As reported by another miner in another mining forum-


Opinions?

GRRRRR! Yet again the miners are being illegally regulated with the courts endorsement. Guess the judge hearing the case didn't know that other courts have already decided the opposite in other cases? Miners can occupy their claims anytime to work them so I'd say these folks will all have court cases going (if not already) to sue the FS for an "illegal takings" of their claims and work time. What ever they made per week plus attorneys fees? That could add up quick and I hope they do in fact nail the FS to the wall on this!

It would also be nice if they'd prove in the course of their appeals that the FS in fact has NO AUTHORITY BY LAW TO REGULATE MINING! The BLM website here in Colorado even states this, but one would think the law saying it would be enough.
Not to say the BLM would be any better as I'm not familar with the offices in that district.....but the law is the law and if we don't understand the law (and it's delagation of authority) then the gov officials, courts and lawyers will take advantage of our lack of knowledge.

The miners should still STAND YOUR GROUND! Literally, as it would be, it's their right to occupy/work their claims. Sure would be hard to extract minerals without being on the site wouldn't it? FS has a delegated authority to regulate surface use (minerals are not surface use) and occupancy of FS lands (but not mining activities). When all this comes down in appeal and they get overturned (they should and we all hope they do ) then the judges reputation is in the toilet within his peer group!

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my "opinion" and Coalbunny asked for em' .....

I'll be looking forward to reading others opinions posted here on this as well since it's such an important topic for all miners!

CP

It doesn't help when some "miners" abuse the system by constructing permanent housing though right?

Quoted from Coalbunnys' link :

"Other miners convicted this month of unlawful occupancy included David Everist, Lennie Ames and Jared Fournier, who took up residences in the Rogue River National Forest, and Ed Needles, who maintained a residence in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest."

Got pics? Pics speak volumes. I have yet to find any.
Was hoping that MEG would say something since this is in his neck of the woods.

What if there are photos and these guys were actually living full time on the claim like your link suggests? Is the FS still wrong in having them removed?

read and copy the 1872 mining laws and its follow up info about your legal rights. it says that you can stay on "your" claim 24/7 if it pertains to your "mining" activitys. some people use this to Sqwat on Federal/public lands when mining isnt part of the equation.

I think their attorney failed them. This should have been a win for them. The law has cases that back their positions.

Now they find themselves in a position of what to do. When they lost, they were saddled with costs, fees from the prosectutor, maybe a fine from the court, their attorney's fees and the costs to vacate.

Do they have all that money plus the costs to appeal?

I wonder if PLP was involved?

The Law only works, IF you have the funds to fight the case thru the system.

Just my thoughts, and I'm not a lawyer, but I know I wouldn't be able to fight that fight.

Dickb

This may not agree with the rest of you, but not knowing the facts or the evidence that was presented, I'm reluctant to provide any support for them. If they were trully guilty of breaking the law and abusing the system, then they were further damaging the reputation of mining and prospecting. Their unlawful actions will only make it tougher on the rest of us.

i got to agree with Boogie on this! untill all the story is told, a person shouldnt jump to a conclusion.in any event, this will be a smear on small scale mining, or what is proposed to be small scale miner.

This is just my opinion as Carl asked...........
From what I read in the quote from above, is the miner reporting this story from another mining forum is misinformed , and should be more informed on mining rights.

Hello, everyone. I would like to throw in my two cents. Without knowing the full details of these cases, it is hard to make any definite comments, but there are a few things worth noting about such a situation, regardless of the particular details. If these people were truly mining an actual discovery that would meet the prudent man and marketability tests, or they were working diligently and in good faith toward such discovery at a site that was both open to mineral entry and showed some reasonable promise as a possible future site for uncommon mineral production, then they had every right to stay on their claims 24/7, so long as they were actively mining or pursuing discovery. My proof of this is as follows:

The 1872 mining law explicitly recognizes that the owner of a mining claim holds "possessory title" to the lodes veins and ledges, and all the surface within the bounds of their locations. The 1955 Common Varieties Act did amend the original law by stating that all such surface possession and use must be incidental to the mining activities, thereby curtailing what were seen as abuses of the mining law by people and companies which used mining claims for purposes totally unrelated to mining, such as filling stations, hotels, saloons, and so forth. Contrary to what some in the government would like us to believe, this act did not transfer possessory title of the surface over to the government, but was intended to ensure that such possessory title could not vest for purposes other than mining, prior to patent. And, by the clear language of the act, it is plain that such possessory title would still vest for all surface necessary to conduct efficient and productive mining activities.

Some people might like to say that such possessory title only pertains to those claims where a valuable discovery has been made, and therefor if they were just prospecting they could be denied the right to full time occupancy, but this argument is fatally flawed when viewed from the perspective of the actual necessities involved with prospecting for and attaining discovery as prescribed under the law. When someone is in the prospecting stage it is especially important that they have the ability to be at the site at any given time, because it is during this stage that such a prospector is the most vulnerable to the activities of rival prospectors or companies, and if a rival was able to peaceably enter and attain discovery, they may be able to take the prospect from the hapless prospector who was not allowed to be on the site to protect against such entry.

This ideology going around that insists that miners do not have a vested right to the surface of their claims and must beg the government for permission to protect and efficiently use their rightful property is erroneous according to the statutory law which pertains to mining. Such law clearly states that the owner of a mining claim has "possessory title" to so much of the surface necessary for their mining activities, even if such use goes so far as to utilize a tent, trailer, or, heaven forbid, a cabin. The administrators seem to have taken the law into their own hands, with no regard to the written law and statutes. The problem is that so many people go out of their way to be civil while many officials in the government act in an anarchical manner. Seems a little backwards doesn’t it? The government has an obligation to follow the law and if they will not do that, they are nothing but in the way.

Remember, as a mining claimant, you have a "possessory title" to your claim and all surface necessary to conduct your mining operations. The government does not "own" the surface of your claim. You do. The 1955 Common Varieties Act does "reserve" the right of the United States, its' licensees and permittees, to use and dispose of surface resources (except mineral deposits under the mining law), but such use or disposal may not materially interfere in any way with mining activities. That is because you hold a paramount property right, the right to access and use the uncommon and locatable minerals you hold claim to.

Some people say we’re heading into the second great depression. Others say we’re already there. If the money fails, you’d better have something of intrinsic value. Minerals, maybe? This issue is much larger than these five unfortunate people who had the pleasure of being dragged through a court case and forced to withdraw to a restricted position in relation to the development of their claims. Not to mention the humiliation. This is an issue of who is able to access “original wealth”. How will you feed your family if we do slide into a deep depression? What will you have of value if the money goes bad?

Stand up for your rights, and do not be fooled by the idea that the government should be allowed to require permits for every activity in our lives, and that anyone who ever acts outside of that is automatically a bad person. It is through this permitting process that the wealthy and connected maintain their dominance, by making a process which culls the weak and less financially endowed, and ultimately supports the very inequality that said process was supposed to alleviate. In my opinion, the only way out of this mess is to encourage small mining to the utmost degree. The imbalance between the rich and the poor has become increasingly extreme. To have rules or regulations which give such advantage to the wealthy is not tolerable. This is where we are at. Big, monied companies completely dominate the scene. Plainly, small miners will be an historic novelty if this process is allowed to continue.

This is the age-old battle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The small-scale resource producers of this country are on the front lines of this all-important battle, and casualties are increasing. Shall the masses of this country be dependant on huge corporations and the government for their wealth, as it “trickles down” from on high, taking the scraps that our masters throw to us, or shall we have access to original wealth which we can use to build healthy communities, from the ground up? You decide.

This is the information that I based the earlier reply that I posted. I agree that we do not know the transcript of the case, but this action was presented in federal court and the ruling was in the favor of the proscuting U.S. Attorney in favor of the U. S. Forest Service based on one of their regulations that must contradict the mining law of 1872. The defendent was fined $700.00 and ordered to vacate the property and given probation when he lost his case. Also, court costs and attorney's fees would have been added to his fine.

I guess this just sounds like he is one big pickle right now and unless he has a lot of money to appeal the courts decision. I still say that I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now and I don't see anybody standing on his side.

Dickb

Ghost Miner, goot post and spot on! Thank you for posting.

Yep Mrs.CP.....I agree, that poster from another forum needs to do some read up work on the mining law and our rights to enact upon it.

Although we didn't have all the details for the court proceedings available to read, there are enough details to know for sure that the FS has once again overstepped their "delegated authority" in these cases. As I said earlier in this thread......the FS in fact has NO AUTHORITY BY LAW TO REGULATE MINING!
No matter what the judge said in this case, the law is the law and those who are infringed upon according to the laws must .... I repeat, THEY MUST continue the fight or we all lose out on precedence set by case rulings such as this was.

Put yourselves in their shoes, if in fact you were on your own mining claim undertaking mining activities.......should the FS toss you off your own claim? Or out of the national forest that in fact belong to us the people?! I would say absolutely not! .....and if this does happen, then the FS has overstepped their delegated authority. As what apparently has happened in these cases.

As far as claims having structures on them..... this is not something the FS regulates either is it? Building codes do not fall under their jurisdiction so how do they come into play concerning structures being on claims?
Again, an overstep of authority they have been delegated.

The FS does not regulate building code, that falls to the county of that area just like with any other buildings erected on someones land!

So as we all can see, even though the details are not all available, there are certainly enough details to see a gov deptartmental agency that is way out of their authority jurisdiction.

Many may not agree with my statement either but the law is the law and we the people must make the FS (or any other gov agency) comply with those laws just as we the citizens must comply with them.
Unfortunately many miners, have been illegally dragged through the courts and have had similar findings ruled against them in courts too. It's time we the people take some initative to get these over zelous departments of the gov reigned back into their jobs as described/dictated according to the laws.

CP