Rhinhart decision in

Status
Not open for further replies.

okbasspro

Hero Member
Jan 14, 2012
826
1,358
Chickasha,Oklahoma
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Was on AMRA Facebook post




Unfortunately, and regretfully, we have just been contacted by Brandon Rinehart and his case was denied by the United States Supreme Court.

Here is the email to Brandon from PLF:

Brandon,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied your petition this morning. I’m sure this is a disappointment to you and James, as it is for me.

The silver lining is that, although this is the end of your case, the defense of miners’ rights continues. James has done great work challenging Oregon’s suction-dredge ban in Bohmker in the Ninth Circuit, which PLF supported as amicus on behalf of Western Mining Alliance. A win in that case will render California’s ban preempted too. The SG’s brief highlighted Bohmker as another opportunity for the Court to consider the preemption question if the Ninth Circuit goes the wrong way.

There is no justice............
 

Upvote 0
The "Decision" may have been in for a long time now.
What is the topic now?
 

We do not need to know mining laws or mining to moderate TreasureNet forums, we have been doing it for years. We know treasureNet rules and unless TreasureNet rules or guidelines are broken there is no reason for a mod to step in.
Excellent point. Why ask some unknown on the forum about mining laws or mining when anyone can and should read a lot first hand on BLM's library web page.
Thank you.
 

because Brandon was on his claim that was never disputed. So his rights to be there were never in question.

No question of lode lines as it is Placer...nothing about conforming to a survey.

A federal pre emption case implies that he was on federal land and wanted that to superceed state regulations (as it should)

So everything assembler says should be looked into is irrelevant or already established and understood by the court, defendant and prosecution.

Just spamming a thread with a bunch of mining related terms and links and quotes.

Does not make it part of the topic.

The mods don't understand it so they can't stop the spamming.
Thanks for stating your opinions.
After reading some of the "Case" documents. Some of the questions asked are on point as the "Recognized Survey" is the 'Foundation / fact / record'.
Difficult to make a "Ruling" without this in "Place" with one exception as there is "Mining Case Law" about this point.

Not difficult to find this "Mining Case Law". California has maybe the largest history of "Mining Case Law" of the 29 States.
 

Last edited:
Administration, or Disposal of the Title

After the admission of the States into the Union the United States continued to hold title to the unappropriated lands and to administer its public-land laws with reference thereto. It is expressly provided, as one of the conditions set forth in the various enabling acts, that the title to unappropriated lands within the State shall remain in the United States.
From a document prepared and published by the BLM and United States department of the Interior.
The "Court" will 'Recognize' the same document.
 

its more of an announcement page, a sad day, not really a thread to have a discussion, but trying to explain to you, is like on
on the TV show Big bang theory where they are trying to teach Sheldon about respecting other peoples feelings and he just doesn't get it.
I guess we'll have to wait for Assembler 2.0 :dontknow:
 

Assembler your making back to back posts like your talking to yourself, of the 41 posts in this thread including those deleted you made 18 of them which is 44%, many of them back to back. I have a better idea, thread is locked, if okbasspro wants it reopened he can contact me or another mod.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top