Rinehart brief is out!

you may not want to read it...
 

Last edited:
QUOTE FROM BRIEF:

"Nor does the Mining Act reflect any intent to displace state regulation of mining. Just the opposite: Congress expressly provided that the exclusive rights granted to petitioner and other holders of unpatented mining claims are conditioned on compliance “with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title.” 30 U.S.C. 26

Arguments are always a two sided presentation and the above can not be taken too lightly.....and is subject to the thrust of the argument/consideration. The intrusive role allowed by States will be the ruling we want to know. Now it is up to the "miners side of the argument to be presented". The argument should become interesting to say the least! What side will present the best argument for consideration. The long awaited answer will determine the future.

It is a very interesting read! And exemplifies the scope of work done to "Win the Argument" by Calif. Case Law interpretation will play a big role.

Bejay
 

Bejay said:
QUOTE FROM BRIEF:

"Nor does the Mining Act reflect any intent to displace state regulation of mining. Just the opposite: Congress expressly provided that the exclusive rights granted to petitioner and other holders of unpatented mining claims are conditioned on compliance “with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title.” 30 U.S.C. 26

Arguments are always a two sided presentation and the above can not be taken too lightly.....and is subject to the thrust of the argument/consideration. The intrusive role allowed by States will be the ruling we want to know. Now it is up to the "miners side of the argument to be presented". The argument should become interesting to say the least! What side will present the best argument for consideration. The long awaited answer will determine the future.

It is a very interesting read! And exemplifies the scope of work done to "Win the Argument" by Calif. Case Law interpretation will play a big role.

Bejay
Click to expand...

Aren't the state laws/regulations in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title?
 

I see California's version of public education is being repeated in the California Supreme Court.

Page 6:
after reviewing the Mining Act’s history and the contemporaneous state regulation of mining activities — including California’s prohibition on hydraulic mining
Click to expand...
California has never prohibited hydraulic mining. Ever.

Here is the actual California law on hydraulic mining:

California Public Resources Code - PRC
DIVISION 3.5. MINES AND MINING
CHAPTER 4. Miscellaneous Provisions [3980 - 3985]

3981. The business of hydraulic mining may be carried on within the
state wherever and whenever it can be carried on without material
injury to navigable streams or the lands adjacent thereto.

3982. "Hydraulic mining," as used in Section 3981, is mining by
means of the application of water, under pressure, through a nozzle,
against a natural bank.
Click to expand...

No State has ever successfully banned a method of mining.

Maybe the California Supreme Court should rely more on the law as written rather than the myths spread by greenie lawyers? :BangHead:

There are other misstatements of law in that brief. I hope the new lawyers for Brandon can keep their eye on the ball and get these lies out of the record before they argue the case.


Heavy Pans
 

isn't an unpatented mining claim a contract for transferring title as in the name patented subject to validating the mineral deposit
there are tens of thousands of mining claims in California where the deposit is in the bottom of the river,
how will you validate your claim if you cant reach this deposit, to say the miner can just mine somewhere else. where? someone else's claim?
be prepared to validate your claim or lose it and claims previously validated using a dredge especially in f&g class A streams of the new regulations(page 19)

For a mining claim to be valid there must be a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the limits of the claim.
material laid down by a stream is a deposit, the only way to determent validity is with a suction dredge.
https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/065IBLA/065IBLA346.pdf
 

Last edited:
Clay Diggins said:
I see California's version of public education is being repeated in the California Supreme Court.

Page 6:

California has never prohibited hydraulic mining. Ever.

Here is the actual California law on hydraulic mining:

California Public Resources Code - PRC
DIVISION 3.5. MINES AND MINING
CHAPTER 4. Miscellaneous Provisions [3980 - 3985]


No State has ever successfully banned a method of mining.

Maybe the California Supreme Court should rely more on the law as written rather than the myths spread by greenie lawyers? :BangHead:

There are other misstatements of law in that brief. I hope the new lawyers for Brandon can keep their eye on the ball and get these lies out of the record before they argue the case.


Heavy Pans
Click to expand...

AMEN TO THAT! Arguments are won and lost on procedure as well as facts. Simply destroy the others argument and then present your facts supporting the out come you desire.

Bejay
 

winners58 said:
material laid down by a stream is a deposit, the only way to determent validity is with a suction dredge.
https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/065IBLA/065IBLA346.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm acting as devils advocate here so don't blame the messenger.

Nowhere in that IBLA decision or anywhere else in law or regulation does it state that "the only way to determent validity is with a suction dredge".

It's pretty easy to demonstrate than in the past mechanical (non suction) dredging, diving and hand working the deposit and, in particular, changing the course of the stream/river have all proven to be productive and profitable methods of mining submerged deposits. Two of those methods are how the bulk of submerged placer deposits have been worked historically in California.

None of those methods are being banned in California. This is only meant as a warning. Often the most obvious truths get buried in the current specific debate.

Perhaps pointing out that the other currently available methods of working these deposits would be potentially much more environmentally destructive than anything a suction dredge does could change the dialogue to one of best mining practices? Courts love "Best Mining Practices" when the subject is environmental regulation of mining. That would be a lot better than being blindsided by the opposition when they bring up the obvious alternatives to suction dredging.

Relying on the only way to determine claim validity is with a suction dredge as a defense is right up there with the silly "takings" arguments. If you know mining history you know that dog won't hunt. I know that you know that history Winners. :thumbsup:

Heavy Pans
 

christine-rose-03.jpg
 

I hate to mention it; but such "more destructive" alternatives to small dredge mining would definitely initiate a POO issue. Of course I doubt if the "miners" will enjoy that POO process as well. The small dredge adverse environmental issues were NEVER proven. Only hypothetical damaging/harmful scenario's were alleged. Many proven studies can be cited to counter the enviro contentions. Personally I believe the States argument is so full of holes it could never hold validity. BUT....it will all be up to how the Rinehart side approaches the court and sustains an argument that wins his case and brings forth a positive outcome for dredgers in Calif.

Bejay
 

H-2 CHARLIE said:
Im Lost .
What is it in laymans terms ?.
Click to expand...
The core issue may be "U.S. waters vs. recognized Mineral deposits / Discovery" and the 'Use thereof'. :bom:
 

Small miner activities are usually exempt from those "special conditions" the USFS and BLM attempt to interject onto the miners:....Either an NOI...."Notice of Intent, and a POO...."Plan of Operation". Miners are exempt from "special use", but the two Federal Agencies love to force the issue. So small incidental mining activity (dredging with a small suction dredge) have not required a NOI or POO. As soon as you get up into big equipment that triggers the POO issue.

The Rinehart case goes right to the crux of the issue: What role do States Play in mining activities on the Public Domain (Public Lands open to mineral entry)....Federal managed public Lands.

Who is King?...the Feds, or the State, and who has authority?

Bejay
 

Last edited:
Hope the question of "Dominion and Dominium Directum et Utile" arises.
Dominium Directum et Utile Blacks Law 4th ed. page 574 The complete and absolute dominion in property; the union of the title and the exclusive use.
Dominion Blacks Law 5th ed. page 573 Ownership, or right to property or perfect or complete property or ownership. Title to an article of property which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it.

The question of what type of "Survey" is clear in this case. It is described as "Survey, v." Of land, to ascertain corners, boundaries, divisions, with distances and directions, and not necessarily to compute areas included within defined boundaries. From Blacks Law 4th ed. page 1614.
Compared to "Survey, n" The process by which a parcel of land is measured and its contents ascertained; also a statement of the result of such survey, with the courses and distances and the quantity of the land. Th land included in field notes. From Blacks Law 4th ed. page 1615.

As you read the case papers ask your self what "Survey is being recognized".
Ask yourself can the "Court recognize the Mineral deposit / Discovery" by reading the "Field notes".
 

Last edited:
As you read the case papers ask your self what "Survey is being recognized".
Ask yourself can the "Court recognize the Mineral deposit / Discovery" by reading the "Field notes".
The "State" will recognize one or the other "Survey".

Ask yourself if anything / documents / reports / surveys / services have been "Tendered as per the Oregon Organic Constitution". California likely has the same previsions.

There are some other important questions to address as well however the above should address the "Foundation in Law". One can expand out from this as well instead of talking and looking at a smoke screen or fluff....LOL.
 

Last edited:
Bejay said:
QUOTE FROM BRIEF:

"Nor does the Mining Act reflect any intent to displace state regulation of mining. Just the opposite: Congress expressly provided that the exclusive rights granted to petitioner and other holders of unpatented mining claims are conditioned on compliance “with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title.” 30 U.S.C. 26

Bejay
Click to expand...

State laws governing location, staking, recording etc...

**********************************************************

Oregon Miners heading to Oregon Supreme Court May 10th 2018
and will finally be able to argue the merits, among these that regulation must be based on actual harm/substantial evidence.
that the NPDES is the wrong permit, that rulemaking was done in secret with environmentalist violating the APA.
the opining brief is due out Dec. 9th
EOMA/WMD v DEQ petition
http://www.waldominingdistrict.org/...MA-SCTOR-mootness-brief-3-3-16_w-ER_Final.pdf
 

Last edited:
winners58 said:
State laws governing location, staking, recording etc...
Click to expand...

"Possessory Title"....big meaning there. This is so true. But many who are less educated about mining law interpret the reference to States laws as the key issue of authority......And as pointed out by Clay earlier....the Calif Attorney Brief shows a lack of knowledge and interprets it his way....as opposed to the true meaning and understanding of mining laws. I can't wait to read the Rhinehart side brief. The plus I see so far is that Calif has shown their hand at the poker table and now the Rhinehart attorney's have the ability to counter big time!

One has to love the fact that we get to see California's side

Bejay
 

Last edited:
Winner congrats on You guys getting in front of the state Supreme Court. I’m posting about the Amicus Brief in Reinhart 16-970. The brief was written it seems by the same biased joker that responded from the US Soliciter Generals office in Ca. Reinhart case. Some know Ca supremes asked for direction from the US Soliciter General in the state Supreme Court case. Seems WRONG to me to give inaccurate advice to the US Supreme Court justices! Jim
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Three Queens Mine

⬅️ Previous Thread

1 gram nuggets worth?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top