Glitch with MLRS closed mining claims

[winners58]

check your claims, MLRS has closed some mining clams that didn't update the $ due date when a small miners waver was filed.
reply from BLM
>MLRS completed a process to close out all claims that didn't have the date changed to 9/1/2022. Unfortunately a lot of the claims were inadvertently closed when they shouldn't have been. We are working to figure out which ones those are and correct them, yours being one of them. It will be changed back to active soon. Please let me know if you don't see that change by the end of the day.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

you have know idea what you are talking about, stop posting and posting

Instead of stating that this may be misinformation it would be a good consideration for everyone to back this up with some facts / information that anyone can look up for themselves.

By the way just where do you suppose these terms are used and defined in any type of "Adverse possession", "Adverse party", "Adverse claims", case?

Correct me if this is not what your topic post covers in part or in whole as the title is very misleading. The term "Glitch" is not defined.

Do you really think that by a correction on a BLM web page is really the "Record" or is what is filed / deposited / recognized at the "County records"?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

check your claims, MLRS has closed some mining clams that didn't update the $ due date when a small miners waver was filed.
reply from BLM
>MLRS completed a process to close out all claims that didn't have the date changed to 9/1/2022. Unfortunately a lot of the claims were inadvertently closed when they shouldn't have been. We are working to figure out which ones those are and correct them, yours being one of them. It will be changed back to active soon. Please let me know if you don't see that change by the end of the day.

What evidence is being presented that any of these "Claims" are being closed / removed?

What evidence is being presented that "County records" are being "Closed" / removed ?

What evidence is being presented to be changed back manually on line?


What evidence is being presented that a ticket is any part of a "Mining claim affidavit"?

What evidence is there that a desk ticket is even required or just some type of other paper trail that you may or may not want to go down?

 

[Assembler]

The county "Records" with returns is what the court will look at first. Hopefully the message is getting out there what a paper trail mess there is starting to grow now big time.

Just take a look at almost any adverse possession type of dispute and the court looks at the "County records" first before proceeding. The Affidavit is very important as it is always first hand.

 

[Assembler]

What you don't understand is the BLM DOESN'T TALK TO THE COUNTY. All they do is record filings. They have no main map that shows where the filings are, they take your money and record it in a book or online and move on to the next person to take their money. I have had - on several occasions- the BLM Staff tell people to go file on my claims because they are open......but my claims are NOT OPEN to be claimed. I take great pride in offering several versions of my maps for them to view so there is NO QUESTION where my claims are. What makes them think my claims are open to the point that they tell people to go file on them? If they had access to the County records, they could have "looked them up" and seen all my County Filing Paperwork was in order..... but they didn't because they DON'T have access to the County Records. The County and the BLM each record a variation of what could possibly be or not be a claim- totally independent of each other. Whoever thought this system up is insane. It's no wonder it is as screwed up as it is.

You can also PM me as there is lots of "Case Law" where the State Land Office / BLM and the County / State courts communicate with no problems. The perception for the public may not be quite the same today and this is sad to see nowadays.

 

[Assembler]

The MLRS files do not effect the "Claim affidavit" filed at the County level "Records".

So if the MLRS files are not up to date still does not effect what is filed with the "County Records".

Can anyone show a court case where the court does not admit / allow the "County records" / "Mining affidavit" into the case files?

Let me know if you have a case to look at. Thank you.

 

[Assembler]

Can anyone show a court case where the court does not admit / allow the "County records" / "Mining affidavit" into the case files?

Let me know if you have a case to look at. Thank you.

ANYONE care to show the definitions of the following:

specific action code

claim name within an administrative state

specific customer

serial number part

PUBLIC

Private

State employee, Agent, Officer.

Private claim

You will find some of the above on different paper trails that some go down.

You may find very little above on / within some "Affidavits".

 

[Assembler]

ANYONE care to show the definitions of the following:

specific action code

claim name within an administrative state

specific customer

serial number part

PUBLIC

Private

State employee, Agent, Officer.

Private claim

You will find some of the above on different paper trails that some go down.

You may find very little above on / within some "Affidavits".

Can anyone give a reason way one should continue to take this thread seriously if there is little to no evidence / facts posted.

 

[winners58]

Please STOP posting... this is an Action Alert not a discussion.
.
I'll explain it slowly MLRS is a front-end program to the BLM records database.
One feature is if the maintenance fee due date has not rolled over to 2022
they push a button it closes all the ones without the new date.
some small miners wavers were entered by BLM incorrectly and the next date did not update.
thus causing claims to be incorrectly closed, the closed designation has to be corrected manually.
if you are having problems understanding this, please go to this site and read some of the help articles.

https://mlrs.blm.gov/s/

 

[Assembler]

Please STOP posting... this is an Action Alert not a discussion.
.
I'll explain it slowly MLRS is a front-end program to the BLM records database.
One feature is if the maintenance fee due date has not rolled over to 2022
they push a button it closes all the ones without the new date.
some small miners wavers were entered by BLM incorrectly and the next date did not update.
thus causing claims to be incorrectly closed, the closed designation has to be corrected manually.
if you are having problems understanding this, please go to this site and read some of the help articles.

https://mlrs.blm.gov/s/

Let me ask you just who does this apply to?

 

[Assembler]

It's news to me that they communicate. I have seen zero evidence of any comms between them. It appears each entity does their own thing, without referencing each other's records. I would guess if there were some sort of dispute where the County records were brought to the BLM there would be some resolution, but without a dispute to initiate the record search, each entity goes about it's own business without comms between each other. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence of collaboration between the two.

There is a whole new world for you to see with "Case Laws".

By the way the public perception may be a little different.

 

[Assembler]

There is a whole new world for you to see with "Case Laws".

By the way the public perception may be a little different.

Heck the more PUBLIC smoke screen the better.......lol.

 

[Assembler]

Let me ask you just who does this apply to?

Is this a "PUBLIC" ALERT........lol.
What happened to Private matters......lol?

 

[Assembler]

Is this a "PUBLIC" ALERT........lol.
What happened to Private matters......lol?

Is there any wonder why there is a lot of people looking at this thread?

 

[Assembler]

Let me ask you just who does this apply to?

Why post the thread in the first place if there is no real discussion?

Even if you may not agree.
What the heck is this forum even about if there is no discussion?

 

[Assembler]

F you... I asked you to STOP posting.

What authority do you have to dictate to anyone here on this forum?

 

[Assembler]

What authority do you have to dictate to anyone here on this forum?

You can ask me all you want. You have attacked without any real grounds. You have also not backed up anything you have posted with evidence that anyone can look up.

 

[Assembler]

You can ask me all you want. You have attacked without any real grounds. You have also not backed up anything you have posted with evidence that anyone can look up.

What do you think this forum is about?

 

[Assembler]

What authority do you have to dictate to anyone here on this forum?

What authority do you have to dictate to anyone here on this forum?

Just because one starts the thread does not mean that there is no open discussion. I can see if it is off topic however there has not been any evidence posted yet.

There is also a lot of unanswered questions so far.

This does not appear to be an open discussion yet.

 

[Assembler]

Just because one starts the thread does not mean that there is no open discussion. I can see if it is off topic however there has not been any evidence posted yet.

There is also a lot of unanswered questions so far.

This does not appear to be an open discussion yet.

I could be mistaken here so please correct me if I'm off target topic.

 

[mikep691]

By legally closed by the county, I should have said "quit claim deed" recorded by the claim owner. That is when the county recognizes that a claim is closed at the county level.