Mariposa Mining District Authority is it real???

[MadMarshall]

From Amra facebook page..


AMRA President Shannon Poe has one of his mining claims illegally top-filed.

A claim AMRA President Shannon Poe (and three others) picked up in 2009 was top-filed by another miner in 2010. This has resulted in a myriad of angry phone calls and is a prime example of how to handle a situation like this.

First of all, whomever files first owns the claim if it was filed correctly. Meaning: a proper location, description, it is on ground open to mineral entry and filing, was recorded properly with the county and has the proper signatures. The claim must be filed timely with the BLM and recorded within 90 days of locating the claim. Our claim is 80 acres and has 4 claimants. As a reminder, you need one signature/locator/claimant for each 20 acres filed so a 20 acre claim only needs one locator/signature, a 160 acre claim needs 8.

This claim has 4 signatures, was properly marked (location date and marker), was properly recorded with the county, filed with BLM and the description of the claim is valid and proper.

So what do you do if someone top-files you like this?

Print copies of every document which pertains to the claims and obtain all copies of taxes (if applicable) paid on the claim to the county from the date of location to the current date.

Write a time line of events. In this case, We typed up a two page time line of the two claims involved from two years prior to our filing the claim to prove there were no other claims over the ground we were filing. We included every document relating to the date of all of the claims filed in that section. We referenced each of the documents as attachments (example: attachment 1 etc...).

Example:
2009
All areas within section 32 of 3S, 12E are open for mineral entry and claims location. The land is administered by USFS (Stanislaus NF). 80 acre placer claim "Golden Nugget" was staked and marked as a discovery on October 9th, 2009 by locator Poe, Seagull, Smith and Decker.

The claim was recorded in Mariposa County October 12th 2009 and the claim was filed with BLM with a proper description on November 9th, 2009. (See attachment 1)

2010:
Claim named "jumper" was filed with BLM on March 23, 2010 over the top of "Golden Nugget" by claimant Wagner. The claim was recorded in Mariposa County March 27, 2010 (see attachment 2). Claim owners Poe, Seagull, Smith and Decker were unaware a claim has been filed over their claim.

Jumper was filed as a 40 acre claim and had one signature/locator/claimant. This invalidates the claim for two reasons, one the claim was top-filed over another validly held, filed and recorded claim. Two, because the claim only has one signature and the claim file does not contain any quit claim where one person was dropped off the claim. The original documents show only one signature.

2014:
Claimant Wagner was witnessed by miner and claim owner Smith posting claim markers on Golden Nugget claiming the claim is "Jumper". Smith informed Wagner the claim is not his and Golden Nugget was filed and owned prior to his claim being filed. He was informed to cease and desist and remove the illegal claim markers. Wagner refused. Smith removed claim markers from the claim. Poe calls Wagner and informs Wagner the claim is not his and to cease and desist. Offers to provide all BLM and county documents proving legal ownership. Wagner refuses and hangs up.

2015, 2016:
No contact with Wagner and no issues reported.

May 2017:
Wagner resurfaces and claims Golden Nugget is his claim and that Jumper is 160 acres and encompasses the entire lower SE section. Makes a statement to mining partner of Poe, Dan Seagull that he is calling the Sheriff and have all parties arrested for claim jumping and trespass. Informs all parties to cease any and all mining operations.

Poe calls Wagner and informs Wagner once again it is not his claim and that Golden Nugget was legally and properly filed the year prior to his locating "Jumper". Asks Wagner to contact BLM and request all documents relating to who filed the claims and when proving ownership and that Golden Nugget was filed the year prior to his claim. Wagner refuses and becomes irrational. Poe informs Wagner he is materially interfering with his mining operation and to again cease and desist with his illegal assertions and activities. Wagner becomes more irrational, calls Poe some names and hangs up.

Today:
We contacted the Mariposa Mining District who has authority over this area and requested a hearing. We have submitted a timeline similar to the one above and have provided all legal documents, descriptions and contact information of all parties.

The Mining District will hold a hearing and make a ruling on the legal ownership of the claim(s) based upon the evidence.

Once this is completed, a copy of this determination (affidavit from the board) will be provided to both parties and to the county Sheriff.

I will be contacting and requesting a meeting with the county Sheriff once the determination is completed. I will provide all the documents and inform the Sheriff it is a civil matter, but that we are the rightful owners of this real property mining claim. If the man continues with materially interfering with my mining operations, legal and criminal charges can be pursued.

Materially interfering with a mining operation is a crime in California, although rarely prosecuted, it is a crime. It is a felony to claim jump in California and to illegally claim someone's claim as your own.

Mining claim disputes are a civil matter. You can't call, and expect BLM to do a thing about this. BLM allowed another person to file a claim over ours, plain and simple and this created this mess. A civil matter meaning it is between the two parties and unless this is remedied with the Mining District holding a hearing, it will then only be resolved in civil court. I spoke with BLM on Tuesday and they admitted to me on the phone, they will take anyone's paperwork, even if it is over the top of another persons claim. Let that sink in for a minute. They will allow anyone to file any claim, no questions asked. Obviously we are going to work hard to change this.

We are fully prepared and willing to take this man to court as it is not a question of "if" we own the claim.

We'll give everyone an update as this case proceeds.
Have a question? Just ask, that is what AMRA is about.

From Mariposa Mining District facebook page
Our meeting went well with the current board being installed for the next term , we adopted a budget and briefed the miners of actions being taken in a current claim dispute


Now I believe that the mining districts Kevin and Robert created are illegitimate.. And I am curious on if these post are just BullSHT.. I do not know both side of the story just what AMRA posted but I do not think That Mariposa Mining District has any authority to make any decisions about jack squat. So I am wondering if maybe someone could help enlighten me.. Am I mistaken to think that any decision and action taken by the Mariposa Mining District is just a joke? or maybe not? I have no doubt that Mariposa Mining district ruled in Favor of their (friends) but I just don't see how they can enforce or set any standards in relating to mining and such in their district..

I get asked from time to time about these districts and I honestly don't believe they have the authority to do anything in regards to anything mining related I tell people as much.. the fact that they go around and hussling miners in believing they are a real Mining District and are legit is criminal in my opinion..

So for instance .. If these jokers decided to create a mining district in my area what actions can I take to protect my mining interests?
What legal action can be taken against these frauds if any?? Are there any laws that protect me from such manipulation and fraud? or am I subject to whatever idiot decides to create BS mining Districts?
How can one protect himself and his mining rights from Frauds Like MMAC KEVIN BELL Robert Guarduola and whoever else decides fake a Mining District?
Ill be gone from Sat to Tuesday.. so I may be late in replying..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[MadMarshall]

KBell

lets just get to the guts of it..

NO ONE is bound to either mining districts.. Not the ones you re staffed nor the ones that are in MMAC control.. Individuals can choose to belong to either group and can choose to participate and acknowledge the bylaws and rules of the club.. But my no means is any claimholder required or bound to follow the rules /bylaws of your club if they do not choose to..
its easy for you to copy and paste info in regards to Mining Districts and their authority but you can not seem to produce any evidence that shows the Mariposa mining District or any other district you have created has that authority and is actually valid..

So I ask you what real authority and validation do you have that your Mining Districts are anything but a club? Show me that..

I'm willing to bet you cant...
Now if you were to represent your little clubs as what they actually are instead of what you claim them to be.. I doubt you would hear terms such as conman imitator liar or what have you..

So I ask show me the evidence that you are not misrepresenting yourself and that the Mariposa Mining District is an actual Mining District that is backed by the laws therof and that the claimholders in said district are subject to the authority of..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Garrote Gold]

So 99 percent of small miners agree that mining districts are suppose to be small and made up of neighboring claim holders.

If the mining districts.com were getting those small miners together to help form thier own districts I'm sure 99 percent of small miners would be on board.

That is not happening, instead we are being mislead with fake news.

Other states have working mining districts yet there is 0 in the mother load of nor cal.

Can the mariposa or tuolumne mining district help bring back dredging? No

If dredging comes back who needs a large mining district?

I mine for myself, how can we ever get people in a county wide district when 99 percent of miners don't care about what's going on in the next valley?

These miners are going to sac and waterboard meetings and even if they can't get the words together, one miner does more for others benefit than any fake mining district.

Once dredging comes back no one will care about mining districts. I just want to pay my fee and mine and I only want to be bothered with my neighbors and not some phony org representing all of my vast county.

The only thing that will speed things up is the price of gold

What will happen If gold goes for to 2000 per ounce or more?

Will mining districts help keep high graders out? Help with over protective regulations as the news media hypes up the gold and more greenhorns walk every creek looking for pay?

I would rather form a vigilanty group to lay down the law as has happened in the past, look how many areas had hangtown or vigilanty justice?

Still you can't even get the Sherrif to do anything unless you yourself get them to have you sign a citizens arrest.

Miners are on thier own, and when they do get together they often are not doing anything just anyways, example exclusionary mining laws against foreigners.

99 percent of public doesn't support small mining and never will

99 percent of small miners don't support mining districts and never will if it's like the one in this post.

But 99 percent of small miners would support small regional localized mining districts that could be easily set up just like staking a claim, where we could do it on our own with a few pages of instructions and help from others like you guys on tnet. Until then our efforts are better spent working on our own twords getting dredging back in action. I know that's my number one priority and my neighbors also would rather spend effort and time on this issue and not mining districts.

Even if I don't get along with others on this forum we all agree that mining districts are not a top priority for small miners.

More people are concerned about bazooka and the new generation sluices than getting districts together, that's the funny truth but it is what it is. If every bazooka owner got together to form thier own mining related group we would have some clout haha, just hope those new companies can get out the new improved sluices before more vigilanty justice will have to take place to.rectify the situation lol, small miners make the world go round

 

[SRP_KBell]

Victor —

Let’s back up a bit and start from the beginning.

Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration

i.e. prospectors/miners have a right to explore and discover valuable minerals

and purchase,

i.e. prospectors/miners have a right to purchase this property (patented, non-patented claims)


…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.

i.e. under Federal laws AND local rules and customs of the Mining Districts.


What does this mean in plain english? Mining law is about property ownership and Mining Districts were and are federally recognized regulators and rule makers on Federal public lands.

How are Mining Districts created and what is their authority?

Their authority was established by property owners who came together for a common good. They elected officers, set Bylaws which included District boundaries, types of claims and size of claims and how much annual work was necessary to maintain ownership. Once the bylaws were adopted, they were filed with the County in recognized states like California or held in the Territorial District offices for public review.

Once this was completed, the Mining District was operational. One thing you need to understand is that not all Mining Districts were located in States — Many were located in Federal Territories like Nevada, Montana or Arizona. The Districts were the Recorders, Regulation makers and the local judicial system.

Starting Districts was pretty straightforward. The real work came in operating a District. They were required to compile and report statistics annually to the Federal government, how much gold and other minerals were extracted and by which mines or claims and any abandoned or new claims that were added since the previous report. Of course this is so the Feds could exact payment for the use of their lands. They also collected information on quantities and types of goods that were sold and the local prices for such commodities.

Here is the link to J Ross Browne’s report to the Federal Secretary of the Treasury

https://archive.org/details/reportofjrossbro00unitrich

Another very important task was identifying District needs — Things like creating ditches for moving water to different locations or creating river crossings to support transport of goods and materials within the District. These had to be assessed and costs determined then the plan was brought to the District members for approval. If approved, money was collected and construction work began.


“…So I ask you what real authority and validation do you have that your Mining Districts are anything but a club? Show me that..”

We contacted claim owners in the District by mail (you have seen examples of our postcards in other threads) and we posted public notices in regional and local publications. We fulfilled the requirements necessary to hold a public meeting. We had the original bylaws which included a formation date (very important which I’ll address later), officer structure, District boundaries and rules and regulations.

In the case of the existing Mariposa Mining District it was re-staffed by electing officers and a BOD (originally a board of seven) per the original bylaws, the bylaw date and content was accepted and the authority of the District was again recognized by a majority of vote of claim owners in attendance.

We have adopted our updated bylaws (February 16, 2017) and are currently working through our guidelines, i.e. our updated rules and regulations. We also just had our mandatory annual meeting in June (we adopted a fiscal year format) where we presented and approved a very small budget and extended the term if our current Administrators by one year since we had only held office for eight months. One issue we are dealing with is that County Recorders have a Recorders Document Reference and Indexing Manual and only they will only record documents listed in the Reference and bylaws are not referenced. We are continuing to work on this since we are filing a revision of a previously filed document. I will release the document once we get it into public record.

Now lets talk about why re-staff a current District instead of starting a new one. While both methods are valid the formation date is extremely important - Having a date that precedes local and regional authorities helps to maintain water and other use rights. Newer Districts may have necessity to legally establish their rights since their date of formation comes after local and regional water use regulations.

This doesn’t mean that re-staffed districts will not have a legal requirement to uphold our rights; it just means we have a date precedent.

Again the tougher path of the District is the regulatory and agency reporting requirements - We are currently working on creating the framework and documentation.

Bottom line: We contacted claimholders by mail and by public notice about re-staffing an existing District. We held a public meeting attended by claimholders. The majority of claimholders in attendance voted affirmatively to re-staff the existing District and recognized its authority.

Claimholders can choose not to attend meetings and participate in the process but they are by no means exempt from adhering to the rules and regulations of the District.

Victor I suggest before you jump back on and say “I don’t care what you did, it’s all crap”, etc. compile your information and provide documentation of references. Barry, winners58 and I always document our arguments. We may not agree on everything but we document everything. Follow suit.

 

[SRP_KBell]

Garrote Gold - 99 percent of statistics are made up on the spot usually to validate one's undocumented claim. Document. see above.

Districts make the rules on Federal land - Once Districts get their guidelines in place most mining practices and methods will be reestablished. Dredging? Nope. much bigger fight.

Eldo County is a tough prospect because all of the original Mining District documents were destroyed by a fire. It takes a lot of man hours to recreate the boundaries since you have to research old records for claims then plot them of a map to establish minimum boundaries. If you want your MD re-staffed I suggest you volunteer for the mapping project.

Mining Districts handle complaints by claimholders so they would work with local law enforcement step up patrolling in areas of high-grading problems. Perfect fix? no. cut down on the problem? certainly.

Support for miners needs to earned with public education and information. Hence the reason MDs need volunteers

 

[Clay Diggins]

Victor –

Let’s back up a bit and start from the beginning.

Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration

i.e. prospectors/miners have a right to explore and discover valuable minerals

and purchase,

i.e. prospectors/miners have a right to purchase this property (patented, non-patented claims)


…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.

i.e. under Federal laws AND local rules and customs of the Mining Districts.

What a load of misleading crap. Those are parts of Section 1 of the Mining Act but it in no way explains the actual extent of the grant as explained in detail within the same Mining Act. I thought you were a misguided uninformed individual trying to do the right thing Kevin. In an effort to help you out I directed you to the text of the actual mining law and you pervert it into this crap? Shame on you. Did you even bother to read the law?

Here is the actual text of the law:

"SEC. 5. That the miners of each mining district may make rules regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining-claim, subject to the following requirements: 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."

I have intentionally bolded the part you wish to ignore and underlined the limit of the power of a mining district.

There is immense power in mining districts. The freedom inherent in the mineral estate grant and the power for those grantees to self govern could be described as the last great freedom left in this country. For you and others to try to twist those simple and essential freedoms into a political stance or a perversion of past districts is offensive to me.

I spend a good portion of my time and money trying to preserve those freedoms and advance the cause of mining. After years of lobbying and court cases I've concluded the only long term solution is to educate miners (and legislators) before they screw up those freedoms through ignorance. What you are doing is a direct challenge to my efforts. It comes at a time when I am very busy helping the mining industry to prepare testimony for the upcoming Congressional hearings along with a heavy workload in my mining support business.

Until now I have only let out the occasional warning growl about your silly project. Consider this an escalation to barking in warning to my fellow miners. You don't want to continue in this misdirecting and miseducation of miners or you may learn I also have a nasty bite. You can be an asset or you can be an obstruction to mining and miners. At present you are the latter. If you really do care about the future of mining you need to get educated. The choice is yours, I hope you choose to educate yourself and be an asset.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

Barry —

First GW is exactly right — Yes I want to talk to you or anyone one that helps to get this mining district thing right. I hope you can take some time to not only discuss some of the finer points but your information that supports your points. I want to do the best job I can.


I respectfully disagree with you on a couple of things mentioned here and elsewhere:

One, There is a big difference between unstaffed (not currently in use) Mining Districts and dissolved (disorganized) Mining Districts. Yes there were some MDs who formally dissolved themselves. From my research many Districts just became unstaffed. In the beginning they were formed by miners in their Districts but either the gold or other minerals played out and were no longer commercially viable, men went off to two world wars (and other conflicts), changes in law or other reasons. Many MD records were destroyed in the many fires in the mid 1800s to early 1900s. For what ever reason MDs were no longer used.

You and many others want personal attention with your mining education. I've tried for years to educate miners individually and in the forum context with some minor success. Ultimately I joined with other concerned individuals in forming a free public education effort that provides a central location to find and study unbiased, verified information on the many subjects of the people's lands with a particular emphasis on mining. The laws as well as many other research materials are available there so each person can take responsibility for their own education without an attached agenda or point of view being injected.

I challenge those who ask for my help on a personal basis to first educate themselves on the basics of the subject they are studying. I'm trying to enable an educated and aware base of land users who can change their world based on the facts rather than the constant internet rumors and bs. I don't have the time, resources or inclination to bring each miner up to speed individually if they don't have a firm basis in law, facts and history. I've given you the tools to educate and inform yourself and I have asked you to use them before you reach out privately or publicly (in your case both) for help with individual issues. As those who have educated themselves know I do dedicate a lot of my time helping those who have helped themselves.

You continue to state that "restaffing" districts is proper under the law. This bold but unsubstantiated statement seems to be the basis of your efforts. Despite providing you with the resources to establish that statement as a fact (or not) you continue to publicly state this nonsense based on some suppositions you have about mining's past. I'm calling BS here and now. You've had the opportunity to back up your statement many times but you have as yet produced anything but the obvious right for miners to form their own districts. The rest about "restaffing" is nothing but a leap of faith on your part. I have no faith in that unbacked statement and I'm going to give you some basic reasons why I'm calling BS on "restaffing".

The mining claims location records from the former districts were turned over to the County Recorders when the districts were dissolved. How do I know that? I individually map thousands of acres of claims every year to their located boundaries. This requires pulling all the location notices, amendments etc. for each claim from the Public Record. I deal with a lot of County Recorder's on a first name basis.

The claim records have always been there at the County Recorder's in every State and County no matter how old the claim or which district the claim was made in. There are no missing districts although individual new locations sometimes neglect to make their required public record (California) the old timers understood the legal necessity of keeping a public record of their claim.

Never has a County Recorder been unable to locate a record due to fire, there may be some burned records somewhere but it is far from common. Many of these claims date back to the original Mining Acts. Often the claim records are within the original district records that have been turned over to the County Recorder when the district was dissolved. Just like the laws say they should be. I have never run into an unavailable claim record because a mining district was left "unstaffed" (whatever that means).

Here's an example from Utah. Utah has done a great job of making these Mining District Records easily accessible by the public. In Utah you don't have to be a professional, like myself, to ferret out old mining records. Read what's at that link and then tell me about "unstaffed" districts.

Utah has been even clearer than California about what happens when a Mining District is closed, for any reason. Notice there is nothing about "unstaffed" in their extensive laws but they do address the concept of "vacant" Mining Districts and how they are viewed under the law.

Utah Code
Title 40. Mines and Mining
Chapter 1
Mining Claims

40-1-7 District recorders -- Office abolished.
From and after the termination of the office of any mining district recorder now holding office in this state such district shall be abolished and such office shall become vacant.

40-1-8 Vacancy and removal -- County recorder to receive records.
(1) If there is a vacancy in the office of recorder of any mining district, or if there is no person in the mining district authorized to retain the custody and give certified copies of the records, the person having custody of the records shall deposit them in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the mining district, or the greater part of the mining district, is situated.
(2) That county recorder shall take possession of the records and may make and certify copies from the records, including any other copies of records and papers in the recorder's office pertaining to mining claims.
(3) Those certified copies shall be receivable in evidence in all courts and before all officers and tribunals.
(4) The production of a certified copy shall be, without further proof, evidence that the records were properly in the custody of the county recorder.

40-1-9 County recorder may certify district records.
(1) When the books, records, and documents pertaining to the office of mining district recorder have been deposited in the office of a county recorder, the recorder may make and certify copies from those records.
(2) Those certified copies shall be receivable in all tribunals and before all officers of this state in the same manner and to the same effect as if the records had been originally filed or made in the office of the county recorder.

40-1-10 Certified copies of records evidence.
Copies of notices of location of mining claims, mill sites and tunnel sites heretofore recorded in the records of the several mining districts, and copies of the mining rules and regulations in force therein and recorded, when duly certified by the district or county recorder, shall be receivable in all
tribunals and before all officers of this state as prima facie evidence.

Every state deals with the subject of Mining Districts expiring in different ways but the common thread is that the Public Record of those claimants shall remain in the public no matter what happens to the district they formed. It is that public record that survives "unstaffed", abandoned, dissolved, defunct or any other kind of mining district that no longer has live functioning claimants. Dead districts do not arise on command or by wishful thinking under the Mining Acts.

Miners form districts upon a claim of right spelled out in the Mining Acts. They do not, and can not legally, form districts on a claim of right exercised by an unknown group of dead miners from the past. The law only envisions live active claimants forming Mining Districts. Your cadaver is showing.

Please learn and understand the law before you choose to lead others.

Educate Yourself and Prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

Thank you, Barry!

 

[SRP_KBell]

Barry – You are quoting the original 1872 law (taken from link in your post) but there are some very important differences between the original 1872 Mining Law and the current 30 US Code

Reference: official US OLRC website OLRC Home

1872 law Sec 1

That all valuable mineral deposits belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and 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.

Current 30 US Code Section 22

Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and 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

Extremely close, almost verbatim.


1872 law Sec 5

That the miners of each mining district may make rules and regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining-claim, subject to the following requirements: 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.

Current 30 US Code Section 28

The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims made after May 10, 1872, 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.

Note the word “rules” has been removed from the current US Code.

In Section 1 and 30 USC 22. It states “…under regulations prescribed by law” which certainly refers to Section 5 and 30 USC 28.

Then what about the phrase in Section 1 and 30 USC 22 “…the local customs or rules of miners” ? It just seems to be hanging there with no real definition.

In my opinion it was done with a purpose. It allows miners in their Mining Districts to create and document rules and local customs unique to their situation and area that have nothing to do with location, recording or work requirements.

For instance, Glencoe Quartz Mining District Bylaws September 20th, 1866, Article 4

“Each person of company may hold by purchase as many feet of any quartz vein as they may see fit to buy”

Another, Stanislaus Mining District Article 1st, Section 4th

“All claims to be worked after the expiration of ten days from the location or purchase, otherwise to be forfeited.”

Barry, my intentions are good, I do read through these laws, read court cases and make every attempt to do thorough research. I have reviewed many MD bylaws and seen the “interesting” articles they contained. This is the primary reason I disagree with your premise that Mining District powers are limited to 30 USC 28. I say that very tentatively since you are way above my pay grade.

If you think I am wrong then please help me to better understand the differences noted. I want to be an asset to the fight. Please give me a call - If at the end of our conversation you tell me it would be better for miners if I just stopped what I’m doing and went away then so be it.

 

[SRP_KBell]

Barry -

For instance I have reviewed several folders at the Calaveras County archives. I was holding folders with the actual original bylaws and all ledger pages of claim entries done by the recorder over a period of many years. That was all the folder contained. There was no recorded MD dissolution document or any other paperwork that stated or implied dissolution of the MDs. These documents were dated starting around the mid 1860s so they would have always been recorded by Calaveras Co. instead of or in addition to the MD recorder. It looked more like they had compiled and moved the original documents to an archive location to make room for more recent paperwork.

 

[Clay Diggins]

As I've pointed out before your USC Title 30 Mining "law" source is not law.

From the Government Publishing Office - the publisher of the USC:

United States Code

Of the 53 titles, the following titles have been enacted into positive (statutory) law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, and 54.
When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law.
Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.

From your own ORLC link:

Statutory text appearing in a non-positive law title may be rebutted by showing that the wording in the underlying statute is different. Typically, statutory text appearing in the Statutes at Large is presented as proof of the words in the underlying statute. The text of the law appearing in the Statutes at Large prevails over the text of the law appearing in a non-positive law title.

Title 30 has not been enacted and is not law. The Mining Act as passed by Congress is the law. You really don't have a clue what you are doing do you? This is law at it's most basic level. I've pointed this out before and you never bothered to read the material. Why would I continue to try to help someone who hasn't bothered to read the sources I have previously offered as help?

As far as your folder at the County Recorder. How would a vacant mining district record a record of their non existence? You might as well expect a dead man to fill out his own death certificate. I've seen no law or process for recording a dissolution of a vacant district. Without an official recorder in office the vacant district has no way to act to record anything. As the law says - the records of the vacant district were turned over to the County Recorder. You had them in your hands.

Heavy Pans

 

[Rail Dawg]

Clay Diggins thank you for what you do.

You have my respect and I'm sure the respect of most here.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Mining Districts existed long before they were legally recognized in the mining laws.
The bylaws were enforced by a majority rules type mentality.
It is highly possible that these bylaws may have ended up in public record.

This article is dated 1853. The "Laws" are acknowledged as "informal and not recognized by law"
This did not void the requirement that miners within the district abide by these declared laws.
View attachment 1853.pdf

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I believe these districts and organizations were simply formed out of a need to self regulate.
Here these guys are proposing to select a jury to arbitrate quartz claim disputes.
Again the bylaws and articles are probably not recognized by law. Majority rules.

View attachment 1858.pdf

View attachment 1858.jpg

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

This early 1852 article regarding a proposed Miner's Convention is pretty telling as to the void to which the early mining districts strived to fill.

"It has been already shown that the local customs of the miners - customs founded and established without consultation or unity of action - have in some instances been invested with dignity and weight of legal enactments. A man may introduce testimony in a court of justice to prove his rights according to the custom of the district or mining camp where he lives."

I think if someone were to document the entire evolution of self governance to where we find ourselves today, it would make an interesting read. Just the facts - letting the reader make obvious conclusions.

View attachment 1852.pdf



Here is the result of one of the miner's conventions that were held shortly after the above article was written (1852).
Example of "local customs" at that time.

View attachment 1852_2.pdf

 

[Clay Diggins]

I think if someone were to document the entire evolution of self governance to where we find ourselves today, it would make an interesting read. Just the facts - letting the reader make obvious conclusions.

Excellent contribution IMAUDIGGER!

Mining districts have been formed by miners for many thousands of years. What the California miners were doing was far from new. Many of the miners in California during that time were Welsh, Italian, English and Spanish. All those cultures had a strong history of self ruling mining districts. Here's an interesting brief article by a local (Arizona) geologist that gives a fair overview of that history.

A Short History of Mining Law by Jonathan DuHamel

It's a fascinating subject. Long before the American West was being explored for minerals the basics of self ruling mining districts were a part of the culture of miners worldwide. In the United States those mining district rights were protected and upheld by the American courts before the first Mining Act in 1865. The common law was the law of the land until after the civil war and the long history of mining districts certainly amounted to common law. By 1865 the United States made it clear they were going to continue that tradition within the statutory laws.

Thanks for sharing. I hope others will share their pre Mining Act district laws.

Heavy Pans

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Excellent contribution IMAUDIGGER!

Mining districts have been formed by miners for many thousands of years. What the California miners were doing was far from new. Many of the miners in California during that time were Welsh, Italian, English and Spanish. All those cultures had a strong history of self ruling mining districts. Here's an interesting brief article by a local (Arizona) geologist that gives a fair overview of that history.

A Short History of Mining Law by Jonathan DuHamel

It's a fascinating subject. Long before the American West was being explored for minerals the basics of self ruling mining districts were a part of the culture of miners worldwide. In the United States those mining district rights were protected and upheld by the American courts before the first Mining Act in 1865. The common law was the law of the land until after the civil war and the long history of mining districts certainly amounted to common law. By 1865 the United States made it clear they were going to continue that tradition within the statutory laws.

Thanks for sharing. I hope others will share their pre Mining Act district laws.

Heavy Pans

I think a public meeting is the most basic method of self governance. I don't think this is a right that was granted by our government so it doesn't need to be expressly authorized.

Any person could call a meeting and the group could elect a chairman, secretary, recorder, ect.
Resolutions could be voted on, ect.

Another form of public meetings would be the "Settler's Meeting" or a Settler's Convention". These were formal public meetings similar to the miner's meetings.

I believe with the mining laws, congress was simply honoring an existing system of self governance. I don't think we have lost the ability to self govern.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I think a public meeting is the most basic method of self governance. I don't think this is a right that was granted by our government so it doesn't need to be expressly authorized.

So true IMAUDIGGER.

Look at the number of quilting and gardening clubs. They never asked permission or needed a law to have a public meeting and nobody tries to stop them. The freedom to associate with others is a basic fundamental right in this and most other countries.

Heavy Pans

 

[Garrote Gold]

Public meetings? More like vigilanties, San Francisco had them too and it's not really the most democratic and moral thing to form groups with no due process or accounting.

Miners got together to kick out the ones they didn't like. America has a history of having majority groups stamp on the minority.
Case in point, the environs verse miners

That's not the perfect system. I don't want to go on a sociological civil society rant but these early American miner groups were Not some ayso group get together. We have freedom but too many people abuse the freedoms.

Places like China or caste countries like India or Nepal can't just form civil groups. Thats billions of people folks, even if you open the window of democracy you must be prepared for the flys that will come in too. If your group is large enough you can lobby and influence things. Example PTA school.boards. yeah it's all.great until they say what books you and I can and can't read, or what ways a miner can or cannot mine!

Damed if you do or.if you don't.

History is written by the winners. Most Spanish, chilean, Mexican, Chinese and others were discriminated and persecuted from these miners and thier group public activities.

Not really self governance in the perfect idealized way you guys are bringing up.

I'm all for vigilance and civil disobedience but you must not fantasize about what the intentions were for those miners and the garrote style of self governance. Its not altruistic star trek in the mother load or any other mining district.

How come no one in California has set up a real mining district recently? Let's progress this thread and make a real district come to life please

 

[Clay Diggins]

The word democracy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.



Heavy

 

[Rail Dawg]

We don't live in a democracy.

We live in a Democratic Republic.

Otherwise Los Angeles Chicago New York City would be choosing our Presidents.