"Placer claim" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Assembler]

The term "placer claim" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, is:
"Ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand or gravel ; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling".

Most will be aware of this term however there could be some interest about cases that refer to this term. If you happen to come across such cases there are some that will be interested for you to share.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dejure]

That's been my experience also. Those who rely on AI are setting themselves up for failure and ridicule.

Back on the subject. I will repeat - the Supreme Court did not, does not, and never has defined "placer claim". Congress defined "placer claim" in the law. The Supreme Court has no ability or authority to redefine terms Congress has already defined. Constitution of the United States

Back to the AI thing. In my experience current AI has no concept of context or authority. Obviously in context the three branches of government, as defined in the Constitution, each have their own individual and exclusive authority. I've noticed none of the AI models have a grasp of that separation of powers. In fact the AI models seem to cherry pick among the branches acts to reach a pre determined result. I suspect this thread's obsession with proving a power the Supreme Court never had is a perfect example of the failure of these models.

AND, on the definition matter, it is spot on to say courts cannot and do not define anything about law, BUT do declare what they BELIEVE was intended by legislative entities.

And therein lies one of the problems. Elsewhere in law courts:

(1) recognize one cannot guess the mind of another;

(2) generally, courts will use the plain language of a law to determine the intent; and,

(3) it often occurs, if they determine a lower court was wrong, higher courts will hand a matter back to the trial court with directions to correct its previous course. Accordingly, it may well be the higher courts would do well to hand the matter back to the legislative authority, rather than risk legislating from the bench.

Sadly, courts are made of imperfect men and women. Their short comings are such that all fifty-one of our constitutions are purposed to protect us from them, rather than just the other two branches.

The capability of the judiciary to do wrong is evident in the public record. Roe was a good example, but an even better one was, Operation Greylord, out of which an entire court was declared a RICO enterprise and judges went to prison.

Sometimes, the flaws of agents of the courts are obvious, after some digging. An example would be in The State of Washington, where judges declared themselves exempt from public disclosure laws. Ironically, this even after they file campaign finance disclosures under the Act to avoid the $10,000.00 fine they might, otherwise, suffer, then go on to file personal business disclosures to comply with the Act and, again, avoid large fines.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

"Placer Claim" as mention in the first post.

Most will be aware of this term however there could be some interest about cases that refer to this term. If you happen to come across such cases there are some that will be interested for you to share.

 

[Dejure]

Go ahead and post your 'relative and newer cases' as pointed out in the first post.
After all is that not what this forum topic thread is for to share?

Care to point out 'at law' here?

Please re-read my post. It only pointed out you cannot rely on A.I. for accurate cites. It did not say "I" dug up cites relative to claims.

If you want cites, you can go to law libraries and use their computers to do searches using Lexis Nexis and Westlaw (which would be very expensive to subscribe to). A less expensive law search would be Versuslaw. Very worthwhile to the common man, since it's a fraction of the price (of course, you don't get as much either).

 

[Assembler]

Yep, a friend is yet in law. She said she and others in the firm ran searches for some cites. The A.I. tied to the search engine was so full of crap it made up cites. The sad thing was, they were very convincing, until you dug deeper into them (e.g. Shepardized them to find relative and newer cases).

The only case listed and shared so far is United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U.S. 673 (1888).
Are you going to point out another case?

 

[Assembler]

Yep, a friend is yet in law. She said she and others in the firm ran searches for some cites. The A.I. tied to the search engine was so full of crap it made up cites. The sad thing was, they were very convincing, until you dug deeper into them (e.g. Shepardized them to find relative and newer cases).

Why are you using a search engine?

 

[Assembler]

Yep, a friend is yet in law. She said she and others in the firm ran searches for some cites. The A.I. tied to the search engine was so full of crap it made up cites. The sad thing was, they were very convincing, until you dug deeper into them (e.g. Shepardized them to find relative and newer cases).

Ask yourself how well do you think a search engine and the Shepardized will work for cases out of the 1870's - 1890's let alone adding AI into the mix?

 

[Assembler]

Anyone like to post or link cross reference books?

 

[Assembler]

Anyone like to post or link cross reference books?

Cross reference cases and books are way better then AI assisted search engines.

 

[Dejure]

Ask yourself how well do you think a search engine and the Shepardized will work for cases out of the 1870's - 1890's let alone adding AI into the mix?

Very well, actually. Or at least it did when I wasn't retired from doing such searches. Heck, I even dredged up things like the U.S. Constitution, the Washington constitution, Federalist Papers, Anitfederalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the TREATY OF PARIS and so on. From there, we could jump to cases like
Marbury v. Madison :: 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Note you don't even have to resort to specialized searches to find these and other old cites.

 

[Dejure]

Why are you using a search engine?

You do know Google, Versus Law, Lexi Nexis and Westlaw are search engines, the latter being specialized for legal work, right?

Then there is that even professionals play. It's interesting to keep up with where less focused engines are in the scheme of things.

Back in the day, we had to do all our case work by sifting through hard copy pages. The Net, as we know it, didn't yet exist. The best you could hope for, from many private and public sites was, BBS searches for cites.

 

[Dejure]

You do know Google, Versus Law, Lexi Nexis and Westlaw are search engines, the latter being specialized for legal work, right

The only case listed and shared so far is United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U.S. 673 (1888).
Are you going to point out another case?

Not only no, but Sheol no. I don't work for you, or anyone else, including clients, anymore.

 

[Assembler]

You do know Google, Versus Law, Lexi Nexis and Westlaw are search engines, the latter being specialized for legal work, right?

Then there is that even professionals play. It's interesting to keep up with where less focused engines are in the scheme of things.

Back in the day, we had to do all our case work by sifting through hard copy pages. The Net, as we know it, didn't yet exist. The best you could hope for, from many private and public sites was, BBS searches for cites.

You pointed out that at least one search engine you where using was making up cites / cases.

Not only no, but Sheol no. I don't work for you, or anyone else, including clients, anymore.

Well have a good 4th.

 

[Assembler]

There is other cases.
Do you want to share cases about other topics?

 

[Dejure]

You pointed out that at least one search engine you where using was making up cites / cases.


Well have a good 4th.

NO, I DID NOT.

I wrote a friend, still working in law, was given erroneous search results from A.I.s. For reference, she said others in the firm she worked for also got cites that, when followed up on, proved false.

 

[Assembler]

NO, I DID NOT.

I wrote a friend, still working in law, was given erroneous search results from A.I.s. For reference, she said others in the firm she worked for also got cites that, when followed up on, proved false.

Then everyone needs to be careful using such search engines.
Reminds me of going to a law library 16 years or so ago indirectly using a $800.00 a month search engine giving false positive hits, nothing really new.

 

[MI96Romeo]

Ima gonna need a bigger pan.

Slow down when stratifying, you don't want to lose any of that shiny. LOL

 

[Assembler]

Slow down when stratifying, you don't want to lose any of that shiny. LOL

The same could be said about cases that that have some 'shiny nuggets' within.