Extent of Federal Authority upon the miner.

[Bejay]

This is relevant to anyone entering the public lands open to mineral entry.........looking for and or discovering "locatable minerals"....subject to the mining laws of the United States.

1st it is wise to learn what these mean!

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. These get published in the Federal Register.

US Codes: The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. It gets published in the Federal Register. (known to be the "record").

The Federal Register, abbreviated FR or sometimes Fed. Reg., is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices.[1] It is published daily, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated annually.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So CFR's have to follow the LAWS In Many cases the agencies assigned to administer the Laws per the CFR's get confused and get completely off track.

So that is why the miner must understand that the USFS and the BLM must adhere to the CFR's correctly. Lately, more often than not, the agencies run amuck.

Much confusion results from the failure of such agencies to truly understand FLPMA (Federal Land Policy Management Act) and the 1955 Multiple Use Act. Acts are law ....CFR's are published agency rules adopted from the law.

One must be able to understand how this fits together like a big jig saw puzzle. Regional agencies often get it completely messed up. They read one part but fail to see the whole picture. Kinda like picking up a piece of the sky in a jig saw puzzle and because it is blue saying it is the water.

So miners MUST learn when an agency has authority and then learn when the agency authority does not exist....because the agency authorities often really get it wrong.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY REMEMBER WHEN YOU ARE OUT LOOKING FOR THE GOLD YOU ARE A MINER/PROPSECTOR....PLAIN AND SIMPLE! When challenged while out in the field always ask politely: "by what authority are you acting...and by what authority are you demanding this or that". They will quote you a CFR. Then you can look into it later if you want and decide if the agent is correct or not. If not you can find the correct CFR application or even show them within the Acts (laws) that you are not subject to their request. Letters and docs always leave a paper trail...better than he said she said.
Even if you were to lose the argument/discussion. Providing expert knowledge of such matters makes an agent realize you are not some push over. Of course always maintain your cool. No need to escalate the situation at the moment. Best to let both you and the agent give more thought/strategy to the issue at hand.

This has worked effectively for me and other miners as well.

But as you have seen me post: Cut and Paste & Copy docs are a real handy thing to have on hand in a briefcase or portfolio...or even your lap top or "I" Pad etc.

I'll post FLPMA and Multiple use Act understanding info later on this thread if interest is maintained here. One must understand the Mining Laws as well. But that is pretty easy stuff if one is guided through it correctly. It has already been done on another mining law forum.....and probably Land Matters as well.


Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[M.E.G.]

MEG you left out the portion of the WHOLE law as passed by Congress. Then you turn around and argue that those sections are "irrelevant" and only apply to common minerals even though Congress specifically stated that those sections DID apply to the 1872 mineral estate grant.

Lets start over with what laws Congress specifically enacted in relation to the Mining Acts when they made the FLPMA the law on the Public Lands.



That is the law as it was passed by Congress. The Act is very clear that there are 4 amendments to the 1872 Mining Act. Leaving out those amendments is not helping matters. Trying to pretend they apply to common minerals is not supported in law or any court decision.

For those of you who would like to have a copy of the WHOLE law to study for yourself just go to the Land Matters Land Laws page and enter "FLPMA" into the search box. You can download the WHOLE searchable Act of Congress there. You will find the portion of the law we are discussing here near the top of page 21 in that PDF.

I did not imply there was a "nefarious intent" to your misunderstanding - only sloppy research and lack of understanding of the WHOLE law. Now that you have brought this discussion of law to include personal intent I feel I must be blunt here.

1. The Congress clearly passed a law making locations under the Mining Act subject to new requirements. The Mining Act of 1872 was amended just as it states in the WHOLE law quoted above.

2. The courts, from the Supreme Court on down, have consistently upheld those amendments in hundreds of decisions. No court has ruled for your theories.

3. You already argued your theories in the IBLA court in 2009. That Court ruled in their decision:

• That your defense that you had made a location under the 1866 Act and your theory that your claim was thus "Private property" was "simply wrong".
• The same Court when considering your defense that your location amounted to "public domain private in-holdings” ruled that your theory was "patently wrong".
• That court was nice enough to tell you where you went wrong in your legal theories. They made it clear you presented no valid legal defense.
• You lost the case, and your claim, while arguing the same points you continue to promote as "mining law".
• You did not pursue an appeal to those decisions in a non-administrative court despite the fact that your administrative remedy had been exhausted and you were free to prove your theories in a higher court.

Many other miners also continue to make the same bogus arguments with the same result - they lose their cases and their claims. It's been five years now since you had the court explain to you why your theories are wrong. It's been more than five years that miners relying on your legal theories have continuously lost their cases. There have been NO successes for any miner in court relying on these particular theories you promote as law.

I repeat myself:


As miners we can keep going down the path we are on and continue to lose cases or we can learn from our mistakes.

Here is my intent for all to see. I intend to enable miners to move on to a greater understanding of our right to mine. I intend to help miners understand the real mining laws and use those laws to our advantage when faced with the very real problem of agency overreach and obstruction of our granted mining rights.

We have the laws on our side but fooling ourselves about just what those laws are will lead to our continued failure. To keep ignoring those parts of the law we don't understand or agree with risks damaging mining rights for future generations. We can win but first we must understand what the law and our rights are - not what we wish they were.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

For those that do not want to be confused jump down and read the last 3 paragraphs starting at “SO TO RETURN”.

The following will explain a couple things to a well-meaning participant which will offer subject matter needing clarification but which is irrelevant to this discussion showing a simple CFR proof of agency limitation.

Clay, I'm not going to argue with you. I have no doubt your general intention is to help. Frankly, however, FLPMA is irrelevant to the discussion, or at least my contribution. As requested of me, I'm trying to bring this into more simple terms. But you seem intent upon adding things, at least for this discussion, which confuse that intention. You know that amendments to any disposal laws are not made by implication and the mere reference to a prior law does not amend it. Or as in this case where it actually references a savings clause. And be careful who you think failed by following “my theories” and actually did so CORRECTLY; and in a demonstrably corrupt system requiring more of us.

It is also clear to me you have absolutely no understanding of what the case bearing my name was about. Or of the actual underlying action of the agency which caused the appeal. Or the corruption existing in the courts which can be proven to deny access to justice. Before you can use that case and imply some failure on my part or create more confusion which the CFRs more simply explain, you'll need a better understanding of the matter. I think you would find an underlying deception which the IBLA committed and the BLM now wrongly promotes in my name from that case.

What ever my theories are upon it, What does discussion of the 1866 Act, or the 1872 for that matter, have to do with the IBLA's failure to respond in law to answer to a BLM breach of fiduciary duty where the BLM did NOT apply moneys of account, together with other payment, to preserve our mining claim? BLM failed a duty. What do any opinions about the 1866 have to do with BLM breach?

Even ignorant of the above, how are my “theories” about the current existence or force and effect of the REMANING parts of the 1866, those NOT REPEALED, invalid where the IBLA states in footnote, “and that act”, [1870], in other words, together with the 1866 patent provision, “and incorporated into” admits the remaining substance of those Acts are part of the 1872 Act? And who will deny they are not? Prior disposal Acts are still current “and incorporated into” despite being superseded, in part. Our appeal wasn't about any of this, but for the IBLA misdirection you rely on.

The IBLA wrongly stated we claimed under repealed portions of the 1866. This is lawfully and factually impossible and wrong. But what relevance was this in any regard to the BLM failing to apply moneys of account to preserve our claim as the rules “require”? You should be more concerned not with what the IBLA claims I did wrong, more than it uses the case to cover that the Secretary will mistreat us and get away with it.

Clearly, contrary to its statement, the existence of the 1866 grant and disposal of a certain part of the mineral estate is shown, where IBLA admits in footnote the 1866 is “and incorporated into”. Since the 1872 incorporated those remaining parts NOT repealed, and I have identified for myself two, even if major parts of the original grant have been repealed or refined, superseded, yet those incorporated into the 1872 still exist. The nature and purpose for the 1866 Act cannot be repealed. It is the first Act in the expressed disposal of the soil, and by the relation the back principle our rights extend to the original intent of Congress to dispose. Used to established our right to the property relating back to the original grant of Congress, and evidencing the BLM fiduciary, this is not otherwise relevant in the matter of the BLM breach ignored by the IBLA. So for political ends, certainly not lawful, the IBLA makes a fairy tale up about the case to get to an outcome it and the BLM need to promote, to divest us of our property and obfuscate the knowledge of the underlying disposal power which limits agency authority.

Now you can hold any belief you want. But this disclosure that the IBLA is willing and intent as stated in the 1990's Occupation Seminars it would, of corrupting a decision to protect the BLM, vilify a miner, and advance political decisions for political motivations to interfere with our property is a real eye opener. Disregard this if you want. We do not.

SO TO RETURN us from confusing discussion to a more direct and simple interpretation of the extent of the agency authority, without all the noise, by using the CFR implementing relevant law, merely apply the SUCCESSFUL Scope and Purpose Method, described previously, for any 3809 imposition to see, and hopefully understand, there is no agency surface management authority controlling disposed public domain, whether highway or certain minerals or other disposals. This proof does not require any interpretation of any case decision, however represented, the 1866, 1872, 1947 amended by 1955, or the FLPMA.

The CFR 3809 Scope and Purpose parts show there is no surface management authority over our exclusive possession claimed pursuant to the 1872 Act, incorporating prior disposal acts. As I said, I will not get into an argument over this. Being solved by CFR Scope and Purpose, further discussion appears unnecessary. Bringing up more than this until understood will help no one. Once seen it seems an easier matter to extrapolate limitations across the jurisdictions and for which other rules or code will concur.

Hope this helps to focus the discussion to this simply done and effective record-making administrative Method, what ever our opinions might be in upon other matters.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Bejay]

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals: About the Interior Board of Land Appeals

3809 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/webguide/cfr/43_cfr_3809.html "The CFR 3809 Scope and Purpose parts show there is no surface management authority over our exclusive possession claimed pursuant to the 1872 Act, incorporating prior disposal acts"

Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals: About the Interior Board of Land Appeals

3809 43 CFR 3809 "The CFR 3809 Scope and Purpose parts show there is no surface management authority over our exclusive possession claimed pursuant to the 1872 Act, incorporating prior disposal acts"

Bejay

Same thing with the CFRs pertaining to forest service. Follow the purpose,scope, and authorities. Which the FS doesn't seem to do.

 

[Clay Diggins]

3809 43 CFR 3809 "The CFR 3809 Scope and Purpose parts show there is no surface management authority over our exclusive possession claimed pursuant to the 1872 Act, incorporating prior disposal acts"
Bejay

As many of you know the CFR is not law. I don't look to the CFR for any legal definitions because there are none there. Even so I'm willing to look into the scope and purpose long before I will look to the regs themselves. The Scope and Purpose is the right place to start.

The premise proposed by MEG is that mining claims are not public land. I have explained the error inherent in that theory but it's a slippery bit since MEG has presented only theory and no basis in law for making that distinction. Semantics aside the courts disagree with that theory and have even specifically rejected his personal presentation of that theory.

Also MEG seems to state that the law found in the FLPMA only applies to leaseable and salable minerals under the mineral disposal laws. I obviously read the amendments to the 1872 law in the FLPMA to be just what Congress and the courts state they are - amendments. I do agree those lease and sale laws are not the group of laws that contain the mineral grant.

Leaving aside the word play on the Public Land/Domain issue lets stick to the claim that the FLPMA and CFR 3809 apply only to lease and sale minerals. Let's see what CFR 3809 provides as proof of that theory.

[QUOTE="CFR 3809 Scope and Purpose](e) This subpart applies to operations that involve locatable minerals, including metallic minerals; some industrial minerals, such as gypsum; and a number of other non-metallic minerals that have a unique property which gives the deposit a distinct and special value. This subpart does not apply to leasable and salable minerals. Leasable minerals, such as coal, phosphate, sodium, and potassium; and salable minerals, such as common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, and pumice, are not subject to location under the mining laws. Parts 3400, 3500 and 3600 of this title govern mining operations for leasable and salable minerals.[/QUOTE]

Obviously Scope and Purpose specifically excludes lease and sale minerals. What is left in the world of public minerals? If you actually believe that located valuable minerals are not the subject of the 1872 amendments and Scope and Purpose excludes lease and sale minerals what could the FLPMA AND CFR 3809 be written for? Does someone know of another class of mineable minerals on Public Lands?

Educate me - I want to prosper.

Heavy Pans

 

[Prospector70]

Guys, keep it up! This is exactly the kind of discussions that need to be happening on this forum, and I love reading every word every single one of you have put in this thread.

Thank you! (and keep going!)

 

[Bejay]

Here you are Hefty 1................. PART 3710?PUBLIC LAW 167; ACT OF JULY 23, 1955 :: PART 3710--PUBLIC LAW 167; ACT OF JULY 23, 1955 :: CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR :: Title 43 - Public Lands: Interior :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations

So lets consider what M.E.G. says and what Clay says.

OK......so CFR's are not law but rather an attempt to bring a Law to Rule(s) by which administrative polices can be used. Lets see if we can agree on that.

And we have the CFR's which we can use to inform the BLM or USFS that their policies have a basis. If informing the Gov agency that "so and so" CFR is not being followed and such notification benefits the miner; we are good to go. But if the Gov agency demands that such justification by the miner is WRONG then we have a need to go directly to the LAW. That said one must look at how the courts have responded to those kinds of cases.

Seems like a prudent way to approach it. But the miner can not simply take a CFR and rely on it as law within a court of law. IMHO. When and if he does the end result can/may be not of the miners liking. So again I will go back to my Geology Background and say "THE PAST IS THE KEY TO THE FUTURE". Now that seems pretty simple!

If, as M.E.G. points out putting the BLM or USFS on notice of "non compliance" with a CFR achieves a beneficial desired outcome, then that is a good approach.

If on the other hand, the agency denies such cooperation, then the miner is left with the courtroom approach.

Two different methods by which the miner can attempt to achieve a desired outcome.

Seems pretty simple...and I like "SIMPLE"! But I'll concede any error and willing to discuss how this thinking might be flawed!

Bejay

 

[M.E.G.]

OK. Time to see who is paying attention.

What simple steps did I ask you all to do that Clay refuses to do, instead boasting erroneous generalizations and making evasive or miss-leading even incorrect statements?

I'll give you all a hint. I'll finish what Clay should have told you all when he said the "CFR is not law".
He should have added, [the CFR] Rules implement law. Rules are not law; Rules implement law.

Now, what did I ask you all to do that would show which law these rules implement?

What simple method did I ask you to accomplish for the answers to find out if the rule pertains to you and what you've claimed, where you have claimed it?

Understand, the right parts Clay has to contribute are irrelevant until you have those answers. And even then, depending upon your answers, what he says may remain irrelevant and impertinent.

What did you come up with for your answers in following the suggested method?

Bejay, since you referenced it, I believe I've discussed this situation minimally in the Layer Cake explanation. That should explain to you the foundation for how this lays out; What this section pertains to.

 

[Bejay]

For sure I understand what you have said in the layer cake. And for sure I understand the meaning conveyed. Then of course I understand how words matter. And for sure I understand the different meaning of mining claim(s). I understand this...as you have explained it often.

Lets see if I can convey something for consideration. Forgive me if I am preaching to the choir. Congress passes LAWS. Then of course an agency is assigned the task of carrying out the law(s). Then we also have to understand that the Law is placed into U.S. Codes by a group of Gov legal experts....as understood to be Code of Federal Regulations.

Then these codes are the foundation of the policies conducted by agencies such as BLM and USFS. Thus these codes should be the foundation by which the agencies operate. Now of course we must admit that words mean everything. So I will quote what you say...as I believe it is what I am saying: " He (Clay) should have added, [the CFR] Rules implement law. Rules are not law; Rules implement law.
But the argument arises as to how these words are interpreted by the courts.

Now you can argue that there is corruption and politics within the interpretation but that said...for whatever reason, the courts make decisions. Those decisions....whether right or wrong are simply decisions of a court.

It has been my observation that such rulings by courts may not maintain the "argument" you convey. Again whether correct or not. It really seems quite obvious and simple that one should win based on (and adopts) the legal argument you convey. But when court rulings do not support that argument what are we left with? IMHO; we are left with the "reality" of what is happening. Continued intrusion! Again if one can "win" using the CFR's I am willing to begin with that approach. But I believe one should understand why the argument may not "win the day" and be willing and able to approach the argument using another approach.

So I believe it is fair and equitable to give consideration to another approach. That other approach involves a different legal opinion. Somewhere, somehow such "different" approaches should be considered. I believe Clay is offering that option. But I will let him speak for himself. I always appreciate these discussions...and I try to utilize all and everything I can. But in the end I must make a decision as to which approach I will seek.

Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

Check purpose, scope, and authority of a rule, reg, to see if it has law it pertains to.

 

[Oakview2]

This thread is great reading, but makes my head hurt

 

[Clay Diggins]

Check purpose, scope, and authority of a rule, reg, to see if it has law it pertains to.

Yes Hefty the list of laws that the CFR are based on are called the Authorities.

Here is the list of Laws that the regulations in CFR 3809 are based on.
43 CFR 3809.1 - What are the purposes of this subpart? | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click on the "Authorities" tab at the top.

Those are from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules which keeps track of which laws the regulations are based on.

You don't have to look very far down that list to see the mineral estate grant.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

This thread is great reading, but makes my head hurt

Now come on....we are just getting started. Heck we have to get through all the law(s)...then the we have to see how ALL the Codes fall into place. We MUST understand the meaning (intent) of each and every word and how it is phrased. Then we must bring that forward to how the courts make decisions after we have figured out the 'tactical" requirement to meet the standard of the courts in order to present our argument. Of course we must deal with and have all the Law(s)...all the CFR's...all the Applicable Court Cases....THEN WE MUST look into the possibility that some other Act infiltrated our argument....such as the ESA, or Clean Water Act, or Multiple Use Act....let alone the true standing of the applicable FLPMA. Of course we can not escape the DEQ intrusion.

Again if I have errored in my concept of how this all comes together I will stand to be corrected. Now, one can not escape the meaning of GRANT. And in many cases the miner has forfeited his/her Grant. So this results in a failure to argue based on the MEG.

Are you ready to take a "aspirin"? If it was simple; I doubt very much we would be finding ourselves, as miners, confronted with such relevant issues.

Now we can argue...and rightfully so, that because of these issues, and the threats they can impose, the miner is left with getting cited by an LEO..........then proceeding to go through the agency hearings process,...advancing to a real court of law, then either paying the cost of adjudication or representing himself. In all likelihood the miner gets a "headache" and walks away in disgust.

But then we have a lot of positive things going on now. The formation of mining districts and knowledgeable individuals taking on an advisory position. This can be a very beneficial thing. If and when a CFR scope limitation can be used to achieve a counter to an agency intrusion the miner is benefitted. If it must advance further it can be beneficial as well. But again I would point to this: "How Many Successful Wins do we have as miners ?. Where are we at in this battle now? The dissemination of factual information is of value as well. ALL IS GOOD!

If X, Y, & Z achieve success and all miners can utilize that game plan successfully, then we are in great shape. What we want is the right to mine and find the gold. Seems that is getting harder and harder to do each and every year. (I used to term this the Picket fence concept). One picket at a time till we are fenced out from the public lands.

Does this result in headaches? Yep...no doubt. But maybe a headache is better than a "coma" (lock out).

So I began posting all the information I had gathered over the years hoping to help in the fight and help obtain some positive outcomes. Pick and choose your poison if you will. Take it to em; any and all ways possible. I really don't care who is right or wrong. I really want the freedom to prospect, and extract locatable mineral from the public lands open to mineral entry.

But I will add another "broken cog" on the flywheel. The term "Recreational" has infiltrated the whole process. Never forget there are those who simply do not want people digging on the public lands. Fortunately the miner has a very unique "stature" that other individuals do not have. That is the GRANT. But often he/she throws it away.

Bejay

 

[azblackbird]

Check purpose, scope, and authority of a rule, reg, to see if it has law it pertains to.

Concerning my own activities (gold prospecting) I always like to take the perspective of what statute (the law) an "authorized officer" would have the authority to cite me under, and then work my way up from there. That's where it pays to research and document (which I always carry with me) the scope, authority, purpose, regulation, and the rules that may come into play pertaining to that particular statute (whether federal, state, county, or municipal) that I could possibly be cited.

What I've found out is that breaking the rules or regulations most generally amounts to a slap on the hand, but breaking the actual law can have worse consequences.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Personally I find it disturbing to use the CFR to discover what a law means. I think it's time to return to a discussion of the law itself to determine the "Extent of Federal Authority upon the miner".

The law is clearer, doesn't require mental gymnastics (my head hurts too) and it can actually be relied on in court - unlike the agencies internal regulations. The regulations change at the whim of hirelings and no matter how they change they still aren't law and don't change the law. Only the law can determine the extent of federal authority.

Study the CFR to your hearts content and then read them again - they probably changed since you started the last reading.

If the point of this discussion is to actually determine the authority I think it would be helpful if we weren't asked to play hide and seek. If everyone were to put their cards on the table, as I clearly have, we can finish this hand and move on to the bigger issue of how do we invoke our granted right to mine. What's been proposed so far just isn't working.

Some judges may be biased and they may sometimes rule incorrectly. If we join MEG in the belief that every court decision is wrong and we can't win because the system is crooked and a conspiracy against miners then we may as well go home now. Game over - right?

I know different. I believe we can win in court, and on the ground, if we just educate ourselves on what our rights as miners really are. Reinhardt, Tierney, Eno, Everist, Hicks, McClure, Lex and Waggener all overcame the overreach of government agencies and upheld our granted rights. All of them did so in the last 15 years. None of them argued that the FLPMA did not amend the Mining Acts.

Unless there is some concrete effort to show law or court decisions to support MEGs theories I'll be relying on the efforts of these past and present winning miners and the rights they enforced in the courts.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

Quote Clay.....I know different. I believe we can win in court, and on the ground, if we just educate ourselves on what our rights as miners really are. Reinhardt, Tierney, Eno, Everist, Hicks, McClure, Lex and Waggener all overcame the overreach of government agencies and upheld our granted rights. All of them did so in the last 15 years. None of them argued that the FLPMA did not amend the Mining Acts....End Quote

It would appear obvious that when miners use certain tactics/arguments in courts and LOSE we complain about the failure of the court....as opposed to the failure of the miner! (the correct application of law).

So I would always agree with success. If there is more than one way Then Let it Be


Bejay

 

[delnorter]

"If the point of this discussion is to actually determine the authority I think it would be helpful if we weren't asked to play hide and seek."

With all due respect to all. I agree with the above statement. Encouraging everyone to learn and educate themselves about the law and agency application is great, but using riddles and unnecessary trips around the barn is confusing and, I believe counterproductive. Most have a very demanding life outside of prospecting/mining. We are leaning, those who are teaching please keep in mind the limits, abilities and time constraints of your audience.

Thank you to all, I too believe you all have our best interests at heart. Please continue,
Mike

 

[Hefty1]

Yes Hefty the list of laws that the CFR are based on are called the Authorities.

Here is the list of Laws that the regulations in CFR 3809 are based on.
43 CFR 3809.1 - What are the purposes of this subpart? | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click on the "Authorities" tab at the top.

Those are from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules which keeps track of which laws the regulations are based on.

You don't have to look very far down that list to see the mineral estate grant.

Heavy Pans

Ok ? ss 26

 

[Hefty1]

"If the point of this discussion is to actually determine the authority I think it would be helpful if we weren't asked to play hide and seek."

With all due respect to all. I agree with the above statement. Encouraging everyone to learn and educate themselves about the law and agency application is great, but using riddles and unnecessary trips around the barn is confusing and, I believe counterproductive. Most have a very demanding life outside of prospecting/mining. We are leaning, those who are teaching please keep in mind the limits, abilities and time constraints of your audience.

Thank you to all, I too believe you all have our best interests at heart. Please continue,
Mike

You are correct as this is a huge puzzle to figure out. Sometimes, maybe most times I think get to the point! But as I travel the regs, codes, authoritiy, and laws around in circles I get fed up, lose my place or train of thought. TOTAL CONFUSION sets in. I have 2 putors full of this stuff. I need a secretary ! They do this crap on purpose!

 

[Hefty1]

"The law is clearer, doesn't require mental gymnastics (my head hurts too) and it can actually be relied on in court - unlike the agencies internal regulations. The regulations change at the whim of hirelings and no matter how they change they still aren't law and don't change the law. Only the law can determine the extent of federal authority."

I agree......if they would only cite you with the law, not with CFR.


Wait...if they knew the law....they wouldn't cite you.

 

[Bejay]

I'll concede confusion. And I would like it if it was all laid out for me. So after what....3 years of working on this I have yet to reach a comfort level.....feeling assured that "by golly" this is a cup cake walk. So maybe it would have been best to create all the different citation scenarios and discuss in detail how to deal with them.

Would that be "practicing law" if a miner was asking opinion/direction as to how to proceed? Ooooppps...not sure I want to go there! So we are stuck with confusion.......unless method can be taken on to achieve such a non headache goal. I believe I attempted that with the Mining Law Forum.

But I will concede this is a real pain in the neck (headache). So I believe we have reached an agreement!

Bejay