The below links are provide for reference. They differ a bit from one another, but the reply below, I believe, at this time adequately addresses the comments, questions, and concerns.

http://www.49ermike.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=...84938&page=

Membership only forums:
http://bb.bbboy.net/alaskagoldforum-viewth...&thread=596
http://bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread...&thread=226


I find it astonishing that any one would give any credibility to someone that admits they have not read sufficiently the mining law but has the audacity to insist the opinion authoritative. I find it at least interesting that Zooka will condemn in others what he allows to himself, cherry-picking. Hypocrisy? I find it outlandish that anyone would let a title, such as attorney, get in the way of discovering the truth, through blind faith acceptance. And I find it sad that people preaching integrity, those that can not rely upon their own endevour or thought, would stoop so low as to berate or chastise those making contributions. On the other hand, Zooka is done a disservice by those replacing His opinion for the responsibility each of us has to apprehend the subject matter by our own method.

Seemingly, those in the mining community have forgotten where the mining law comes from. Real miners don't need no steenkeeng attorneys. And anyone who does serious research will find attorneys today an obstruction and corruption of the law. Honest attorneys, if there be such a thing, will admit they just aren't trained in actual mining law, a specialty law above and apart. Moreover, I don't know of any law saying an attorney possesses any higher intelligence or insight than the miners making the law that the 1866 and subsequent mineral law owes its heritage.

That Zooka or anyone admits they have not studied the mining law sufficiently and then attempts an opinion which forms the basis of an attack, ridicule, or challenge is laughable, frivolous really. The standard of analysis is the para materia requirement explained in the Congressional Record of 2000. The term "para materia" means the subject matter must be taken all together before an answer may be given to any particular question. Zooka would do well to read that Record before waxing great all his "expertise" where he admits falling short of the rigors and specialty of the mining law.

With that, for all of you that have taken the responsibility to think for yourself and read for yourself, I offer some observations which I hope will show the frailty of Zooka's admitted unstudied opinion.

And you all must understand, I have nothing against Zooka, I don't know him. I don't offer my research as any attack. But for him to do what he is doing this way is a disservice to us all. We had written privately by request of a forum member to work out our difference and create a more powerful alliance to further the needs of the community. Willing to do that, I had explained to Zooka I was swamped with research work for miners in trouble but would get back to him ASAP. He took that as an insult. He decided to go to the forums instead, cheerleaders in tow, and vilify Me and the information you all can research for yourself. But I understand. It is easier to attack Me, than to do the hard research.

What Zooka would have you believe is that the 1955 Act dealing strictly in the disposal of COMMON minerals repealed 30 USC 26 granting UNCOMMON minerals including all the surface. But this is patently false. For those of you with the DVD video Decoding Mining Law, remember the discussion of the Mineral Estate Tree. The branch of right and property and the left branch of administrative permission. The 1955 Act covers the left branch only. But no body who wants to steal your property will recognize that.

The REAL LAW 30 USC 26 says we have exclusive possession of the entire surface. I suggest you all go read it. All subsequent REAL Law must save that granted property.

A repeal of law is made by expression; Not much different for the grant of a thing. It has to be written. To see a repeal of law find the Act of 1872 and read of the repeal of certain sections of the 1866 Act. Understand however, the congressional intent and property granted thereby was saved, so the expressed repeal did not repeal the prior congressional intent and why the 1866 and 1870 are incorporated into the 1872 in full power and authority. So there you see the form a repeal of law takes. It is by written expression, stated clearly so there are no misunderstandings. No court case is needed to divine the fact as Zooka would impiously impose. You also have evidence in the 1872 act that even in repeal certain things are saved from the previous law, or by restatement in the latter law; In this case the granted uncommon mineral deposit including the surface in trust to all Americans is preserved.

Now you all will remember I have shown this in-depth already in a prior post using BLM information for confirmation of the fact, the 1955 Act says that mineral deposits are excepted from treatment under the Act codified at 30 USC 612 (b) (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws) which amended the 1947 Common Materials Act, not the 1872 act. Though I don't know why, most people, in particular attorneys, maybe because of their unpropertied administrative bent, and "judges" will repeatedly miss that part. Even after being shown it is there. But that then exposes a corruption of law purporting itself Justice in the form of case decisions, doesn't it?

What is more important is, there is no language in the 1955 act repealing either Section 26 of title 30 or the act of 1872. The reason is the 1955 act was NOT to affect the uncommon minerals granted in 1866. The 1955 act was an amendment to the 1947 disposal of the COMMON minerals, hence the saving clause or "exception" of mineral deposits at 612 (b). Please take note -- Not all the mineral claims spoken to in the 1955 act are mineral deposits. Mineral deposits are those uncommon valuable minerals granted in 1866 as saved through 1872 despite "repeal" of certain sections of the 1866. The Congressional Intention and every thing granted in 1866 as amended by the 1870 remained granted in 1872. The 1947 Common Materials Act and the 1955 "Surface Resources Act", amending the 1947 Act, did not change anything in the 1872 act. No need to find a current court case to tell you what is plainly printed.

To show further limitation of these common mineral disposal acts, the leaseable and saleable minerals, read this part of 30 USC 615 showing no repeal of any prior right or possession authorized by law of unpatented mining claims is provided:

"nothing in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title shall be construed in any manner to authorized inclusion in any patent hereafter issued under the mining laws of the United States for any mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, of any reservation, limitation, or restriction not otherwise authorized by law, or to limit or repeal any existing authority to include any reservation, limitation, or restriction in any such patent, or to limit or restrict any use of the lands covered by any patented or unpatented mining claim by the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees which is otherwise authorized by law. "

Notice the Ortiz court that Zooka provided conveniently eliminated the exception. This is typical of judges/attorneys not understanding mining law or miners not asserting mining rights properly, despite any systemic corruption. And that is only if the exception was relevant in Ortiz. I also find Zooka's choice of Ortiz interesting. Why choose such a convoluted case to instruct people? Why choose a case where the mineral is completely removed to the point it would invalidate the claim constituting a trespass? We are talking here about valuable mineral deposit claims on unappropriated public domain, not leases of played out disposable minerals on public land with administrative paper filing errors.

Moreover, the statement "may be read to preclude Ortiz from complaining" is not the epitome of a statement of certainty and clarity. The undisclosed statutory exception or mineral deposits remains absent from the case. The decision also admits Ortiz provided no evidence to come to a determination favorable to him. That sounds like either he failed or his attorney failed to represent his case properly. Or maybe Ortiz just didn't have a case but the attorney didn't tell him that, if he knew. By any measure it is a poorly chosen case to make any analysis for the subject matter at hand. But this is where Zooka's "expertise" works against him. If he intends to instruct us He ought to know that such a convoluted case would only confuse. And while I commend Zooka linking to a book, the better information was not on page 655 as directed but at the beginning of the book, which Zooka dismissed; His own reference. The distinction here is, that was a lot of reading for people and a bit overwhelming if we are trying to make a concise point.

The 1955 act says, essentially, any mining claims, except mineral deposits are subject to surface multiple use. In a nutshell, that comports to the entire mining law respecting the prior granted property. And that's where this discussion should end. We shouldn't have to be harassed by cherry-picked "current law, ":real law" excuses for what the law is. Remember from the DVD, the case read stating we have the right of relation back to the grant. The 1866 act is "present" i.e., current, always. And, if need be, we can find more clues to confirm the correctness of this. No special knowledge is needed to divine mining law. Remember, miners made this law. Why must we now suffer an attorney's unstudied interpretation? Have we become that stupid to our own ways, habits, customs, rules and regulations? You know? that is the "rules and regulations" mentioned in the REAL LAW. They are miner’s rules and regulations, not agency. Not attorney. Not judge. Apparently not many notice the agencies of today did not exist when that provision for "rules and regulations" was made. But who did exist? Yeah, MINERS! The miners have the power. That has been settled law. Well, settled until Special Interest got involved.

From a Forest Service manual you can read: "Common varieties may be sold and are not locatable (FSM 2850) except for certain claims established prior to July 23, 1955 (FSM 2812). Uncommon varieties are locatable. NOTE: This statement acknowledges the distinction mentioning any mineral claims, except mineral deposits, that common entrys made prior to 1955 were preserved but locatables are not conditioned or suffer the 1955 limitation at all. See 30 USC 615 for why.

Zooka also presumes judges, his fellow members of the BAR brotherhood, are well versed in mining law. I don't. And other authors have discussed the deficiency. For instance, "This has one great disadvantage to a mining lawyer nowadays, for, while in Judge Lindley's day <1850-1920> there were many judges familiar with the problems of this specialty, they having previously been active in the field of mining law, it is rare today for a judge to try a mining case who has had previous familiarity with the subject." -- California Journal of Mines and Geology, July, 1948. So when Zooka admits he hasn't studied the specialty of mining law sufficiently it is confirmation of the above statement and instructive of the value of the contribution, but of no help to us. In the Hicks 2009 victory the judge admitted he didn't know mining law and asked to be briefed on the ENTIRE mining law. We, non-attorneys, presented 8 bullet points, one sheet of paper, explaining the "ENTIRE mining law" to the judge. This was a calculated strategy. This defense was not based upon Zooka's interpretation which would have been a loser for Hicks. It was based in the knowledge that mining law is above and apart, a "specialty" subject and that the agency regulations, outside of the muniment of title, do not apply to mineral deposit locations. There is a rule under the Forest Service and BLM regs that actually says that the rules do not apply. So these rules alone show Zooka's unlearned opinion to be wrong. Zooka can be the greatest lawyer and the bestest guy in all the world, but if he is not versed in the specialty of mining law it means nothing. That is not my opinion. Read the quote above again if you missed it. Our specialty insight of the mining law did address the Forest Service's equivalent of the BLM Part 3800 the way the REAL LAW, not opinion, requires. Hicks prevailed. Zooka’s knowledge would at best have had him still arguing the point. But that is what an attorney has learned to do; Print words that continue arguments. No attorney makes money offering a quick solution. And apparently, those outside the brotherhood that do offer quick solutions are vilified by them and their friends.

Zooka uses a citation from a private web site which is useless, as is any link from an agency who’s Disclaimer says the information isn't reliable. Or as the Forest Service admits it will not guarantee its information will not infringe private property (see the Disclaimers reprinted on this page: http://www.grantedright.com/The_Myth.html ). So those references by Zooka are useless to us.

The phrase in decisions "for mining purposes" is used to confirm the use is one granted by Congress "authorized by law" in determination of sham claims and trespass. We are not talking about sham claims or trespass. That is what the purpose of most the law subsequent to the 1872 was about; Stopping sham or fraudulent claims. If your mineral deposit claim is valid the subsequent legislations do not and can not apply. That doesn't mean you will not be wrongly imposed by an agency intending to steal your land, or that a "judge" won't allow it to happen. Even out of ignorance of the specialty of mining law.

Be warned, the court decision provided by Zooka is fraught with errors if applied to our purpose here. Part 3800 pertains only to special use lands and 3802 is wilderness study areas and is irrelevant for purposes of the discussion of specified uses, as mineral deposit claims are. We have defeated BLM Notices of Noncompliance alleging some violation under 3809 for this very reason. It will be seen that Specific Uses, such as mineral deposit claims, and water rights, and highways, on the public domain are excepted under FLPMA 1701(a)(3) and 1732 (a), (b), and © because REAL LAW, the "other authorization" requires this. No court case is needed to further explain.

Zooka still hasn't answered or explained, If it is the case, if the 1955 act magically repealed 30 USC 26, that it is clear that this law applies to "all claims located after mid-1955", then what does the exception to mineral deposits mean in 612 (b)? This is the one dirty secret that agencies and attorneys don't want to acknowledge, no different than the agencies do not want to acknowledge that what we possess is private property. For second opinions in support find the Metro Farm Radio link interview with Ramona Morrison, Hage Daughter ( http://www.metrofarm.com/assets/podcast ... nevada.mp3 ), Hage WINS, and the Congressional Record of 2000 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000- ... 1883-2.pdf . But the Contrarians among us will deny all these proofs because to admit them means they have to get off the fence and actually take responsibility, instead of letting the few of us do battle to preserve our property.

Remember Zooka, I'm not telling anyone anything. I'm asking everyone to read, interpret, and understand the law for themselves. The REAL LAW, the intention of Congress says we have exclusive possession of our mining claims, including all the surface. And the exception in 612 (b) to mineral deposits saves that exclusive right of possession as stated in 30 USC 26 which includes all the surface. Don't blame that on Me. That isn't my theory. That's the REAL LAW. I'm just the guy saying "LOOK! Over here! Here it is! Additionally, I think the recent 2009 Minard Run Oil case is instructive http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf ... _large.pdf and the narrative http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas ... for-Energy . And look see at what the Forest Service knows back East that it denies out West. Even where the government has purchased an interest in the surface estate it has no power more than consultation and may not interfere with the dominant mineral estate private property or stop its development pending an EIS. How much less power there is where absolutely no interest in the surface exists, being it was granted to the valid mineral deposit locator? You decide. The Congressional Record indicates and this goes for BLM: "For the USFS to implement regulations under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act or any other federal authority, which would divest citizens of their property is to trigger claims for compensation by the affected citizens" just like REAL LAW requires.

The only thing that is going to defeat this granted property is corrupting attorneys, judges, and miners ignorant of their power and rights...or those lead blindly by the admitted insufficient knowledge of the specialty mining law. So attack Me with your admitted ignorance "of this specialty" of mining law if you feel the need but you waste everyone's time and cause division. And it won't change what the law is. Neither will it stop the government from picking us off one at a time or in small bunches.

While the some of you are working hard to extinguish the fire of property rights the act of 1866 created, some of us are using what you deny exists to defeat what you say can't be. But it takes time to see the results, especially with so few standing up for themselves and their property rights.

For the rest, I commend those of you sticking with it and continuing your study despite the aggressive diversions to throw you off track because of fear or other weakness.

The intention of Congress in 1866 is a "present grant"', CURRENT LAW, no exception.

MEG

P.S. MEG is the reminder of a status. Are you Miner enough for it?

After hesitating to delete this post, I've decided to leave it stand as it's part of several ongoing problems for the last 7 years + as I see it.
I do not know Zooka, nor am I stating any disagreement with him or anyone else. I also will not allow anyone elses names to be brought up or a bickering contest be brought here. The demostration shown here though is valuable to readers in historical events.
If you wish to post a response in this thread, be cautioned, I will edit if needed .... ie... if respect is not shown or my statement above not followed.

That being said...............This is my personal opinion from the historical facts I know, and is not the opinion of the CP club members or forum users.

It's very sad to see this situation hasn't improved over the last 5 years. Still the same problems with the same groups bickering amongst themselves while the problems they were trying to fix have apparently worsened. While the same leaders of the same groups still ride coat tails and try to claim the fame.......oh and please send them money to help fix this issue? GRRRRRR!

The behind closed doors attitude and pointing fingers about divisions attitude is absolutely ridiculous..........maybe that finger should be pointed in the mirror instead?

I do know that it's been a long time and maybe those (persons, businesses, clubs or organizations) should look for other leadership (IMHO). Or better yet, those that support those so called leaders could learn a little more about the west coast "cliche" and make better decisions where their dollars/support go.
Definately learn about the laws for yourself as no one will do it for you! Want to show some REAL support for mining? Then become an aware and educated citizen, which you can further if you wish personally by becoming active in procedures. TWO THUMBS UP TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE ALREADY!

For those who've been around here long enough, you know the history, and for those who don't know, feel free to dig through our fight for your rights section and learn about it .....the history of these issues is here and how they've progressed since.

We (ColoradoProspector website and it's users) put out many many different types of efforts to help on these same issues during 2003 through mid 2005 or so, but then in mid 05', we were personally told by some of the same leaders that our "help and efforts" at this site were not needed and quite clearly unwanted, and the doors closed! "loose lips sink ships" and all that crap we were told. Wonder where that division is coming from? HMMMM.......

Since that time we've kept our same track toward education available to the public and watched as several other websites and groups copied the efforts here at Colorado Prospector site via research (at least in part or most) through the CP forums. COOL! Glad some more folks are getting the right information and finally getting up to speed! Accurate information is what every citizen deserves.

That is exactly what Denise and I started this website and club for, a change was needed, there was a complete lack of accurate, usable information or positive presentation/education about topics such as these available to the general public (especially on the internet). Those of you who are looking for the right information without the BS or "send us your money" and "the sky is falling" attitude, WELCOME HOME!

You've found the place be, have a seat and make yourself right at home.
If you agree the Colorado Prospector website is a valuable one, all we ask is........ that you might please pass the word around about it. We would be honored to have any and all participation. Thank you!

Dan

********************************************************************

BTW, how's that closed doors thing been going folks? Don't sound too good.
Sad, very sad!
Time to get on track and educate about the problems for the citizens, instead of for a business, organization or personal names and recognition! Side by side would be a much better stance than "toe to toe"....... I think.

Just my ...... keep the change.

Incoming PM.

Received
Thanks Coalbunny.

i have bought and veiwed the MEG almost 6 hour dvd, and it has caused me to dig deeper in my research. i know Zooka (Dave Bryce) and truely respect and like him.Dave is a lawyer from Texas and the forum co-owner of goldminers on yahoogroups. plus hes a moderator on some other websites. he is known and respected from all. Hal Anthony and his spokes person MEG (unnamed) have gotten a lot of people atleast doing more research into the mining laws and stopped letting everyone do this for them! this 1866 MEG law sounds like it needs tobe investigated so each of us can say ,we know what the law says/and means! it is just to deep for my little brain to figure out how these laws intertwine with each other and their relationships with each other.Zooka(Dave) has went through law school and has been a practicing lawyer for 20 years. from my position,and not knowing the laws intricracies,and how they apply to us, im on hold for now! most of these judges dont know the federal mining laws ,yet they procced with cases pertaining to mining laws. i dont know how they actually give a opinion without knowing the laws and how they apply. i guess each lawyer needs to make it a point that the judges read up on these laws but that would take years for them to be able tobe "qualified" to say they know the law. OR is it the lawyers job to bring the facts pertaining to their case, tobe presented to the judge so that the judge HAS to know the law?it has been the case in some cases where the judge disregarded the facts and the mining law and blantantly stated the he didnt know the mining laws and sided against the small scale miner. so maybe it boils down to ,who has the most money to through towards winning the case, i guess that the ole American way!

I for one would like to thank Dan for all his efforts here at the CP site. Researching can get really confusing thats for sure, and he helps break it down in a more understandable possitive way I think. Seems If someone has a question reguarding this, hes right on it trying to help them understand. Hands on help like this is something rare I think. You rock Dan! Thanks again!



Russ, I understand how confusing it can be! Dan has put a post in the forum last month pretaining to that very thing.
Its titled "Mining Law of 1872", in the "Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc." section of this forum.

This is a quote from Dans post in the Mining Law Of 1872 thread.


Hope this info helps you understand more Russ.


Denise

yep i gotta agree that Dans been a lot of help in trying to understand these laws. it is very complex as these posts show. me ,not having been to school to study law or how they apply to each other and their relationships to each other.all i can do is read and TRY to understand them . but it seems every one has their own interpratation of the laws. even the judges have theirs and ofcourse the wacoenviromentalists have their own form of interpratation(right or mostly wrong).....certain words have their own legal meaning which also trips me up. after reading and trying to understand these laws,i mostly have to rely on people that i respect to form a interpratation for me to clear things up and or explain them. heres where i get into trouble if i dont clearly understand what they say or mean by their interpratation. at some point, i get a headache and stop! i truely hope this all gets worked out and we small scale miners win!