"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 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Ima gonna need a bigger pan.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Typical AI anti mining crap.

Don't expect AI to actually understand the subject matter or be able to come to a logical conclusion because all AI lacks context. Applying AI to law has already resulted in lawyers losing their license and plaintiffs losing their cases.

Here is the actual quote from U.S. vs Iron Silver Min Co

By the term 'placer claim,' as here used, is meant 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. By 'veins or lodes,' as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place.
The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock.
It appears very clearly from the evidence that no lodes or veins were discovered by the excavations of Sawyer in his prospecting work, and that his lode locations were made upon an erroneous opinion, and not upon knowledge that lodes bearing metal were disclosed by them. It is not enough that there may have been some indications by outcroppings on the surface of the existence of lodes or veins of rock in place bearing gold or silver or other metal to justify their designation as 'known' veins or lodes. To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.
The court was not defining the difference between placers and lodes - as they mention that is already set in law by acts of Congress. Nor were they applying the use of milling equipment to define a lode claim. What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.

If a poster offers a court decision without giving a link to the actual court case it's a pretty good bet that one of two things are happening. Either the poster wants to prove a point with a court decision without allowing the viewer to understand the context, like in this thread, the intent is to deceive. Or the poster copy and pasted some internet nonsense that reinforced their opinion without understanding the actual meaning of the court decision.

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. Co. et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Assembler]

There must be a discovery of the mineral and a sufficient exploration of the ground to show this fact beyond question. The form, also, in which the mineral appears, whether in placers or in veins, lodes or ledges, must be disclosed so far as ascertained.

Definition of ledge

In mining, a projecting outcrop or vein, commonly of quartz, that is supposed to be mineralized; also, any narrow zone of mineralized rock.

A mass of rock that constitutes a valuable mineral deposit.

Ref: Webster 3rd

https://www.mindat.org/glossary/led...utcrop,constitutes a valuable mineral deposit.

 

[russau]

Something is brewing in our Courts and it stinks !

 

[Assembler]

Something is brewing in our Courts and it stinks !

Well you are not alone with this opinion as some will feel this way at first. However with an increase of reading of older cases one could see more light shed upon how important "Mining" is to both the well being and the economy as Congress has pointed out in many older acts. There are some cases that can point out this as well.

If the Courts rule in favor of a given Agencies opinion / conclusion. This is simply what the Court has been supplied / noticed with and is not the responsibility of that given Court. There is the practice of "Good Faith" and 'informed consent' that should also play a strong role. This is where everyone can play a part with.

 

[Oregon Viking]

Typical AI anti mining crap.

Don't expect AI to actually understand the subject matter or be able to come to a logical conclusion because all AI lacks context. Applying AI to law has already resulted in lawyers losing their license and plaintiffs losing their cases.

Here is the actual quote from U.S. vs Iron Silver Min Co

By the term 'placer claim,' as here used, is meant 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. By 'veins or lodes,' as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place.
The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock.
It appears very clearly from the evidence that no lodes or veins were discovered by the excavations of Sawyer in his prospecting work, and that his lode locations were made upon an erroneous opinion, and not upon knowledge that lodes bearing metal were disclosed by them. It is not enough that there may have been some indications by outcroppings on the surface of the existence of lodes or veins of rock in place bearing gold or silver or other metal to justify their designation as 'known' veins or lodes. To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.
The court was not defining the difference between placers and lodes - as they mention that is already set in law by acts of Congress. Nor were they applying the use of milling equipment to define a lode claim. What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.

If a poster offers a court decision without giving a link to the actual court case it's a pretty good bet that one of two things are happening. Either the poster wants to prove a point with a court decision without allowing the viewer to understand the context, like in this thread, the intent is to deceive. Or the poster copy and pasted some internet nonsense that reinforced their opinion without understanding the actual meaning of the court decision.

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. Co. et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

Does AI know that it's AI?

 

[russau]

data in / data out ! it's all what the wacoenviromentalist's feed it !

 

[Assembler]

Does AI know that it's AI?

AI was not around in the 1880 - 1890's to effect the Supreme Court of the United States.........

​

 

[Assembler]

Well you are not alone with this opinion as some will feel this way at first. However with an increase of reading of older cases one could see more light shed upon how important "Mining" is to both the well being and the economy as Congress has pointed out in many older acts. There are some cases that can point out this as well.

If the Courts rule in favor of a given Agencies opinion / conclusion. This is simply what the Court has been supplied / noticed with and is not the responsibility of that given Court. There is the practice of "Good Faith" and 'informed consent' that should also play a strong role. This is where everyone can play a part with.

Well some people will relate to this better perhaps when "Something is brewing in our Courts and it stinks" comes to mind:

And under them, agencies cannot invoke a judge-made fiction to unsettle our Nation’s promise to individuals that they are entitled to make their arguments about the law’s demands on them in a fair hearing, one in which they stand on equal footing with the government before an independent judge.

 

[russau]

Like I said , DATA IN - DATA OUT ! OR Crap in Crap out for those that don't get my point !

 

[Assembler]

Like I said , DATA IN - DATA OUT ! OR Crap in Crap out for those that don't get my point !

Like I pointed out there are many people involved with this for there jobs.......... .........one needs to use both the classifier and pan to see how it pans out..........

 

[Assembler]

Failure to read the Case above as well for almost any Case that refers to the U.S. Supreme Court defining "Placer Claim" will likely lead to a failure...........just point out.

 

[Clay Diggins]

The thing I have noticed about all the AI systems I've been testing is they are incapable of admitting they are wrong or off subject. Their usual response to being challenged on their knowledge is to put out volumes of unrelated "facts" to take the user to another semi related subject. Obviously this is frustrating to the user, produces volumes of useless crap, never addresses the subject and leaves the user with no faith in the AI model.

Basically what's being called "Artificial Intelligence" (it's not) is modeled after the jerk (politician?) who gets it wrong every time but will never admit their failure. If anyone finds that system useful I wish you luck. You will have an "interesting" life.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Overshouting.

 

[Assembler]

Simple just read the Case or better yet the Cases for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

 

[Dejure]

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).

 

[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).

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?

 

[Clay Diggins]

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).

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.

 

[Dejure]

Simple just read the Case or better yet the Cases for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Sometimes the findings of the higher courts (lower courts do not produce case law) are simple and straight forward, but, often, they are more complicated than they seem on their face.

The Roe v Wade controversy pro-abortionists complain about is a perfect example of the complexities that have made law more a business and play area of public agents than a clear servant of the people. That case did not, in simple terms, make legal abortion. Rather, it undid what never should have been done.

The recent Roe decision took federal government out of the equation. That is, the Court's writings between the lines declared the previous agents of that court were wrong, and the feds had no authority over the issue, because it was a states issue.

Once the Court called BS on itself regarding that issue, it was back to, unless states specifically enacted laws regarding the issue, people were free to go their own way.

Remember, government, that is, public agents, may ONLY do those acts lawfully prescribed. In contrast, We The People may do any act not lawfully proscribed. Feds were nowhere granted authority over the issue. As such, and as the 10th amendment to the federal constitution says, those powers remain with the states and the citizens.