Fresno Area dredgers detained by Fish and Wildlife tonight

[dredgeman]

A couple of small scale miners are reportedly being detained at this time for being on their claim.
According to rumors they have requested the sheriffs to come. They maintain Fand W have no jurisdiction on a mining claim.

Updates as they become available.

This will be happening more and more and even up north in Ca once the F and W think they have regs locked down.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[GoldenNerd]

So they're in violation of the statewide ban on dredging (see your title), which F&W is responsible for enforcing. Forgive me for not understanding but how does a claim to the mineral rights have any bearing on this at all? Even on private land (thus, a patented claim) CDFW still has enforcement rights (including poaching, "hunting" from a vehicle, dredging bans, etc.)

What am I missing here, if anything?

Thanks.

 

[Oakview2]

They were on a federal minning claim. The Minining laws of 1872 premept CDFG regulations. It is called the Supremacy Clause. There are hundreds if not thousands of case law regarding federal premption. State law, cannot overule the constiution or the rules passed bonsty the Congress. If the local constituitonal signs the directive, they will notify Forrest Service and Fish and Game, and if they do not cease and decist, their agents will be arrested for interferring with a legal mining operation.

 

[GoldenNerd]

Thanks - I thought that the Federal Clean Water Act changes of 1977 gave F&W enforcement rights on federal land, in which case the supremacy-clause doesn't apply due to delegation. Both appear to be in play but I don't see any previous litigation from a quick search on which has precedence - will have to keep looking.

 

[Oakview2]

A federal mining claim is the domain of the claimholder, as granted by the US Congress, has title just like real estate. The dredge moratorium is enforced by California Fish and Game and their regs are prempted by Federal law, hence the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

 

[dredgeman]

Gold

What am I missing here, if anything?

You are missing quite a bit of study. The main thing would be that all rules or laws are not created equal.
Most land in Calif is not federal land. It is federally managed state property. Until the Federal land manager designates a use (national parks etc) Once that use is designated then the land becomes its own sovereign area. That is why the Fish and Wildlife do not tell Yosemite park rangers what to do. The land is segregated from Calif and the forest. It had to be a sovereign to sovereign trade for a claim owner to protect his property from all, including the Government and especially the people who wish to take his property. And Yes gold is property owned by the claim owner.

Once the claim is valid then the mining laws are in effect. No law made after the intial grant (your rights and mine to prospect) can effect the claim. Not EPA or Clean water act or anything can stand against the Grant from the gov. to get the minerals out of the ground for the good of the USA.

Some good reading can be found here on this site and on jeffersonminingdistrict.com site. Or the old fashion way like we do is to read the Actual existing Laws under title 30
americanmininglawforum has a lot of info and use to be a lot of fun.

Just because you think the new laws are valid does not mean they are. The new laws have just not been challenged yet.

 

[dredgeman]

Gold

As you read the older laws. Please download Blacks law dictionary for the time period you are reading. Words have meaning and a misunderstanding of the definition of words when the law was written will lead to the wrong interpretation. A full vocabulary for each time period will greatly reduce mistakes.

The Clean water act was rendered mute pertaining to mining by the Supreme Court case. It stated that you cannot pollute the river with the river.

It was the Judges decision that if you take a ladle of soup out of the pot and put the ladle full back into the pot. It is still just soup

 

[austin]

Wanna bet who's gonna win?

 

[dredgeman]

Wanna bet who's gonna win?

No, OK, in this day and age, the most money and contacts. The brainwashing to get rid of America has been very effective.

No one will win. The claim owners will be harassed by the court and then it will be dismissed. That is what has happened over and over in our area.
The DA never allows it to go to trial.

 

[timberjack]

So if you have a claim say on the trinity river and the goverment wants to manage for salmon how can they leagelly block access to your claim and take your claim?

 

[Hoser John]

Done through the court approved eminent domain, also for energy use and the promulgation process-emergency bs gives them the GOD powers to close all as a emergency exists,which it does not,just Hoopa tribeal mandates all trinity river claims go away so they can net and kill all the salmon-John

 

[timberjack]

Beejay, clay, m.e.g. whats your thoughts on this process,,,mining claim trump all others??or no,,,,

 

[timberjack]

Hmm, i think this question is the crux of the issue. Have laws been twisted and power been usurped to the point that special intrest groups essentially control our goverment?

 

[timberjack]

Well then how do claims get taken away and gates get locked as mentioned above in hosers post? Something does not add up here. Either the 1872 law and the right to travel law have supremacy or they are meaningless..agine, this is the crux of the entire issue. How do they legally take a claim and lock a gate?

 

[Hoser John]

Educate Ed as already been to the supreme court and them senile ol'farts rejected case as no merit--OUR RIGHTS ARE GONE MAN and no meg bs gonna make a iota of difference. Court in RC just for the benjamins and not rights-wake up and smell the the festering pile a crappola. The courts have gutted the system for the tribes,big companies,massive corrupt environutz groups and we're dead man....I got my 55+ in and still NEVER stopping no matter who or what till that lead flies and my ol'arse is feeding them crawdads lunch-John

 

[jog]

"quote"
IF by some fluke they can prove the dredging to be as detrimental to nature as was hydraulicking was, which I believe they'd have a snowballs chance in hell of doing so, they should not be able to outlaw dredging...After all...I believe that the old hydraulicking is the only precedence in this CA case...
Hydraulic mining is not illegal and never has been, If that is what you are trying to say.

 

[Bejay]

First and foremost, one MUST understand the reason for "detainment". Any detainment requires a minimum of some form of violation/citation. If the fish and wildlife wants to prove "harm" then a courtroom trial can be demanded by the perpetrators.

Then all valid arguments can be presented by going through the court system. One can say: Yes I violated State law:...so what if I did, I do not accept "that" (state) authority and Will Not agree to any penalty by the State.....as the State has NO authority. Take the case to the Federal court where the mining laws and all other relevant Acts and jurisdictional authority can be argued.

The state is counting on the perpetrators unwillingness to "do the dance". The miners will be unwilling to assume the cost of challenge.

==============================================================

CAL. CCP. CODE § 430.10 : California Code - Section 430.10 Search CAL. CCP. CODE § 430.10 : California Code - Section 430.10 - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/6/3/1/s430.10#sthash.EJsZn7Mq.dpuf


The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue. (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties. (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, "uncertain" includes ambiguous and unintelligible. (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. (h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35. (i) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.36. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/6/3/1/s430.10#sthash.SvtTUtmY.dpuf

 

[Hoser John]

Bring forth the damaged parties quote landed Mad Dog in jail for contempt for many days repeatedly. Caution as you can/will be required to dance the dance as they are getting a mite testy as of late. Ifn' ya can't pay the fine or do the time better err on the side a caution as it's your life on the line,income and everything. Ain't sayn' ya or nay but watch your arse and DON'T get caught,just work large parcels of private property is a clue as to what to do as public is PUBLIC and recent court cases ain't buying the claim rights bs no more,as thrown out in RC judge recently in mass lawsuit action-John

 

[dredgeman]

First hearing is in Sept.

Most of the tickets come out of the traffic division. They are setting up with a lawyer and should fight it all the way.

Unfortunately all the way is right up to the point the DA dismisses the case. The state Da does not like mining cases.

 

[Armchair prospector]

5 years of the ban and no proof that it has helped the fish or wildlife. Where's the BEEF?