Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wes

Claimjumpers caught in Placer county

Recommended Posts

Guest Gripper

Okay,

This topic was started because some punks were stealing gold, probably. I shot out a quick reminder that we need to keep our claims marked, based on the mining rules that I have read. What they were doing, from everybodys ASSUMPTIONS, including mine, was theivery. Done with that.

Am I wrong because I quote from the publication produced by the BLM? Did I miss something? I would appreciate the citing of written laws or regulations to back up these opinions.

Gripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gripper,

The key word in the regulations is "Location", i.e. Locating. the markers are only required when locating a claim, you aren't required to maintain the markers after locating and thus filing the claim, otherwise it would say you have to maintain them, which it doesn't, there are case laws to this affect which I've read, if I can find them again I will post them.

Skip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gripper

It states "Unless a mining claim or site is properly located and marked, it is invalid."

It doesn't say "Unless a mining claim or site was properly located and marked, it is invalid."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I originally filed my claim I put out the markers as required by law.

I also posted several signs prohibiting ANY type of prospecting by others.

No tresspassing/keep out signs are not permitted since non claimants are allowed to camp, fish or hunt on your claim as long as they do not interfere with your operations in any manner.

I believe that Sawmill is dead on when it comes to placer vs lode claims.

The info to support his explanation is out there, I just need to dig it up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seem like a good idea to put up a few signs to help keep the honest people honest and to make it easer to prosecute the high graders ! when I had my claim it was right next to a main road so I took a ladder and hung a few signs up high on some trees and at least if the people went on there to mine they and everybody else know what was up.... they did suffer from a few bullet holes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a legal standpoint you dont have to post private property to protect it. And mineral rights are a sort of "private property". But from a practicality standpoint if you dont want people to prospect make it plain to them.

I have heard the endless debate on whether a claim is valid if it is not properly posted. Sure the claim is valid. At least until a court says otherwise. But what a criminal court of law does is not based on BLM regulations or civil court.

If you are the type that wants to see a hygrader waterboarded then I would say you should keep the corners posted and a few signs on the road to evidence any feloneous intentions of the accused. And sentencing will probably be in direct proportion of the anger of the grouchy ol' blister that holds the mining claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The signs or 'everybody else' suffered a few bullet holes? It reads the latter and makes it read kinda funny! :) Hope it was the former that got the holes! :) :) :)

Mike F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me for butting in, but being a newby and starting to discover the depth of complexity to all this , is well,exciting... SO That being the case, I started digging around and found this ruling( which I believe has already been alluded to)... I believe it states in so many words that if a claim already exists, whether lode or placer, said claimant has the exclusive right to that claim area.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/194/220/

( note the last sentence)

"

...Although a placer location is not a location of lodes and veins beneath the surface, but simply a claim of a tract of ground for the sake of loose deposits upon or near the surface, and the patent to a placer claim does not convey the title to a known vein or lode within its area unless specifically applied and paid for, the patentee takes title to any lode or vein not known to exist at the time of the patent and subsequently discovered. The owner of a valid mining location, whether lode or placer, has the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the location. ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placer county lynch mob!

Guilty untill proven innocent is the way it goes not the way they say.

How many of you people have been out metal detecting with gold from home with you I USUALLY

pack 6 to 8 grams with me all the time some people I know cary 2-3 oz with them so you and your buddy

are walking acrost someones claim with your metal detector over your shoulder and an ounce of your

own gold in your pocket just getting to where you can detect beyond the claim..

You better have taken pictures of your gold left them home safe so when that we are strapped for money

would be law hero arrests you takes all your belongings,throws you in jail and breaks you for lawyer fees..

No one can stop me from prospecting for hard rock on a placer claim with a metal detector and visa versa

We have all these people that file claims for self their relations on and on never do a dam thing on them

but post no traspassing and private property signs so now we have countless thousands of acres nobody

can do anything with these people in my opinion arent much better than the greenies who are doing the

same thing.

Take a look around Dome Rock tons of acres claimed and there hasn't been so much as a rock moved

mining UNLESS some claim jumper did it. Mining poachers living on their claims year round pretty cheap

property to live on. Lots of them owners just use it for realistate praying off nieave folks.

Do you suppose all those people would tie up all those claims if they had to buy them for the going

land price..

RJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm talking about is filing a placer claim over an unpatented lode claim. I can't find any court case regarding this issue, and at this point I have to assume it's because it's legal since 1872 mining law and Federal code and regulations say those minerals are claimable.

Someone needs to show a court ruling that is after 1954, and dealing with claims filed after 1954, and if possible after 1976. Or at least one that deals with two unpatented claims.

I appreciate the clarification, Jason, but where iin the code does it allow overlapping claims you are referring to?.

YOu're asking for someone to cite cases proving it's disallowed,but can you cite cases or specific section of USC that allows it.?

I'm just asking out of curiosities stake and overall fairness. I hope the board allows this indulgence, posthworing/jajacking as the original post( news article) seems to have opened a few topics for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Belk v. Meagher, the supreme court says of the Mining Act of 1866: "(T)he locator of a mining claim has a possessory title thereto, and the right to the exclusive possession thereof. The words imply property. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of a mining claim includes the right to work it, to extract the mineral therefrom, to the exclusive property in such mineral, and the right to defend such possession. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of property, accompanied with the right to acquire the absolute title thereto, presupposes a grant, and the instrument of this grant, as applied to mining claims upon the public lands, is the act of congress above referred to. This act being of general application to all the mineral lands belonging to the government, and conferring a title or easement therein upon the locator thereof, and vesting the right in him to become the absolute owner to the exclusion of all others, is a legislative grant, and being given by act of congress, is equivalent to a patent from the United States to the same." I think you believe, in error, that a claim doesn't hold the same right of possession as a patent. Here in an excerpt from the Supreme Court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JasonG

You are going down a losing path. Trying to twist the mining laws to suit

your purpose is futile.

The mining laws are a simple set of laws,and follow common sense,this is

why so many people get tripped up later trying to alter them for their own

purpose.

The reason that two claimants can not claim separate deposits on the same

claim is common sense. It is a conflict of interests,and can not be done and

stay within the law. In order to mine either claim Notices,and Plans of operation

are required. You can not get either for a claim that is in conflict.

Also some lode claims are mined from the surface as in trenches or open cuts.

If some fellow is puttering around with placer ,he would be in the way and interfer

with the other claimants operation. Also the matter of reclamation and bonds

would be a night mare to manage. No bonding company would get involved with

a mess like that. No legitimate mining company would even concider putting money

into such a situation. No insurance company would want any part either. The US

government are big sticklers on conflicts of interest ,on federal land too.

Mining laws were made for commercial mining at a profit. There is no US mining law

that caters to hobby or recreational use. Some people are lulled into the assumption

that the BLM doesn't monitor any of those claim papers. They have a built in system

and it works. Just try to file a Notice or Plan,and you will see how fast ,that they can

spot a bogus claim. Improper filing or locating is caught at this point,and is known as

a fatal error. This will cause your claims to be declared null and void.I will try and

attache the rules.If uncertain as to whether to locate a lode or placer claim.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, you have no "right" to prospect for minerals on ANY valid mining claim.

A valid claim gives the claimant granted rights to ALL locatable minerals within his

claim either discovered or undiscovered.

Now lets look at the CFR that you posted above. CFR's are not laws. They are

regulation and do not apply to lands open for mineral entry per the mining "laws"

as set forth in Title 30 of the United States Code.

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 43, Volume 1]

[Revised as of October 1, 2002]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 43CFR23.2]

[Page 437]

TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR

PART 23--SURFACE EXPLORATION, MINING AND RECLAMATION OF LANDS--Table of Contents

Sec. 23.2 Scope.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the

regulations in this part provide for the protection and conservation of

nonmineral resources during operations for the discovery, development,

surface mining, and onsite processing of minerals under permits, leases,

or contracts issued pursuant to: The Mineral Leasing Act of February 25,

1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181-287); the Mineral Leasing Act for

Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. 251-359); and title 23, United States Code,

section 317, relating to appropriation for highway purposes of lands

owned by the United States.

(b) The regulations in this part do not cover the exploration for

oil and gas or the issuance of leases, or operations thereunder, for oil

and gas under the mineral leasing acts, which are covered by regulations

in subpart 3107 and part 3120 of this title and 30 CFR part 221; neither

do they cover minerals underlying Indian tribal or allotted lanes, which

are subject to regulations in title 25 CFR, nor minerals subject to the

general mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21 through 54); nor minerals under the

Materials Act; nor minerals underlying lands, the surface of which is

not owned by the U.S. Government; nor minerals or operations subject to

the provisions of 43 CFR subpart 3041.

Notice the saving clause that protects the mining laws. The mining acts of

1866, 1870, 1872 are very much intact. Don't confuse regulations with mining

law. You will be best served not prospecting on valid claims.

Further proof that the 1872 laws are intact.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth District has upheld in its entirety the 1872 Mining Laws. In the case of USA vs. Shumway, opinion filed 12/28/1999, regarding mining claims and mill site claims, Judge Kleinfeld has ruled that the mining law is still in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it will help the discussion at all but there is a web site with BLM case law out there. I was referred to it several times but I dont have the link. I am sure that Sawmill or one of the other members who is into that sort of thing can post it. It is a searchable database with case law applicable to mining claims and issues.

I have been there several times and I apologize that I cant just post a link to click on. Someone else here will be able to I am sure.

Your question cant really be answered unless you have a case and it goes to court. it is a gret hypothetical question but I believe that there is really no answer. There is the law and then there is how the law is oficially interpreted. Then there is hos each individual interprets the law. Then there is how the judge interprets each circumstance. In a hypothetical argument we can discuss whatever we want, but in real life the BLM is not going to get involved in any sort of legal conflict and is only going to do what they are instructed by a judge to do in each individual case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was only to your reference to 43 CFR and the clause that removes

holders of valid claims from said CFR's. 36 CFR contains similar language.

Does your argument lie in Title 30 Chapter 2 Subsection 37 of the U.S.C.?

If so, that pertains to perfecting patent on a claim and is there to prevent a

claimant from paying the lower "placer" fee for known "lodes" or "viens" on the

claim. The mining laws must be taken as a whole and not line for line or word

for word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason G

You answered your own question in your response to me.

Mining claims are only for locatable minerals. Mining law states that

an overfiler,can not gain mineral rights by overfiling another claim.

Sand and gravel are leaseable material and mining these leaseable

type materials for locatable metals is fraud.

This is where the BLM would trip up any attempt to try the trick that

you suggest. Leaseable materials do not give you rights to mine

locatable material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just returned from a rather large gathering of locals here on the "Divide". I spoke with a few of the long time in the know locals. They are in mutual agreement that the two claim jumpers that the OP referred to are in deep doo doo. The worst part of the alleged crimes was the concealed weapon.

In many places here, the gold is almost oozing out of the ground. All of the rich areas are claimed or patented property. They are for the most part parallel to Volcano Canyon. That canyon aligns with a lengthy serpentine contact zone. Most of the folks that get popped here for mineral trespass are going for the gold in that rich zone. Problem is the Sheriff and the claimants/property owners are on the look out. This stuff has been going on here for 160 years and will probably keep going for another 150. It's a great place to live and be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not to sure how a sheriff knew these guys were on a mining claim, that puzzles me if he busted them walking back to their vehicle. How would he know where they were?

I myself have stopped on that road and metal detected a few spots I could see off the main road, which were tailing piles of some sort up on the hill, no signs or nothing and looked like a very old operation of some sort. I didn`t find anything gold wise. Tons of poison oak however....I figured it was just open land and If I did see some signs i would right down the info if possible of the claim and verify. Just because you see a sign doesn`t mean its valid. This goes for private property also.

I did however find an old Marjuana growing operation on this hill. Hoses, planter boxes, a maze of high tech water lines actually coming from up top of the spot I detected. At least a hundred plants were growing on this hill and i suspect there are more areas around this place within walking distants.

When I go out on areas like this you can bet I am packing some heat with me and I dont always have it out in plain site either. So I could technically be guilty of carrying a concealed weapon ,I guess. When i reach a spot i am detecting I usually put the gun in my backpack next to me which might be considered concealed because it is loaded. Its a tricky part of the law IMO. If this is National forest land I thought it was legal to carry a firearm and shoot too!

I wasn`t there when this happened but there probably is a lot more to this then the paper says. So I hold my judgement on this until more info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? No Guns in National Foreist? That's where most of the hunting is here.

bizarre-law-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every drainage out there in Forest Hill seems to have discarded black water lines strewn about from past grow operations.

Thousands of feet of line in some places.

Discusting and disturbing to see all the trash the growers leave behind.

In the old days they mined the yellow gold out of the creeks, now its the green gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many of those growers are the so called greenies! But we, as folks who don't hide that we use the land for recreation of the legal kind are getting squeezed and blamed for the trash... Probably getting blamed for the grow ops, too, in some instances!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GlennM

You hit the nail square on the head. I personally know a dozen or so

big time radical greenies that have been busted for growing pot. It is

always in one of the areas where they have chased everyone else from

because it needed protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic should be a mandatory read for every greenhorn prospector. Most everything I have learned has come from this site. Many thanks. Before finding this site I had read on the internet that claim owners weren't too conserned if they found you only using a pan on their claim. I soon found that to be bad misinformation. Ouch. Then I used the BLMLR2000 with confidence but found out the "abandoned claim" I was on was very alive and well. I am gratefull the claim owner didn't shoot me and let me pan the rest of the day. He turned me on to calling the main BLM office in Sacramento for up to date claim information. I had assumed claim owners were required to put up signs other that just boundary markers. Now I learn that is not correct. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...