Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Mining Claims filing question


Uncle Ron

Recommended Posts

I hope some forum members have the skinny on this: An association claim can be as large as 160 acres, but it must be located by eight locators...If a claim is located for 160 acres and the location notice shows only ONE LOCATOR is the claim valid?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Cheers, Unc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

The answer is YES, it can be valid although it may not always be. Clear as mud, huh? Let's say I get 7 other guys together to claim a 160 and then all 7 of them Quit Claim their portion over to me. I then am the sole owner of a 160 acre claim. Or we all sell it to one single person. Those are the only ways I know for it to be a legal 160 acre single owner claim and it counts the same as one 20 acre claim toward your small miners exemption.

I don't have the actual case law here at this PC but this has been upheld several times in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotsa, I know that a single individual can end up owning a 160 acre claim as you described...I am talking about the original location papers having only one single locator. Is there any way that that single individual has ownership of the 160 acre claim from the first location?

Cheers, Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the original papers contained in the BLM files and recorded at the county were filed with ONLY one signer then I no of no way for that to be legit. If the papers on the ground have only one signer yet the filed paperwork is done correctly then it would still be legal, yet misleading and IMHO challengeable yet doubtful of winning. The most I think that would done is the court to order the owner to post a proper facsimile of the correct papers. BLM does make mistakes, so they may have allowed the filing for just one signer but bringing it to their attention will not likely have the affect you want. They almost always give the claimant the benifit of a doubt and let them know the pending invalidation of the claim allowing them ample time to file new papers before it becomes public knowledge. I know this from personal experiences last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo, Lotsa...I wonder what the BLM would say if this particular individual made a habit of filing 160 acre claims under a single name? Like dozens of them? Maybe hundreds? Cheers, Unc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncle Ron

If it is who I think it is,the location notice will just have one name.

But the notice filed with the BLM will have all the names. He has plenty

of family members. If it is the same guy he has the system figured out.

Nothing wrong with just putting one name and address on a location

notice on a claim,as long as the BLM has the original with all the names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember one thing, The BLM will not be the party that decided if a claim is legal or not, they only process paperwork and collect fees. It will be up to a judge to determine legality. If you were to file "over" him, the BLM would accept your paper work and a new claim would be recorded. Does that mean it is legal, only a judge can determine that. In my opinion of the Mining Law, his claims would certainly be open to a legal challenge.

I would also go to gtbe BLM office and speak with a supervisor. The supervisor should provide the guidence to his staff so as not to accept such improper paperwork. Here in the Ca main office you could never get away with such erronious paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT WAIT...This gets more interesting....One particular claim, as an example of many, was filed on, 160 acres, by one individual person...Then, half a year later, give or take timewise, ownership was transfered by EIGHT people, who were never on the BLM record for the claim, to another individual who, records show, has been the beneficiary of receiving other ownerships of claims from the same group, more or less...This is the bullcrap that the greenies just eat up and threatens our rights...And it's being done hundreds of times....I have been personally threatened for talking about it on the forums, last time happened to be the morning my Dad passed away...And, because I know certain individuals monitor this and other forums, I'll probably be threatened again...Cheers, Unc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

I know EXACTLY what they will say and have said to me anyway about him and his methods... They will look into it. One thing recently changed here in AZ at BLM though, they now have a claims legal specialist that has been looking hard at all back claims as well as new files for any issues that can invalidate them. I know, they got us on one of our older claims of 160 acres which is also how I know they give you the chance to fix it before making the issue public. We had a 160 acre claim consisting of 8, 1320 x 660's end to end. He picked up on the minor issue that we had a small bend in the middle of the map causing the actual total length of the claim to be just a pinch over 10560 and therefore no longer valid, but they gave us a heads up to fix it by amending it into two separate claims.

The man then pulled ALL of our other files checking for errors as well as confirming signatures on all paperwork etc. He's kind of picky. LOL

We passed the tests but I wonder if whats his name can should the BLM gentleman ever get around to looking at him closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BLM will not get involved in a dispute between claimants.

How a claim is filed is not only Federal mining law,but BLM regulations too.

If the claim does not meet BLM regulations,they make the final decision and

enforce the law.

They do give a claimant a chance to amend a filing ,under law. The amended

filing can only pertain to survey , size limits,or a simple mistake with papers.

If the claim is listed on LR2000 with just one name,it becomes a BLM problem,

and if brought to their attention,they have to act.

Filing a 160 acre claim under one claimant name is against BLM regulations,and

illegal. They can't let someone breaking the laws file an amendment. Thus they

have to declare the claim null and void.

If you file over this claim and it is held to be valid,then the courts have jurisdiction,

because it is a civil matter between claimants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sawmill, that's the way I understand the law according to the lawyers...It will be interesting and may very well open up an interesting situation...I do have a pretty good legal staff, dealing with much bigger issues than this...We'll see...Cheers, Unc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncle Ron

I have one of the best mining lawyers there is period.

I pay attention to what he says too. Mining law is simple.

It only gets complicated when people try to twist it to fit. :laught16:

Also if this guy is trying to file under a corporation,the claim is

automatically void. A corporation can file as many 20 acre claims,

as they want,as individual claims,but can not file a single claim

larger than 20 acres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a potential variation of the above referenced practices emerging in Southern California. A smattering of relatively small sized HARD ROCK claims recently have been staked over, or adjacent to, existing placer claims in the Dale District. Preliminary indications are that someone of Asian background is doing the staking and filing. Query: Once paperwork is generated bearing official BLM and county references, wouldn't it be a sweet scam to sell these overseas to unsuspecting Asian investors who do not fully understand American mining law practices, but who desire to get in on the golden band wagon (spelled variously as S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N or G-R-E-E-D). The world is full of fools and I would not feel particularly sorry for them, but bottom line is that such practices (if in fact this is what is going on) can only adversely affect the rest of us by creating new reasons to overhaul the existing system. Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...