Claim Jumpers are everywhere Overfiling claims

[dredgeman]

A good guy has had two claims in Mojave forever. He works them every year.

Someone filed over his claims and immediately sold the claims to a Club. The club went out and worked their new claim and got really good gold.

Now the good guy has to give up or go to court with the club, that thinks they are on the up and up

Every claim owner should be aware that BLM does not screen overfiling of claims and it can happen to almost any claim.

Someone is actively overfiling and selling existing claims.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[KevinInColorado]

... I hate that mess that's coming from the Klamath as much as you but they didn't kill Kennedy, start the war in Iraq, sink the Titanic or change Federal law. I gonna have to see at least an appeals court ruling before I'll buy Lex being overturned.

you tell 'em! LoL

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[707Dut]

you tell 'em! LoL

Thats your contribution to this thread ....brilliant

 

[Hoser John]

In ignorance there is bliss-get off anus and GOOGLE IT--why do forum lazy folks always say show me instead a doing it for themselves--oh ya almost forgot then they pontificate their always right and snipe KC hahaha---ignorance on-John Addedium--Lex/W was killed by the McClure decision and that's why it always shows up when you google Lex/W--then FS/Karuk appealed and lost all the gains from Lex/w--ABSOLUTE PROOF IS SELF EVIDENT you must move after a couple weeks as noted on this and every forum for YEARS. Under Lex no moving as long as mining--no NOI bs unless over the SMARA regs(surface and mining disturbance act for over like 10,000 cu.yds and or 1 acre disturbance) figures close but not exact maybe as early am. If Lex/W still legal you'd never have to move as long as prudent mining was taking place.

 

[UncleMatt]

deleted, duplicate

 

[UncleMatt]

In ignorance there is bliss-get off anus and GOOGLE IT--why do forum lazy folks always say show me instead a doing it for themselves--oh ya almost forgot then they pontificate their always right and snipe KC hahaha---ignorance on-John

I agree that people shouldn't be lazy, but when a person makes a claim, the burden of proving those claims is on them alone. For example, I can't make a claim that the moon is made of cheese, and then demand others provide proof of that.

 

[UncleMatt]

Too ez for big brother to track you with all your little tags. I disabled gps on phone and cameras as who,what and where is nobodies business but my own. BIG BROTHER of the orwellian kind is here NOW and even heads of countries NOT safe from our lousy stinkn' governments prying illegal electronic eyes-John

Uh, that is the whole point to them! And why wouldn't the government agency responsible for mining claims not already know where your claim is? Big brother? What are you talking about with that? I wasn't suggest that PEOPLE be tracked, I was suggesting that the CLAIM MARKERS employ GPS tags.

 

[UncleMatt]

Spoken like a true non-miner.

I don't have a single location I mine that you could get a data connection for your "smartphone" app. The whole world isn't covered by cell towers Matt and if you believe your smartphone is capable of a secure connection you haven't been reading the news lately.

Which is why you use satellite signals to communicate with the GPS tags. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the smartphone thing, as it appears to be confusing the issue here.

The question is, do you want your mining claims marked in the most accurate, reliable way possible, or do you want to try to pretend that ANY GPS tag is somehow an evil instrument of the government? And that was a general comment, not aimed at just Clay. I don't operate from a position of paranoia, and think GPS tags would serve very well as mining claim markers.

 

[Goldwasher]

I am SSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Glad that Claydiggins is posting to these forums. If you pay any attention at all you can tell he is well informed and wants to help others. and refreshing that he isn't condescending, like some others that seem to post only to be negative and teardown others. Clay thank you for sharing your knowledge and not being a burned out been there done that so you can't NO MO type of guy. You are the type of poster the prospector forums truly need.

 

[UncleMatt]

Discovery is a given - I don't think anyone is suggesting that you sit at your computer all day and type in random coordinates and lay claim to the western United States. Of course you have to meet the requirements of making the claim. I am simply suggesting what seems to be a natural extension of the current claim process.

"Claim Jumpers Everywhere Overfiling Claims" Is it not apparent that there are some things that could be fixed based on the very title of this thread? I honestly don't understand how some sort of GIS information applied to this problem wouldn't make sense. Are you arguing against it simply due to the government oversight, or because it wouldn't work as well as the current system?

You do realize that the metes and bounds system uses degrees and minutes, right? I've been using metes and bound as part of my job for the past 15 years, I'm very familiar with it. I deal with property boundaries, zoning and civil drawings nearly every day. What I'm suggesting here isn't rocket science and would be simple to implement.

This was exactly what I was suggesting. I wasn't trying to change mining laws, or anything like that at all, just stating the fact that GPS markers could solve the problems when it comes to filing on top of another claim. I am sorry some took my comments to be anything other than that.

 

[Clay Diggins]

And why wouldn't the government agency responsible for mining claims not already know where your claim is?

This is the point you are missing Matt. The BLM is NOT "responsible for mining claims". No government agency is.

Read the law before you propose changing it.

 

[preshrunkmilk]

This is the point you are missing Matt. The BLM is NOT "responsible for mining claims". No government agency is.

Read the law before you propose changing it.

Exactly and if they where to take responisabilty they would want to verify the claims in the field and in my opion I think many claims and acres of land could be lost for prospectors use.

 

[UncleMatt]

This is the point you are missing Matt. The BLM is NOT "responsible for mining claims". No government agency is.

Read the law before you propose changing it.

BLM isn't who you file your claims with? Sorry if I didn't phrase that correctly where you quoted me, but BLM is who you file with, and maintains mining claim records. Is that true or false? And if they had accurate claim references based on GPS coordinates, it would do nothing to anyone in a negative way to anyone accept those seeking to game the system or overclaim others, and would not increase the control of government over the situation.

I don't pretend to know as much about mining law as some here, and I am always happy to learn the error of my ways when approached with respect. But when people try to ridicule and minimize a simple technology suggestion, one has to wonder what the motivations would be there. If the goal is to bring an end to people claiming over the top of other claims, my suggestion is a good one. Yes, I see your point that the law would have to be changed to incorporate my suggestion of using GPS tags, but that really isn't a problem for me. I don't view change of any kind to be a negative thing. Especially when what I am proposing would do nothing more than increase accuracy and prevent duplicate/overlapping claims on the same piece of ground. Yes, I know many of you hate the fact that the government is involved in any way with prospecting and mining, but that is the reality there is to deal with. And I think my suggestion of using GPS tags on mining claim markers is reasonable and practical, its just different than what has gone on in the past. But lets face it, no one on is rushing out to implement what I proposed, and so this is just a hypothetical discussion anyway...

 

[Clay Diggins]

BLM isn't who you file your claims with? Sorry if I didn't phrase that correctly where you quoted me, but BLM is who you file with, and maintains mining claim records. Is that true or false? And if they had accurate claim references based on GPS coordinates, it would do nothing to anyone in a negative way to anyone accept those seeking to game the system or overclaim others, and would not increase the control of government over the situation.

I don't pretend to know as much about mining law as some here, and I am always happy to learn the error of my ways when approached with respect.

I'm going to make you very happy Matt. This is a very recent decision by the IBLA. The IBLA is the administrative court that oversees the actions of the Department of Interior (BLM) , as well as any other executive agency, regarding public land status.

If you were a miner and objected to the actions of the BLM this is the "court" that you would have to go to to get the BLM to follow their own regulations. If you have a claim and object to how the BLM is handling their duties under the law the IBLA is your court.

In the case below the claim locator demanded the BLM decide which of two claims, in the same location, is valid. The BLM refused and the claim locator then sued them in the IBLA to force them to make a decision.

The IBLA makes it clear in their decision that it is not the BLM's job to determine whether any claim is valid. In fact the court finds that the BLM was "overbroad" in their statement that the other claim met all the requirements for a valid claim.

United States Department of the Interior
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Interior Board of Land Appeals
801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22203


ROBERT O’DAY
IBLA 2012-186 Decided June 13, 2013

Appeal from a letter of the Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land
Management, stating that a certain unpatented mining claim complied with all
Federal laws and regulations as to the recordation of that mining claim.

Appeal Dismissed.

1. Mining Claims: Generally--Mining Claims: Title
The Board has long held that it is inappropriate for BLM to
engage in disputes over the right of possession of rival
claimants at the request of one of the claimants. Such
disputes are more appropriately resolved by an appropriate
local judicial forum, not by BLM or this Board.

2. Appeals: Standing
To have standing to appeal, a person must both be a party
to the case and have an adversely affected, legally
cognizable interest. When a letter from BLM does not
result in an adverse effect on any interest of a person, that
person does not have standing to appeal the letter.
APPEARANCES: Robert O’Day, Snowflake, Arizona, pro se; Danielle DiMauro, Esq.,
Office of the Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Lakewood, Colorado,
for the Bureau of Land Management.


OPINION BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE H. BARRY HOLT

Robert O’Day has appealed from a letter dated April 19, 2012 (April 19 Letter)
from the Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), stating, inter
alia, that the Oro Boro Placer Miners Association unpatented mining claim complied
with all Federal laws and regulations as to the recordation of that mining claim.
On December 12, 2011, BLM received a certificate of location filed by several
individuals purporting to locate the Oro Boro claim. The claim was located in the
SE¼ of the NE¼, and in the NE¼ of the SE¼, sec. 11, T. 11 S., R. 80 W., 6th
Principal Meridian, in Lake County, Colorado.1 BLM assigned serial number
CMC 282392 to this claim.

On March 29, 2012, BLM received a certification of location filed by several
other individuals, including appellant, purporting to locate the Two Bit Gulch Placer
unpatented mining claim. This claim appears to overlap completely, and is described
at the same location, as the Oro Boro claim. BLM assigned serial number
CMC 283089 to the Two Bit claim.

On April 15, 2012, BLM received a letter from appellant requesting that BLM
review its records regarding both claims to determine which of them was valid. BLM
responded with the April 19 Letter, therein refusing to make such a determination at
appellant’s request and stating that the locators of the Oro Boro claim complied with
applicable laws and regulations. Appellant subsequently filed the instant appeal.
Counsel for BLM has filed a motion to dismiss. BLM argues that the April 19
Letter did not constitute a final appealable decision because it did not take or prohibit
any action, nor did it adjudicate the rights or obligations of either appellant or the
locators of the Oro Boro claim; therefore, appellant was barred from appealing the
letter. Answer at 3. Alternatively, BLM argues that appellant was not a party to the
case because he did not participate in any process leading to the April 19 Letter and
he is not adversely affected by the letter. Id. at 4.

The Board has recently described what constitutes an appealable decision:
A “decision” is generally held to take or prohibit some action that
affects a person having or seeking some right, title, or interest in public
lands or resources. See, e.g., GEO-Energy Partners-1983 LTD., 170 IBLA
99, 119 (2006), aff’d, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Nev. 2008), aff’d,
613 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2010).

An amended certificate of location was filed on Apr. 18, 2012.

Uranium Watch & Living Rivers, 182 IBLA 311, 314 (2012). Likewise, an appeal may
be taken from “a decision adjudicating the rights of the parties in a given factual
context.” Blackwood & Nichols, 139 IBLA 227, 229 (1997). BLM claims the April 19
Letter “simply explained BLM’s practice with respect to disputes between private
parties under state law.”

In the instant case, BLM could have provided a mere informational response
about the status of the Oro Boro claim, and such a response would not constitute an
appealable final decision. See Uranium Watch & Living Rivers, 182 IBLA at 315. BLM
also could have simply informed appellant that it had no basis to adjudicate the
rights of the locators of the Oro Boro claim based on appellant’s request. See id.
(rejecting an appeals framework in which persons could “fabricate appealable
decisions merely by submitting information requests to BLM and filing an appeal
whenever BLM responds”).

However, BLM went further, expressly stating: “The owners of the Oro Boro
Placer Miners Association placer mining claim (CMC 282392) have complied with all
Federal laws and regulations as to the recordation of the mining claim.” April 19
Letter at 1. BLM does not abstractly state, for instance, that the locators filed the right
forms or provided requested information. Instead, BLM goes so far as to state that the
recordation of this particular mining claim complied with all Federal laws and
regulations, clearly implying that the Oro Boro claim is procedurally valid.

[1] BLM has a well-established policy against responding to third party
assertions that a mining claimant has failed to file documents with the local recording
office. See BLM Manual 3833.74. Consistent with that policy, the Board has long held
that it is inappropriate for BLM to engage in disputes over the right of possession of
rival claimants at the request of one of the claimants. See, e.g., Sandra Memmott (On
Reconsideration), 93 IBLA 113, 114-15 (1986), and cases cited. Such disputes are
properly resolved by an appropriate local judicial forum, not by BLM or this Board.
See, e.g., Recon Mining Co., Inc., 167 IBLA 103, 109 (2005).

In this case, BLM’s response to appellant comes perilously close to such inappropriate engagement.
[2] But, even assuming arguendo that BLM’s overbroad statement in the
April 19 Letter was a final, appealable decision, we conclude that appellant has not
demonstrated that he has standing to appeal. To have standing to appeal, a person
must both be a party to the case and have an adversely affected, legally cognizable
interest. 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a); David Glynn, 182 IBLA 70, 72 (2012). “The burden
falls upon the appellant to make colorable allegations of an adverse effect, supported
by specific facts set forth in an affidavit, declaration, or other statement of an affected
individual, that are sufficient to establish a causal relationship between the approved
action and the injury alleged.” Powder River Basin Res. Council, 180 IBLA 32, 44


(2010), and cases cited.
Here, we find that BLM’s April 19 Letter did not result in an adverse effect on
any interest of appellant, nor has appellant even asserted such an effect. The letter
does not invalidate his Two Bit claim or restrict his access to the land.
We note that BLM’s April 19 Letter asserted that BLM “cannot enforce county
recordation requirements for new mining claims.” April 19 Letter. Even though that
is strictly true, BLM is obligated to enforce the recordation requirements of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). See 43 U.S.C. § 1744 (2006).
These requirements include filing various documents with the local recording office
and copies with BLM. See 43 U.S.C. § 1744(a)(1), (b) (2006). Failure to comply with
those requirements is “deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment of the
mining claim” by operation of law. 43 U.S.C. § 1744(c) (2006); see Ted Dilday,
56 IBLA 337, 341 (1981). BLM nonetheless has a long history of addressing, on its
own initiative, the question of whether a claimant has complied with those FLPMA
requirements. See, e.g., David J. Bartoli, 147 IBLA 284, 287 (1999); Hi-Tech Synfuels
Corp., Inc., 144 IBLA 26, 27-28 (1998); U.S. v. Myrtle Hix, 136 IBLA 377, 381 (1996);
Joseph L. Frankmore, 101 IBLA 202, 203-04 (1988); Enfield Res., 101 IBLA 120, 123
(1988).

In this case, however, because appellant was not adversely affected by BLM’s
April 19 Letter, and because neither BLM nor the Board is the proper forum for a
dispute over the right of possession as between rival claimants, we dismiss appellant’s
appeal.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals
by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, the appeal is dismissed.

James F. Roberts
Administrative Judge

I concur:
H. Barry Holt
Chief Administrative Judge

Notice that even the Chief Judge signed off on this. Read the cited judicial cases if you need more proof that the BLM has absolutely no control over multiple claims located on the same land (overclaiming).

I repeat - claims are made on the ground. They are made public by recording them at the County Recorder's office. The BLM filing is informational only.

No matter what technology you are promoting you would need to change long established principles of land law (not just claims law) to accomplish what you want the government to do. That would have vast implications well beyond playing "which claim was first" with the BLM.

 

[KevinInColorado]

The other simple reminder is that all forms of land ownership are managed, taxed and adjudicated at the county level. This derived from the English principle that the Count owns the land granted to him by the King and can grant such use as he sees fit.