Moratorium

[EagleDown]

Well, according to the 1872 Mining law. The Gov. only holds the land "in trust". BUT, it is held in trust for the citizens of the U.S. So, once you file on the land as a mining claim, the land is yours for as long as you remain and mine it. And, as the owner of that land, this includes all surface rights within the boundries of your claim. e.g.:

USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment

The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,

-R.S. § 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91.

Of course, it goes much further than this. I could go through it and pick out the parts that might apply to this moratorium if you want. But what I'm thinking is, public land is held in trust for the people by the Federal Gov. NOT THE STATES!! So, if the BLM comes to your claim and tells you that you can not build a structure to protect your rights and equipment, they would be in direct conflict with the trust imposed on them by the 1872 mining laws. If you read the above exerpt, you see you have to comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title. Now, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that by interpretation, this moratorium is in conflict with the laws of the United States governing your possessory title. Also keep in mind; by definition, a regulation is not a law.

Anyway, I'll go through it and dig out some more of the most salient points for you to read.

Eagle

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hefty1]

Does that include the water

The next time anyone of them stops me from the way I'm mining, I can make a citizens arrest on them?

Hefty

Im in national forest.

 

[Hefty1]

Well now look at it this way, they have not stopped us from mining, just a specific way of mining.
Just like they did with hydraulic mining.




Hefty

 

[EagleDown]

In theory, YES!! But as I said, I'm not a lawyer. And unfortunately, I interpret the law literally. Believe me, I've had my little "run-ins" with the BLM. Fortunately, I had the foresight to have a copy of the 1872 Mining Laws at hand.

One time, a BLM Ranger tried to make me move my camp, "Due to the extreem fire hazard". With the help of the 1872 book, I sent him packing. As he was leaving, he told me he would be back "with some help". I told him to make sure they were as good with a gun as I was. I never saw him again.

Another time, I had a head to head with the regional director from Sac. Well, that's a long story, so let's just say that I won.

Just remember; there have been many drivers who had the legal right-of-way, but were still killed in the wreck.

Another preserving exception is stated in Section 612 (c): “Except to the extent required for the mining claimant’s prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto, or for the construction of building or structures in connection therewith, or to provide clearance for such operations or uses, or to the extent authorized by the United States, . . .” Certainly this shows too, placing buildings on exclusively possessed inholdings is a lawful use contrary to what the agencies currently, unlawfully, enforce. Any act by any federal agency causing any interference to the granted uncommon mineral deposits or rights appurtenant the locator is to come into conflict with the laws of the United States.

My literal interpretation of this is; just about every thing in the 1872 Mining Law is worded to apply to the Federal Government. By extension, it is my humble opinion that this implies that the states or local governments have no authority on Public Domains. It is held in Federal Trust.

 

[jog]

Does that include the water

The next time anyone of them stops me from the way I'm mining, I can make a citizens arrest on them?

Hefty

Im in national forest.

I don't know about Cal, but Oregon has granted water rights for mineral extraction from lakes and streams. It's amazing how many people do not know this.

 

[Hefty1]

Jog, seems we can to but not with a dredge. Su*ks

Hefty

 

[63bkpkr]

You boys are not alone, I've just been out of touch! Hang in there, keep posting these items as others are reading them. I recently sent a letter to Brown and requested that he keep dredging going, hope he likes my inputs!

I should be back into the mountains late this week or early next, that's your warning Hefty.

63bkpkr

 

[Gramps43]

If'n My memory servers the constitution states that all powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. Now it would seem to me that the Mining Law of 1872 is a power given to the feds and would then supercede state law. But there is another little thing mucking up the works and that is State forest and Park Lands, that is under their control and there they can stick it to the miner. Now if the state mining law is virtually the same as federal law and hasn't been dicked with you might have something to fight with.

Gramps

 

[2cmorau]

http://www.westernminingalliance.org/
Please see the attached draft of our letter addressed to Governor Brown regarding AB120. The legislation is seeking unobtainable requirements for our Program, which exceed CEQA rules!

Since we've won a VETO on SB87 last week, our adversaries are now conducting a campaign to the Governor's office to SIGN the AB120 legislation against us. Our adversaries do NOT have the science nor the rule of law on their side, but what they do have is a nationwide base of members who can fill out an on-line comment card and try to dwarf us at the Governors office!

Please communicate to the Governor today either by copying the letter below or writing your own statements of your OPPOSITION to AB120, Section 12.
Thanks again for all of your continued participation,
Rachel

The Honorable Governor Brown
California State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX (916) 558-3160

5 July 2011

RE: AB120, Section 12 suction dredge mining

Dear Governor Brown,

I am writing to provide additional information about the detrimental affects of AB120, Section 12.

The intent of this legislation was to kill the industry; indeed, it will produce that outcome. However, the legislation will also cause consequences of exponential harm to the State.

If AB120 becomes law, the directive to “fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts” will create a new standard which requires that the DFG works outside of CEQA. This deviation will create opportunities for additional litigation by the mining community.

More broadly, it could open up all projects that are conducted in, near or around California waters to be subjected to this new standard.

Both the existing legislative moratorium created by SB670-Wiggins and the legal moratorium imposed by Judge Roesch are in place without time limits.

Please veto AB120, Section 12 and allow the moratoriums to be solved inside of CEQA rules.

Sincerely,

 

[russau]

YES! now is the time to send Brown your individual letters/comments! we need as many individual letters/comments as you can get to the Govenor as soon/quickly as you can! the enviros are telling all of their people to flood them with their 'blanket form letters" and these only count as 1 letter. we need individual letters to raise our count to make this work! we need you to start doing this now and keep at it or they will win with their lies and we can take up bowling or butterfly collection.but if small scale mining goes away, just think of the possibilitys of who/what would be the enviroos next target! fishing/horse back rideing,ETC. so i hope youll see where this maybe headed! and soon (if not challendged/defeated) itll be in your backyard!

 

[2cmorau]

Eagle
thanks for posting, i agree
maybe we ought to send Brown, Fax hard copys of this fed law

if the courts in California do not recognize the fed mining law?
and your claim is on BLM, NF, just post the fedaral mining law on your claim and tell DFG to blow off?

PLP, ICMJ, Proline, i am sure have pointed this out fir the courts, even for the last governator
maybe we should all chain ourself to dredges and rocks, spike fish, throw red die in the rivers

Thoughts

right now, we all in favor of dredging need to fax somethingb to oppose AB120
2cmorau

 

[Hefty1]

Thanks all that have helped

Once again i offer to all that don't have access to a fax machine.
I have an automatic one on my computer, just pm me with your letter and I will make sure it get to the Gov.


Hefty

 

[Hefty1]

You boys are not alone, I've just been out of touch! Hang in there, keep posting these items as others are reading them. I recently sent a letter to Brown and requested that he keep dredging going, hope he likes my inputs!

I should be back into the mountains late this week or early next, that's your warning Hefty.

63bkpkr

I will be waiting

 

[2cmorau]

here is the latest 10:30 am, 7/11/11
he seems to be dancing around this AB120

7-8-2011

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that he has signed the following bills:

• AB 167 by Assemblymember Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa) – California Stolen Valor Act.

• AB 173 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Armenian Genocide victims.

• AB 614 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Martinez) – School attendance review boards: member composition.

• AB 746 by Assemblymember Nora Campos (D-San Jose) – Pupils: cyber bullying.

• AB 840 by Assemblymember Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Employee Housing Act: agricultural land use.

• AB 876 by Assemblymember David Valadao (R-Hanford) – In-Home Supportive Services program.

• SB 101 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) – Athlete agents: conflicts of interest.

• SB 150 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) – Common interest developments.

• SB 221 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) – Small claims court: jurisdiction.

• SB 279 by Senator Bill Emmerson (R-Riverside) – Business: self-service storage facilities.

• SB 288 by Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) – Local government: independent special districts.

• SB 291 by Senator Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) – Bail.

• SB 373 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Retirement: Contra Costa County.

• ABX1 29 by Assemblymember Robert Blumenfield (D-Van Nuys) – State responsibility areas: fire prevention fees. A signing message can be found here.

The Governor also announced that he has vetoed the following bill:

• ABX1 34 by Assemblymember Robert Blumenfield (D-Van Nuys) – State Controller: property tax postponement. A veto message can be found here.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.