IT APPEARS THAT WE WON
- Thread starter Oakview2
- Start date
- Jan 6, 2014
- 13,651
- 48,580
- Detector(s) used
- White's prizm IV
Keene A52 with Gold Hog mats
Gold-N-Sand hand dredge
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
If the Sierra Fund gets sued, and loses the money that is donated to them......
I would think that people would stop donating!
SF needs audited also, you know they are not doing everything by the book.
I would think that people would stop donating!
SF needs audited also, you know they are not doing everything by the book.
Amazon Forum Fav 👍
rodoconnor
Bronze Member
- Mar 4, 2012
- 1,419
- 1,639
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
MM I agree with you, but meanwhile in Idaho they have completely, blatantly disregarded that very ruling. With threats of $60,000 per day of violation. Our newly elected Assemby and State Senate need to cowboy up and force the issue.
Mad Machinist
Silver Member
This part needs to be pushed HEAVILY. This way it burns in real deep that this is what happens when you decide to dirt roll the majority to satisfy a small but vocal minority.
Threats only.
Miners beat on rock for a living. I'm always surprised they would be intimidated by words on paper when those who wrote those words have no legal right and obviously no intention to back up what they wrote.
Call it regulation by intimidation if you like but please don't give it any legal credibility. The Congress and the Supreme Court have your back on this one.
I seriously doubt the EPA has any employee stupid enough to cite someone and let those bogus "regulations" be decided by a court. That kind of stupid leads to forgetting to breathe or eat.
Your State elected officials can do very little but to refuse to cooperate. From the arrest rate (0) I'd have to say this is a public relations issue only. The refusal to cooperate has already taken place by both the EPA and the State.
Go dredge and leave the drama for Gold Rush.
Heavy Pans
I seriously doubt anyone could get a damage claim for not being able to dredge. To do so you would have to prove there was X amount of gold waiting to be dredged and that you had a concrete plan in place to dredge that proven deposit. How many dredgers had proven their resource base before the moratorium? How many dredgers have ever proven their deposit?
Keep in mind that gold already mined is only proof that there was at one time valuable minerals on your claim. To prove your claim you must establish that there still is enough mineral to be mined to cause a prudent man to reasonably believe the proven deposit could be mined at a profit.
This is not a trick standard. It's been around for more than 150 years. Mining companies spend most of their money and man hours proving their deposits before they ever start to mine. It protects them from Government agencies obstructing their mining as well as allowing them to continue mining even in mineral withdrawals. If the company sells shares in their mine they have to prove the deposit to meet stock market rules. The SEC doesn't treat miners nicely when they find they can't back up their discovery proof.
IF you can prove the State kept you from mining proven resources you might have a case for lost opportunity. Making that into a class action case would require proving a whole class of people were similarly situated. In other words you would have to establish there was a class of dredgers that had proven their claims and planned to mine them before the moratorium. I haven't seen one able to make that claim yet. There may be some but they are not the ones who have joined the consolidated cases.
This should show small miners the value and importance of proving your claim's minerals before being challenged. In my opinion your money and time would be better spent proving your claims before any other regulations, studies or withdrawals happen. Only then can you threaten them with money pain.
If you want to protect your claims learn to perfect them. It's always been the law that there can be no "taking" when there is no established value to what was taken. This is the reason all those miner's "takings" lawsuits continue to fail. You must state that you have proof of your claim and be willing to provide verifiable evidence of the value of the deposit (minus the cost to mine it) before you can have any chance to win a "takings" lawsuit.
Heavy Pans
Keep in mind that gold already mined is only proof that there was at one time valuable minerals on your claim. To prove your claim you must establish that there still is enough mineral to be mined to cause a prudent man to reasonably believe the proven deposit could be mined at a profit.
This is not a trick standard. It's been around for more than 150 years. Mining companies spend most of their money and man hours proving their deposits before they ever start to mine. It protects them from Government agencies obstructing their mining as well as allowing them to continue mining even in mineral withdrawals. If the company sells shares in their mine they have to prove the deposit to meet stock market rules. The SEC doesn't treat miners nicely when they find they can't back up their discovery proof.
IF you can prove the State kept you from mining proven resources you might have a case for lost opportunity. Making that into a class action case would require proving a whole class of people were similarly situated. In other words you would have to establish there was a class of dredgers that had proven their claims and planned to mine them before the moratorium. I haven't seen one able to make that claim yet. There may be some but they are not the ones who have joined the consolidated cases.
This should show small miners the value and importance of proving your claim's minerals before being challenged. In my opinion your money and time would be better spent proving your claims before any other regulations, studies or withdrawals happen. Only then can you threaten them with money pain.
If you want to protect your claims learn to perfect them. It's always been the law that there can be no "taking" when there is no established value to what was taken. This is the reason all those miner's "takings" lawsuits continue to fail. You must state that you have proof of your claim and be willing to provide verifiable evidence of the value of the deposit (minus the cost to mine it) before you can have any chance to win a "takings" lawsuit.
Heavy Pans
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Ruling
On its motions for summary adjudication, the Court finds there is no triable issue of
material fact on the issue of Federal Preemption and that as a matter of law and in
actual fact, that the State's extraordinary scheme of requiring permits and then refusing
to issue them whether and/or being unable to issue permits for years, stands "as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" under
Granite Rock and a de facto ban.
Had Judge Ochoa gave a ruling limiting it to that which I have in BOLD the miners would have really had a major win; upholding the Mineral Estate Grant per Congressional Acts (the Mining Laws). Yet the word extraordinary really holds value and will cause the State due caution in proceeding with a permit process....... IMHO Of course one must wait to see how this all plays out. As it is not over until it is all over!
It might be worthy to consider that Granite Rock was a mining operation under permit.....(special use). Thus the question could be asked: Do THE MINER(S) of valuable locatable minerals per the Mining Laws of 1866, 1870, 1872 operate under permit? Does not using Granite Rock as a precursor simply imply/require the Judge to consider the State Permit Process?
Bejay
On its motions for summary adjudication, the Court finds there is no triable issue of
material fact on the issue of Federal Preemption and that as a matter of law and in
actual fact, that the State's extraordinary scheme of requiring permits and then refusing
to issue them whether and/or being unable to issue permits for years, stands "as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" under
Granite Rock and a de facto ban.
Had Judge Ochoa gave a ruling limiting it to that which I have in BOLD the miners would have really had a major win; upholding the Mineral Estate Grant per Congressional Acts (the Mining Laws). Yet the word extraordinary really holds value and will cause the State due caution in proceeding with a permit process....... IMHO Of course one must wait to see how this all plays out. As it is not over until it is all over!
It might be worthy to consider that Granite Rock was a mining operation under permit.....(special use). Thus the question could be asked: Do THE MINER(S) of valuable locatable minerals per the Mining Laws of 1866, 1870, 1872 operate under permit? Does not using Granite Rock as a precursor simply imply/require the Judge to consider the State Permit Process?
Bejay
Last edited:
Mad Machinist
Silver Member
To prove a resource you have to be able to "sample" a claim. If you have no basis to prove a resource, you have no standing. Your still thinking in the "recreational" miner aspect. Many areas have a "history" of mining for a reason. And most companies will go back to those areas just for the simple fact that they are and have been proven performers as far as investments.
If you cannot "sample" an area, then you cannot prove a resource, so without proof of resource, there is no "investment" for actual mining.
The only reason I have respect for Gold Rush Alaska is the one thing Tony Beets said, " You have to drill first".
This area has a history of producing. And all you have to do in the "lawsuit" part of it is prove "harm, whether physical, emotional, or monetary. After that, the rest is easy. It has worked for our opponents and will work for us once we get over the whole "we have the moral high ground" thing.
Look at the whole crude oil thing. Their drilling in areas that were never thought to hold crude and apply it as necessary.
Mad Machinist
Silver Member
Actions speak louder than words. Remember when dealing with a politician, they will tell you what you want to hear for one simple reason. When they are nolonger in power, the law says they can keep whatever money is in their "re-election fund" as their own. Ever wonder how politicians get so rich? It isn't from the "corporate big boys. Its from the little $5 and $10 dollars donations that millions like you and I give to them because we WANT to believe what we are told.
Gelmac
Sr. Member
- Apr 30, 2012
- 296
- 90
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab X-terra 705 Gold
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Great NewsWe will miss all of those that didn't make it to the end like Jerry Hobbs and Dennis Robinett pictured with Frank Sullivan and I with the Karuk Sluice that we won and re-donated to the cause.
Reed, you sure it is called "Karuk" or it is "Karaoke"
Let them specks and fines do the party , lol
Last edited:
Gelmac
Sr. Member
- Apr 30, 2012
- 296
- 90
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab X-terra 705 Gold
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Yea there was a huge post on it when he wanted ideas for the pictures on it back in 2005 on 49ermikes. We sent him in the pics and he did the rest. I ended up winning it for $500+ and then Mike Higby & I turned around and gave it to Dave McCraken to continue making money with it. That pic was from 2006 and I can't tell you how much we made for donations even back then but it was a ton. Then Mike & I put in a couple days at a GPAA show in Redding and we raised a bunch more for the cause as well with some of the profits coming in from Armadillo Mining sales. In other words it has been a long hard fight and it's good to know that my donations along with all everyone's have been well spent
Can you share some of those old pics of the sluice, please ? or is the link to that post you refer to still has some info in it, or it was gone much like some of those threads on -now defunct- 49ermikes forum ?
From the pic you posted earlier on this thread, it looks like a large stream sluice.
