Claim forms...Caution/Dangers in accepting obligations

[M.E.G.]

BLM records list the status of granted valuable mineral deposits as an administrative entries, i.e., leaseable mineral or saleable mineral, under the 1976 FLPMA.

So be ready for some trouble from the agencies over your claims, whether or not you use defective premade forms.

Most store-bought or provided forms that are filed as location notices have problems.
And each is different.

What you are filing is a Location Notice. The importance of this document can not be understated. The location notice is the evidence and title to the land claimed. Being title to the land claimed it is extremely important to state things correctly.

What store-bought forms do and what you have to avoid in the Notice is accepting obligations that are not part of the grant or anticipate entry under the 1976 FLPMA. Phrases such as "subject to state law" are tell-tale problems because there is no such requirement under the grant. There are state statutes but those must conform to the "laws of the United Sates" and really only pertain to how one establishes possessory title and exclusive possession under the mining law, 30 USC 26. The 1866 act is a law of the United States and congressional land disposal act and no state or agency can intefere. It was amended in 1870 to include placer deposits and again in 1872 to include all valuable mineral deposits, not merely those minerals expressed under the 1866 Act. This is not so for administrative entries. "mining claims" such as for Common Mineral Materials, 30 USC 612. The current "book store" forms appear inadequate for the specific purpose of the Mineral Estate Grantee.

You are not just making a "mineral claim". You are claiming a mineral deposit. There is a big difference, even though they all go through the formal requirements for making a claim guided by the 1872 Act.

The Location Notice is a notice of exclusive Claim of a mineral deposit which enjoys "as patent" rights. As such, by this you can readily see any obligation you volunteer in your Notice gives the Notice that you will accept a lesser estate subject to external or state or federal statutes or rules. Such a claim is not "as patent" and is subject to state and federal regulation, such as environmental impositions, bonds and reclamation.

You could take a Bookstore form as a model and then cut out all the servitudes, then add a couple lines accepting your mineral deposit located and granted in the Act of July 26, 1866.. . as amended by the Act of 1870, if for a placer deposit, pursuant to the Act of 1872.
You can get a copy of the 1866 Act at Our Backyard and look at The Law page. Print out HR 365 and the Hicks case for reference material to carry with you. The first paragraph of HR 365 has most of what you need for a Location Notice statement. You'll need to add the Legal Description describing or segregating the land to the notice. ..and the other requirements.

I don't want to make it sound complicated because it really isn't. The requirement though to stay true to the act of 1866 or as amended as the case may need, is required. The mineral disposal Acts are a simple but have far-reaching consequences which we enjoy today. Such as RIGHT of way access in Section 8. This means, if you are prospecting you have right to be in the public land and on the roads. Read the Hicks case for clarification. Notice he was on a "closed" road and had right to be there.

There is an open invitation every First Friday to the SWOMA meeting. Jefferson Mining District meeting to follow. We always go over a lot of stuff and people can get help too. A lot of help is on the fly but it seems to work out.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[KevinInColorado]

This is REALLY helpful and clear MEG, thanks!!

 

[Clay Diggins]

The Location Notice is a notice of exclusive Claim of a mineral deposit which enjoys "as patent" rights.

You were doing great in informing potential locators as to some of the pitfalls of using BLM or State location notice "forms" MEG.

Then you inject the unsupportable nonsense I've quoted above. The Acts themselves as well as dozens of Supreme Court (Article III court) decisions since 1888 state this is simply not true. No matter how many times you repeat nonsense it is still... nonsense.

I wish you had the knowledge to back up this silly claim with something other than quoting your own writing. It's a nice fairytale and one that is very appealing to your prospector audience. To complete the fantasy you persist in telling the miners who believe this that they are losing their mining cases because the courts are crooked or don't understand the law. It just ain't so, and never has been.

For those who prefer the facts I offer you, once again, another Supreme Court decision that defies your theory. I picked this 1888 case so you couldn't try to distract with claims of leases or BLM misinterpretation. There was no BLM nor were there leased minerals in 1888.

Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the Supreme Court said in United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 1888
"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."

Thus it was made clear as long ago as 1888 that the finding of some mineral, or even of a vein or lode, is not enough to constitute discovery — their extent and value are also to be considered.

A discovery of valuable minerals is essential to the validity of any mining claim. Because strict interpretation of the 1872 Act would provide no protection for a prospector before such a discovery, the Congress adopted the common law doctrine of pedis possessio with the Act of 1865. The pedis possessio doctrine protects a prospector against later claimants, but only to the extent that the original prospector maintains continuous and actual occupancy of the land, and then only if he diligently works toward a discovery.

Once a prospector makes a perfected discovery and meets the requirements for location, his rights are protected without regard to his occupancy of the land or diligence in developing the minerals. It is only then that his Location arises to the level of "as patent". The simple act of location itself does not.

The Mining Acts have clearly stated the difference in these two grants in the Mining Act of 1872. First notice the grants don't occur by a simple "acceptance" of the terms but by "work" and "accomplishments" on the part of the potential grantee. Next notice how there are two separate and clearly distinct grants in Section 1 of the 1872 Act.

Section 1 of the 1872 Mining Act, in it's entirety, with the distinction of the two grants made more prominent by emphasis of the separating AND between the grants:

An Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of The United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and that the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners, in the several mining-districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.

Congress does not stutter. The fact is that two grants with similar wording separated by the big , AND was proper grammar then and now. One grant is to the exploration and purchase of the minerals. The other to the occupation and purchase of the land. Both require accomplishment of specific actions further defined in the 1872 Act. Neither are a promise of "as patent" by the simple act of declaring a claim on a location. Stakes and public declarations of location do not amount to any but the possessory portion of the grant from 1865. Even then those possessory rights are not automatic nor are they proof against any other potential challenge but another prospector.

And yes I do have quotable law and Supreme Court decisions in great piles to back up what I have written here.

 

[KevinInColorado]

Wow!

How about proper wording for signage on monuments given all of this. I think we must all be convinced to be careful of what to avoid referencing...so what SHOULD it say?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Wow!

How about proper wording for signage on monuments given all of this. I think we must all be convinced to be careful of what to avoid referencing...so what SHOULD it say?

We already have very clear instruction on that Kevin:

Mining Act of 1872 Section 5

The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining-claims hereafter made shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.

Mining Act of 1872 Section 8

That the description of vein or lode claims, upon surveyed lands, shall designate the location of the claim with reference to the lines of the public surveys, but need not conform therewith.

Details about the type of monument, markings or time to publish may (or may not) be further defined by an organized mining district when the location is local to the district and/or by State laws regarding the marking of mineral locations where they are not in conflict with United States law regarding locations. All localities require a copy of the location notice to be attached to the monument at the time of location. Many localities require a map. Some require an exposure of minerals in place. Details vary. Do your due diligence.

If you want to dress it up and put bells on it feel free but don't mess with the lawful requirements.

 

[KevinInColorado]

I'm sorry, I was quite unclear...what I meant was: what is the smart wording for a warning (aka No Tresspass) sign?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

FYI....... Please watch insults..






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......