Well Clay I am still completely puzzled by the fact that numerous Lode Claims in and around Rich Hill are simply laid out like 20 acre placers.....not the required way....(I am not sure if other miners have seen the same situation elsewhere). That said, it is known that such incorrect actions leads to another fact; that a placer can not be placed over an existing lode claim. So basically; these 20 acre lode claims, that may have been placed upon "club claims" at one time; remove the locations from placer locations; once the clubs lost the claims (for one reason or the other). While this thread has been very enlightening about the "how to" on lode claims there is a whole relevant issue as to "when they are done wrong"....what then?
Bejay
Heck Bejay you know the answer to overclaims. It's right there in the first Mining Law:
That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.
It's up to the individual claimants to work it out. Local courts, civil suits and/or self governance are the tools to do that.
Overclaims are not made valid by the Senior (first valid claim) being abandoned or relinquished. Those overclaims were invalid from day one and they can't be made valid by the passage of time. How each individual claimant deals with these situations is up to them but the only real solution is a court case. The government can not and will not help you rid the ground of overclaims. This is strictly between miners.
Here's a bunch of examples of this basic principle from the Supreme Court:
Whether any particular mineralized area or given parcel of land is properly locatable as a lode claim or a placer claim is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts after receiving evidence on that issue. Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Largey, 49 F. 289 (C.C.Mont.1892). See also: Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Cheesman, 116 U.S. 529, 537, 6 S.Ct. 481, 29 L.Ed. 712 (Colo.1886); Largey v. Blue Bird Min. Co., 49 F. 292 (C.C.Mont.1892); Hyman v. Wheeler, 29 F. 347 (C.C.Colo.1886); Columbia Copper Min. Co. v. Duchess Min., etc., Co., 13 Wyo. 244, 256, 79 P. 385 (1905); Illinois Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Raff, 7 N.M. 336, 34 P. 544 (1893). See also: 58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 3, p. 31.
The "trier of the facts" is usually a sitting judge but it could be a mining district board or an agreed private arbitration. If the senior claim was invalid when the overclaim was located the overclaim could potentially be valid. Just the simple fact that one claim was located after the other does not make the later claim invalid.
The issue of possession comes to the forefront in many of these cases. If the senior claimant has not yet made and documented a discovery
and they don't prevent other known prospectors or locators from exploring or claiming the minerals within their claim they have failed in their duty to occupy and maintain their claim.
The discovery of a valuable mineral deposit is the critical first step in locating a valid claim. Without
proof of discovery a claimant only has a possessory right to the claimed minerals. As you saw in the first mining law it is up to the claimant to maintain that possession against subsequent locators.
Once a discovery is proven the claimant has additional rights beyond mere possession of minerals. At that point the discovered minerals become real property and the discovery itself becomes proof against subsequent locators as well as against government takings. At that point it's a whole new game and any violation or theft of your mineral rights can be sued for and compensated.
It's important to understand that merely finding gold or some other valuable mineral is
not proof of discovery. Proof of discovery involves proving a potentially profitable mineral deposit
still in place in the ground. The Supreme Court wrote of discovery this way in Cameron -"a body of workable ore of commercial value". Already mined gold is only proof that there was at one time gold in the ground, not proof of a discovery.
People make bad claims for bad reasons all the time. The government made it clear with the first mining law that is not their problem. It's up to miners to work this stuff out.
Education will help, but as you've seen on these forums and in your direct experience some people could care less what the actual law is. Excuses like "the law has changed" or "the BLM wouldn't let someone file a claim if it wasn't OK" are not supported by the facts but the fantasy is often more fun than the reality. The fact is some folks could care less what the law is. In those cases it's up to the miners to police their own. There are two methods of doing that specified in the mining laws - self governance through mining districts and civil suits in the first court of record. Until claimants start understanding and using those tools all they can do is complain about the situation and hope it doesn't happen to them.
Looking to the government to solve these problems goes against the current law and the history of mining customs and practices. Freedom to handle your own affairs may be a pain in your burro but looking around the world at the way other countries handle mineral ownership I much prefer the U.S. concept of individual effort resulting in individual ownership of mineral discoveries.
In my mind I imagine miners can learn once again to handle the power and responsibility of a free mineral system without the interference of the government. I'm not of the mind that more government regulation and control of miners and mining claims would be a benefit.
This is a problem that is legally up to individual miners to solve. It is a serious problem but miners have a long history of dealing with this on their own. In my opinion it's time we get past the "as good as patent" nonsense and create a culture of self regulation and education within the small mining industry. The alternative is more of the same.
Heavy Pans
