Don't our tax dollars pay thier wages/budgets? (especially federal level officials) As such the laws on how they MUST DO THEIR JOBS could be applied in court right? Including the handbooks and manuals they are all suppose to read/know for the successful completion of their jobs?
In those manuals and handbooks I've found where it even states the FS offices (districts) are suppose to have a dedicated "minerals officer" in place who is responsible to work "with the miners and BLM". I don't think is the case in today FS offices.
Just more information that can or might help miners? or no?
Education of the officials is very important, and even the government seemed to think so by what is written and it should be part of their proper training......also what we pay for already!
I like Hals take on the 228 being toward other government entities use, I'd never thought about it in that regard, good to know because it sure states it's not for mining.
I also found much of the FLMPA had some similar terminology towards other government dept's use and it's time span of use being limited for that department.... hmmmmm.
I think everyone agrees about the grant, but what may be confusing to some is what that difference would be from the 1872 mining law that it evolved into over that 6 years? If any.
It's all very confusing
.......... but we all try to keep on reading and digging into this material.
Thanks again to you Hal for your hard work to help us all. Good job!
CP
Yes this information will be very informative to many in the future I'm sure.
I'm not trying to tag any other activities with 228 applicability either which is why I ended that with a ?.
Yes lets get mining seperated as it should be.
I took sometime to dig out the FLMPA you spoke of and I've also posted a link to download a copy for anyone who's wishing to read up on this material. Although I had read this document several years ago, I've learned alot more since then.....and it's still quite a heap of information to dig through.
Quoted below is the part Hal is talking about folks, stating the FLMPA does not change the mining law.
Do take the time to download and read your own copy though, it's well worth it so you can see the big picture.
For your own copy folks, check the "laws, regulations and guidelines section" of the forum or just follow this link Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 forum thread
Excerpt from Sec. 302 (43USC1732) page 21 of the FLMPA pdf - BLM 2001 .............
"no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. "
For the officials and their jobs...... aren't they working for us the people? Don't our tax dollars pay thier wages/budgets? (especially federal level officials) As such the laws on how they MUST DO THEIR JOBS could be applied in court right? Including the handbooks and manuals they are all suppose to read/know for the successful completion of their jobs?
In those manuals and handbooks I've found where it even states the FS offices (districts) are suppose to have a dedicated "minerals officer" in place who is responsible to work "with the miners and BLM". I don't think is the case in today FS offices.
Just more information that can or might help miners? or no?
Education of the officials is very important, and even the government seemed to think so by what is written and it should be part of their proper training......also what we pay for already!
I like Hals take on the 228 being toward other government entities use, I'd never thought about it in that regard, good to know because it sure states it's not for mining.
I also found much of the FLMPA had some similar terminology towards other government dept's use and it's time span of use being limited for that department.... hmmmmm.
I think everyone agrees about the grant, but what may be confusing to some is what that difference would be from the 1872 mining law that it evolved into over that 6 years? If any.
It's all very confusing
.......... but we all try to keep on reading and digging into this material.Thanks again to you Hal for your hard work to help us all. Good job!
CP
Dan i dowloaded this FLPMA of 1976 to my favorites. to much to download right now! thankyou!
Wow! That’s a lot to take in. This is my first post on the CP web site. Great site, CP! I really like that you have posted so much law and regulation. I will be going under the tag of Ghost Miner, because that is what we will all be if things continue the way they’re going. The small, independent miners and prospectors of this country are an endangered species, and we need to figure out methods of protecting our livelihoods while we can still afford to communicate.
There’s a lot to read on this site, and this discussion is over the top! You guys really know your stuff! Each post is like some huge volume of information compressed and stuffed into the confines of a few paragraphs. Some of the statements made in this discussion are somewhat hard to get a handle on, but I do grasp that the ramifications of what MEG-Hal says are huge and have widespread importance in the realm of property rights, far beyond mining and prospecting. In the battle for the preservation of property rights, small scale prospectors and miners are on the front line. If small scale prospectors and miners lose their property rights, so does everyone else, like a house of cards. All property rights in this country are based on a patent of one kind or another, and if one type of patent is not respected, there is no reason the others will maintain immunity.
The idea that a person with a locatable claim does not need to have a plan of operations for activities that would cause significant disturbance is very hard to grab on to. I hear the wisdom of the argument, and it does seem to be born out by review of the law, and the regulations. It is true that every subsequent law that would affect the ownership rights of a mining claimant has some sort of protection clause. Again, and again, it is stated that such and such legislation may not be construed to affect or impair a mining claimant’s rights. Then why do people continue to be convicted for operating on their locatable mining claims without a plan of operations?
If the 228 and 3809 regs are meant for federal projects, does that mean that anyone working under such a plan of operations can be assumed to be acting on behalf of the government? What does that mean when applied to the ownership of mining claims? Can it be assumed, when someone submits such a plan of operations, that the ownership of the claim is in the Federal government? This might explain the attitude of Forest Service officials who claim that the national forests are owned by the Forest Service. Some FS employees even go as far as to claim that the Forest Service is the "sovereign" of the national forests. I know that is incorrect, but if operators have been filing plans of operations that actually pertain to federal projects, might they find themselves in a position where the FS might be assumed to be the boss?
And how can prospectors and miners defend themselves? Hal, you mention that “we” defeated notices of noncompliance based on the idea that 228 and 3809 are not applicable. How did you do that? Was there any official decision to reverse the decision of noncompliance on the part of the government? Or, like happens more often, did the government back down, and avoid the need for official precedent-setting administrative or judicial decisions? To be able to replicate your success on the issue would be a supremely powerful tool to provide for the relief of small scale prospectors and miners under severe stress from the burden of crippling bureaucracy. It often takes years for operators to obtain a FONSI-Finding of No Significant Impact, and subsequent approval to begin work, and operations which do not qualify for a FONSI can take even longer. To be able to present the defense (or offense) that the 228 and 3809 regs do not apply to the owners or operators of locatable mining claims in a court would have a highly positive effect on small miners and prospectors. Can you provide any further direction in the matter?
This forum is great, and I am pleased to have found it. It seems that the major problem today is that hardly anyone fully knows or understands the laws which govern mining and prospecting. That seems especially true of the very administrators responsible to “foster and encourage” the activities of prospectors and miners. Try calling four different BLM agencies with some questions about mining law. It is almost guaranteed that you will get four different sets of answers, and some will very likely contradict each other. And most anyone who does know charges a very high fee for their services, cutting a large portion of the small and independent miners and prospectors out. I must agree with CP that knowledge of the law is what makes the crucial difference. I am grateful for everyone's efforts to share what they know. Hats off to you all. Thank You.
There’s a lot to read on this site, and this discussion is over the top! You guys really know your stuff! Each post is like some huge volume of information compressed and stuffed into the confines of a few paragraphs. Some of the statements made in this discussion are somewhat hard to get a handle on, but I do grasp that the ramifications of what MEG-Hal says are huge and have widespread importance in the realm of property rights, far beyond mining and prospecting. In the battle for the preservation of property rights, small scale prospectors and miners are on the front line. If small scale prospectors and miners lose their property rights, so does everyone else, like a house of cards. All property rights in this country are based on a patent of one kind or another, and if one type of patent is not respected, there is no reason the others will maintain immunity.
The idea that a person with a locatable claim does not need to have a plan of operations for activities that would cause significant disturbance is very hard to grab on to. I hear the wisdom of the argument, and it does seem to be born out by review of the law, and the regulations. It is true that every subsequent law that would affect the ownership rights of a mining claimant has some sort of protection clause. Again, and again, it is stated that such and such legislation may not be construed to affect or impair a mining claimant’s rights. Then why do people continue to be convicted for operating on their locatable mining claims without a plan of operations?
If the 228 and 3809 regs are meant for federal projects, does that mean that anyone working under such a plan of operations can be assumed to be acting on behalf of the government? What does that mean when applied to the ownership of mining claims? Can it be assumed, when someone submits such a plan of operations, that the ownership of the claim is in the Federal government? This might explain the attitude of Forest Service officials who claim that the national forests are owned by the Forest Service. Some FS employees even go as far as to claim that the Forest Service is the "sovereign" of the national forests. I know that is incorrect, but if operators have been filing plans of operations that actually pertain to federal projects, might they find themselves in a position where the FS might be assumed to be the boss?
And how can prospectors and miners defend themselves? Hal, you mention that “we” defeated notices of noncompliance based on the idea that 228 and 3809 are not applicable. How did you do that? Was there any official decision to reverse the decision of noncompliance on the part of the government? Or, like happens more often, did the government back down, and avoid the need for official precedent-setting administrative or judicial decisions? To be able to replicate your success on the issue would be a supremely powerful tool to provide for the relief of small scale prospectors and miners under severe stress from the burden of crippling bureaucracy. It often takes years for operators to obtain a FONSI-Finding of No Significant Impact, and subsequent approval to begin work, and operations which do not qualify for a FONSI can take even longer. To be able to present the defense (or offense) that the 228 and 3809 regs do not apply to the owners or operators of locatable mining claims in a court would have a highly positive effect on small miners and prospectors. Can you provide any further direction in the matter?
This forum is great, and I am pleased to have found it. It seems that the major problem today is that hardly anyone fully knows or understands the laws which govern mining and prospecting. That seems especially true of the very administrators responsible to “foster and encourage” the activities of prospectors and miners. Try calling four different BLM agencies with some questions about mining law. It is almost guaranteed that you will get four different sets of answers, and some will very likely contradict each other. And most anyone who does know charges a very high fee for their services, cutting a large portion of the small and independent miners and prospectors out. I must agree with CP that knowledge of the law is what makes the crucial difference. I am grateful for everyone's efforts to share what they know. Hats off to you all. Thank You.
Hi Ghost Miner and welcome to the Colorado Prosepctor forums. We all look forward to your future participation too.
Thank you for your very kind compliments on the Colorado Prospector website and forums too, we (all forum users) are continually trying to keep as much pertanent information as possible for the small scale miners and prospectors available for everyone to reference. I'm sure your future contributions will add greatly to the information as well. I like the user name too and it really does say something......hopefully we are not the next endangered species.
Excellent questions you've posed also, thank you. Hopefully Hal will soon be able to provide us all with a bit more of his research findings on these questions.
Previously there was a post that explained the NEPA some so I've added a link to that thread as well as quoted Hal's reply here in this thread for easy reference.
Thanks to Hal again for the great work too!
Hal's explanation of NEPA from the "Replying to agency employee...Just to clarify for folks what NEPA is:" thread here in the forum.
Thank you for your very kind compliments on the Colorado Prospector website and forums too, we (all forum users) are continually trying to keep as much pertanent information as possible for the small scale miners and prospectors available for everyone to reference. I'm sure your future contributions will add greatly to the information as well. I like the user name too and it really does say something......hopefully we are not the next endangered species.
Excellent questions you've posed also, thank you. Hopefully Hal will soon be able to provide us all with a bit more of his research findings on these questions.
Previously there was a post that explained the NEPA some so I've added a link to that thread as well as quoted Hal's reply here in this thread for easy reference.
Thanks to Hal again for the great work too!
Hal's explanation of NEPA from the "Replying to agency employee...Just to clarify for folks what NEPA is:" thread here in the forum.
QUOTE (Mineral Estate Grantee @ Oct 17 2009, 02:29 PM)
"NEPA is not a "permission giving or denying" process. NEPA is a public disclosure process. For the FS/BLM, it affects "any ground disturbing activity"” NEPA is not applicable and by the very requirements stated in it. Even if applicable NEPA is only supplementary to existing delegated authority of an agency. It does not expand that authority in the least. FLPMA, applicable to both FZ and BLM can not be used to embrace lands designated prior to specific use. This would be the public domain granted through the 1866 act. The possessions and developments under the grant of 1866 are not "activities occurring on public lands" which afford right of "full disclosure". These possessions are exclusively possessed on public domain. The distinction must be maintained if we are to avoid trespass.
"I have a feeling that the reason that Mr. Cliff Tracy did not get his EA completed in 5 years is because his EA was de-prioritized yearly in order for the local offices to meet their timber targets."
Tracy had no obligation to obtain a POO, neither file an NOI from which a POO is based and issues upon the findings of an EA. Any delay was intentional by the FS. It is more likely, if we remove for the moment this FS dereliction, the EA didn't issue because the FS didn't tell Tracy, if he were liable, that he needed to file a Notice Of Intent, being this is the first step in the process, not the POO. The FS also didn't tell him HE, not the "public", was the determiner of his development, not the FS or the "public". So we also have FS fraud of the omission in failing to tell him the truthful imposition of the law, if any, and the limit of any authority, if any. [i.e., failure of FS duty to "foster and encourage".]
More than a niche, the prevailing 1866 grant is the entirety of the public domain where a valuable mineral deposit is discovered. This matter is not about public land.
In trying to validate your observations as applicable to valuable mineral deposit discoveries, You did not quote and I do not know of any applicable part of the Act nor any court case which says the Endangered Species Act can interfere with a granted private property. And still Tracy is not being charged under that act, further indicating it's non-applicability.
Moreover, any "action" not consistent with a law that the agency can readily and legitimately point to is outside of agency authority to act. It isn't the other way around, that the agency gets to act until someone stops them. Though until now that has been what has happened. I think we're about to see a severe "market correction" towards a more prolific economy. Those people in the agencies acting contrary to law are privately liable. And Oregon law reflects this clearly by acknowledging that mining claims are "Realty" and that it is a crime to interfere in anyway with a valid claim. The obligation is on the agents, officers or employees, not the miner in his exclusively possessed "niche".
I am extremely interested to see where in the ESA it states that Act can interfere with private property and mining claims specifically. This would be something we need to know because if it does it will have to be challenged as to the legitimacy of its imposition.
That Kulongowski's letter issues hot on the heals of this unfortunate trespass of Tracy is telling of the rabid nature underpinning the pervasive and relentless agenda to deprive people of the Land and wealth granted to them "free and open" in 1866. That the letter, a mere suggestion, is unsupported in any way, contains frivolous assertions, and maintains no right to impose is telling of the power of this gifted land.
As was stated in the Congressional Record of 2000, for the FS to impose any federal act upon a property right would be to commit a compensable takings. That' is why I took special note of your comment "they are gunshy of anything that might bring them into court without a strong stance" and have to ask, If this were true, why attack Tracy with such a clear and expressed grant of exclusive possession, or private inholding, to his land? Seems like where there is an agenda to push, agents, officers, judges, etc, loose all sense of fear of the law....as if they are above the law.
Thank you for your input. I don't see anything though that invalidates the fact of the public domain grant supremacy in the field it occupies. Bureaucratic demands upon office personnel are not any reason to deny a man what is his and his alone. Valuable mineral deposits do not take a back seat to timber. The law mandates just the reverse and under no servitude of management discretion as timber might suffer, actually restoring the mineral land to the public domain removing it from agency discretion or oversight. What is happening to Tracy is evidence of just how infiltrated the system is by those that would trespass property and rights. Hopefully that corrupt infiltration hasn't gone so far as to obstruct Tray's remedy for the harm done to him and the rest of us in the field occupied.
MEG
"I have a feeling that the reason that Mr. Cliff Tracy did not get his EA completed in 5 years is because his EA was de-prioritized yearly in order for the local offices to meet their timber targets."
Tracy had no obligation to obtain a POO, neither file an NOI from which a POO is based and issues upon the findings of an EA. Any delay was intentional by the FS. It is more likely, if we remove for the moment this FS dereliction, the EA didn't issue because the FS didn't tell Tracy, if he were liable, that he needed to file a Notice Of Intent, being this is the first step in the process, not the POO. The FS also didn't tell him HE, not the "public", was the determiner of his development, not the FS or the "public". So we also have FS fraud of the omission in failing to tell him the truthful imposition of the law, if any, and the limit of any authority, if any. [i.e., failure of FS duty to "foster and encourage".]
More than a niche, the prevailing 1866 grant is the entirety of the public domain where a valuable mineral deposit is discovered. This matter is not about public land.
In trying to validate your observations as applicable to valuable mineral deposit discoveries, You did not quote and I do not know of any applicable part of the Act nor any court case which says the Endangered Species Act can interfere with a granted private property. And still Tracy is not being charged under that act, further indicating it's non-applicability.
Moreover, any "action" not consistent with a law that the agency can readily and legitimately point to is outside of agency authority to act. It isn't the other way around, that the agency gets to act until someone stops them. Though until now that has been what has happened. I think we're about to see a severe "market correction" towards a more prolific economy. Those people in the agencies acting contrary to law are privately liable. And Oregon law reflects this clearly by acknowledging that mining claims are "Realty" and that it is a crime to interfere in anyway with a valid claim. The obligation is on the agents, officers or employees, not the miner in his exclusively possessed "niche".
I am extremely interested to see where in the ESA it states that Act can interfere with private property and mining claims specifically. This would be something we need to know because if it does it will have to be challenged as to the legitimacy of its imposition.
That Kulongowski's letter issues hot on the heals of this unfortunate trespass of Tracy is telling of the rabid nature underpinning the pervasive and relentless agenda to deprive people of the Land and wealth granted to them "free and open" in 1866. That the letter, a mere suggestion, is unsupported in any way, contains frivolous assertions, and maintains no right to impose is telling of the power of this gifted land.
As was stated in the Congressional Record of 2000, for the FS to impose any federal act upon a property right would be to commit a compensable takings. That' is why I took special note of your comment "they are gunshy of anything that might bring them into court without a strong stance" and have to ask, If this were true, why attack Tracy with such a clear and expressed grant of exclusive possession, or private inholding, to his land? Seems like where there is an agenda to push, agents, officers, judges, etc, loose all sense of fear of the law....as if they are above the law.
Thank you for your input. I don't see anything though that invalidates the fact of the public domain grant supremacy in the field it occupies. Bureaucratic demands upon office personnel are not any reason to deny a man what is his and his alone. Valuable mineral deposits do not take a back seat to timber. The law mandates just the reverse and under no servitude of management discretion as timber might suffer, actually restoring the mineral land to the public domain removing it from agency discretion or oversight. What is happening to Tracy is evidence of just how infiltrated the system is by those that would trespass property and rights. Hopefully that corrupt infiltration hasn't gone so far as to obstruct Tray's remedy for the harm done to him and the rest of us in the field occupied.
MEG
Thanks folks. I do appreciate it. I'm answering this quickly.
Regarding NEPA, The network is running a program I did January 4th. It will play again 11 PM Pacific March 1, 2010, technical diffs prevailing.
http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/
The first hour is a bit tongue in cheek, current "news". In the second hour at 12 PM I read from and discuss the recent Minard Oil case, December 15, 2009 on Standing and NEPA.
Here's the link to the file and Webpage of some of the text from the decision and a way to listen on your schedule or download for your files.
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/..._Entitled_Hr1_/
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...y_Entitled_Hr2/
I think it should explain and confirm what we know and can read for ourselves. The judge makes some very particular statements which I would "lift" from and put into any response challenging agency impositions for an NOI or POO,,,,and some other things, like alleging agency fraud for imposing the rules in conflict with the laws of the United States. And this case pertains where the FS has a surface interest. How much more certain would it apply where the FS has absolutely no title to the land located? You decide. More importantly, it isn't just Me saying NEPA does not apply. And then even if some of it does, can't stop the dominant estate, the mineral, possessor or unreasonable interfere with his/her property.
Yes, Ghost Miner has some good questions. I will attempt to respond in a bit. For now, I would say in the general sense you can answer those questions with a yes. And trust your intuition on this, it is very good. In the general, your if-then analysis is correct. If the agencies can't then does it mean.... yes. That is what it means. The difference is how the courts appear to be treating the wrongful impositions [612]. Again Doremus is instructive. Consider that the courts are treating the POO as a self-imposed contract in breach and wrongly imposed as a breach also, what should be courtesy notice not obligation. Consider that the Forest Service rules say the locator determines the work and how that might play into this. There is more to discuss but that should get you thinking. Remember, McClure states that a miner can not be charged with a crime for not filing a POO even if one were required. Think about that. And I'll do what I can to explain further.
For now I think I covered the Minard Oil case fairly succinctly in my 01/04 program reciting the judges decision as the basis for an expanded discussion and the reasons why I do the program. It's better than typing for conveying the ideas quickly, though not so good for printed study.
I think we have a very good handle on this and I think we'll be able to move quickly through a comprehensive understanding to learning how to assert the law, the property, and the rights appurtenant. And I'll try to figure out how to explain what it is that needs to be done in response. Since it is all case by case, that part isn't so easy. And yes when we are stopping the government from continuing to prosecute a "non-compliance" there will be no evidence of it. So those looking for a court case are looking in the wrong place and waiting for the wrong proof. That said, court cases may be on the horizon, but not like most are expecting.
All I can tell you all is, What I see in this Act and it's underlying authority is BIG, beyond what most can yet comprehend. Though Ghost Miner senses it. But let's get the valuable minerals back under the miner's Law of Possession, and the immensity of this Act can later be shown, asserted, and enjoyed; systemic corruption notwithstanding.
~MEG
Regarding NEPA, The network is running a program I did January 4th. It will play again 11 PM Pacific March 1, 2010, technical diffs prevailing.
http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/
The first hour is a bit tongue in cheek, current "news". In the second hour at 12 PM I read from and discuss the recent Minard Oil case, December 15, 2009 on Standing and NEPA.
Here's the link to the file and Webpage of some of the text from the decision and a way to listen on your schedule or download for your files.
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/..._Entitled_Hr1_/
http://www.win.revolutionbroadcasting.com/...y_Entitled_Hr2/
I think it should explain and confirm what we know and can read for ourselves. The judge makes some very particular statements which I would "lift" from and put into any response challenging agency impositions for an NOI or POO,,,,and some other things, like alleging agency fraud for imposing the rules in conflict with the laws of the United States. And this case pertains where the FS has a surface interest. How much more certain would it apply where the FS has absolutely no title to the land located? You decide. More importantly, it isn't just Me saying NEPA does not apply. And then even if some of it does, can't stop the dominant estate, the mineral, possessor or unreasonable interfere with his/her property.
Yes, Ghost Miner has some good questions. I will attempt to respond in a bit. For now, I would say in the general sense you can answer those questions with a yes. And trust your intuition on this, it is very good. In the general, your if-then analysis is correct. If the agencies can't then does it mean.... yes. That is what it means. The difference is how the courts appear to be treating the wrongful impositions [612]. Again Doremus is instructive. Consider that the courts are treating the POO as a self-imposed contract in breach and wrongly imposed as a breach also, what should be courtesy notice not obligation. Consider that the Forest Service rules say the locator determines the work and how that might play into this. There is more to discuss but that should get you thinking. Remember, McClure states that a miner can not be charged with a crime for not filing a POO even if one were required. Think about that. And I'll do what I can to explain further.
For now I think I covered the Minard Oil case fairly succinctly in my 01/04 program reciting the judges decision as the basis for an expanded discussion and the reasons why I do the program. It's better than typing for conveying the ideas quickly, though not so good for printed study.
I think we have a very good handle on this and I think we'll be able to move quickly through a comprehensive understanding to learning how to assert the law, the property, and the rights appurtenant. And I'll try to figure out how to explain what it is that needs to be done in response. Since it is all case by case, that part isn't so easy. And yes when we are stopping the government from continuing to prosecute a "non-compliance" there will be no evidence of it. So those looking for a court case are looking in the wrong place and waiting for the wrong proof. That said, court cases may be on the horizon, but not like most are expecting.
All I can tell you all is, What I see in this Act and it's underlying authority is BIG, beyond what most can yet comprehend. Though Ghost Miner senses it. But let's get the valuable minerals back under the miner's Law of Possession, and the immensity of this Act can later be shown, asserted, and enjoyed; systemic corruption notwithstanding.
~MEG
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.