WMA Newsletter legal updates

[winners58]

WMA April newsletter legal update
http://www.theminingalliance.com/newsletters/2016/april2016.pdf

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hoser John]

1st class information as always, read it all earlier...and the stinkn' war on mining in all forms only get more convoluted(yet another pile of bills rubbed stamped this week in kalif), insane and bloody expensive sic sic sic- John

 

[fowledup]

But, but wait a minute, they can't......aw forget about it, I sound like a broken record, I'm starting to irritate myself as well. I do have to say tho a word of warning to my fellow Kalifornians- if you think Brown and the current regime is bad (which they 100% are) better start doing some homework, and paying attention to the two front runners fighting to be his replacement! Their both off the rez bat s--- crazy people! One already has her name on every anti-mining law suit in the recent past and present and the other wishes he did! They are also both in competition to see who can come up with the most comprensive ridiculous anti-firearms legislation- yep grand times are a coming. I better not mention the race for the whitehouse and who these two line up with, I don't want to get all political and stuff- LOL!

 

[Hefty1]

Im with you Fowledup.....Done talking about it... let me know when we need to be at the Capital.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Thanks for the updates WMA but your ignorance of mining law is really showing in the latest newsletter.

Two 80 acre claims for sale in the same newsletter that pretends to educate us on how to locate a mining claim.

From that newsletter:

Too Much Acreage Claimed
A single locator, or corporation, can only locate 20
acres. Often we see on the location document a single
locator will locate far more than this, in one case we
saw a location form with 320 acres claimed by a single
person. Two locators (an association) may locate 40
acres, three locators 60 acres and so on.

So why is WMA advertising two 80 acre placer claims for sale that have only two locators instead of the four needed to support those claims?

Anybody buying these claims is going to be pretty disappointed when the BLM notifies them they have to reduce the claim to 20 acres or they will void them.

This is part of a pattern of ignorance about the actual laws governing mining. In the Filing a Valid Mining Claim article itself they start out with the incredibly wrong statement:

The legal location of a mining claim must follow fairly precise rules established by the Bureau of Land Management

Let's be very clear here, Federal and State Laws govern the proper way to locate a mining claim. The BLM does not, and can not, establish rules about the location of mining claims.

I've spent years trying to educate small miners about the differences between the laws governing mining and the administrative rules the BLM governs itself with. To myself, the courts and the mining companies these differences are clear. When the WMA puts this sort of nonsense in print they set small miners back to square one.

The next time you wonder why the big mining companies don't donate to your WMA causes or you wonder why the Judges laugh you out of court please pause and reflect on just why you believe what you believe. It could be you are relying on the wrong people to keep you informed.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[wildminer]

Clay, Thanks for reinforcing what was on my mind.

 

[Hefty1]

Not much river on those claims....

 

[minerrick]

Thanks for the updates WMA but your ignorance of mining law is really showing in the latest newsletter.

Two 80 acre claims for sale in the same newsletter that pretends to educate us on how to locate a mining claim.

From that newsletter:


So why is WMA advertising two 80 acre placer claims for sale that have only two locators instead of the four needed to support those claims?

Anybody buying these claims is going to be pretty disappointed when the BLM notifies them they have to reduce the claim to 20 acres or they will void them.

This is part of a pattern of ignorance about the actual laws governing mining. In the Filing a Valid Mining Claim article itself they start out with the incredibly wrong statement:


Let's be very clear here, Federal and State Laws govern the proper way to locate a mining claim. The BLM does not, and can not, establish rules about the location of mining claims.

I've spent years trying to educate small miners about the differences between the laws governing mining and the administrative rules the BLM governs itself with. To myself, the courts and the mining companies these differences are clear. When the WMA puts this sort of nonsense in print they set small miners back to square one.

The next time you wonder why the big mining companies don't donate to your WMA causes or you wonder why the Judges laugh you out of court please pause and reflect on just why you believe what you believe. It could be you are relying on the wrong people to keep you informed.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

Clay, etal:

WMA knows the regs. The claim owner offered the claims up for a commission to be paid to WMA to help pay legal bills. We informed him of the regs and he chose to ignore them. If anyone is interested in those claims, WMA will insist that they be bought as an association claim.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay, etal:

WMA knows the regs. The claim owner offered the claims up for a commission to be paid to WMA to help pay legal bills. We informed him of the regs and he chose to ignore them. If anyone is interested in those claims, WMA will insist that they be bought as an association claim.

There are no "do overs".

You can't just add locators to magically double the size of the claim size the association can hold. When Bob and Karen Dunst (2 claimants) decided to buy the claims from the Whites (4 locators) in 2006 the claim became a 2 person association claim that could only support 40 acres. The claims at that time became a maximum of 40 acres - not the 80 the BLM has been accepting money for.

The simple fact that the Dunst's didn't receive the notice to reduce their acreage yet doesn't change the fact that the claims association can only support 40 acres. That notice will come one day and it will be effective back to May 22, 2006 the day the Dunst's bought the claim with only two people in association.

If Bob Dunst ignored your warning about the 1872 Mining LAW (not BLM "regs") but decided to go ahead and and offer claim acreage he didn't own what's to stop him from selling the claim to a single individual?

From the 1872 Mining Act
Section 10:

All placer mining-claims hereafter located shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant

This is the LAW you say you are fighting for as an organization Rick. The BLM does not regulate the location of claims but they sure do have the power to enforce the LAWS of location.

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

Sounds like an invalid claim how can you sell an invalid claim.

Also filed at blm and not county withing 90 days of location ....invalid

Over filing ......invalid

No boundaries? Only needed for lode claims and non surveyed land in California.

I think posts and comments like Barry has made actually educate a lot. Private conversations for the sake of saving face not so much.

SO WMA knew it wasn't quite right yet didn't rectify before posting.....and it's ok because of all these other people lack of due diligence and by the way blm ONLY wants your money...
Come on!!!!

Funny how the negative comment about land matters speed has to be brought up in a really non related way.

Maybe if more letters and complaints were heard. There would acyually be more of those dimes.

I don't really think it's about a crap job being done more like nothing really being done.

SO who are these "Big Boys" who are colluding with the environs to end small scale mining?

We don't need another reg. Agency that's true

Anyone heard of that new agency being backed by another "mining rights " group and the icmj right now? Oh but we don't need anymore layers of permission.....

Thanks for your input Clay. I'm glad you chime in even if it may rub some in the wrong way.

 

[minerrick]

There are no "do overs".



If Bob Dunst ignored your warning about the 1872 Mining LAW (not BLM "regs") but decided to go ahead and and offer claim acreage he didn't own what's to stop him from selling the claim to a single individual?


Heavy Pans

Bob wouldn't do that because he is an honest guy. Honest as the day is long. The Whites should have disclosed that to him, but I guess it "slipped their minds". I have recommended to Bob to whom he sells it to that they re-file it as a proper association claim.

 

[minerrick]

Yeah, you guys are right, we are going to pull the ad for now.

I wrote a big response, but deleted it as I didn't like the way it was stated.

Clay I will PM you in the near future.

 

[spillercanyon]

Would part (a) of the following be a way in which an association claim could be transferred to an individual or smaller association (the rest makes it clear you need a locator for every 20 acres)? This was additional literature I received with my copy of "Location and patenting of mining claims and mill sites in California" - 2000 Edition

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2003/Rules and Regulations 61073

3833.33 How may I transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim?

You may transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim at any time to an equal or greater number of mining claimant. If you want to transfer an association placer claim to an individual or an association that is smaller in number than the association that located the claim, you -
(a) Must have discovered a valuable mineral deposit before the transfer; or
(b) Upon notice from BLM, you must reduce the acreage of the claim, if necessary, so that you meet the 20-acre per locator limit.

Just thinking ...

 

[winners58]

if he sell's them they will be voided, and all the new owners could do is scramble to file new proper location notice's
or take the sellers to court. so its a good thing someone said something.

since the current owners haven't got the 30 day notice yet,
could they reduce them to two 40 acre claims and file two new claims on the remainder?

from H-3830_1 handbook - Requirements for Transferring Association Placer
Mining Claims

 

[Goldwasher]

They could have just paid attention

 

[Clay Diggins]

Would part (a) of the following be a way in which an association claim could be transferred to an individual or smaller association (the rest makes it clear you need a locator for every 20 acres)? This was additional literature I received with my copy of "Location and patenting of mining claims and mill sites in California" - 2000 Edition

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2003/Rules and Regulations 61073

3833.33 How may I transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim?

You may transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim at any time to an equal or greater number of mining claimant. If you want to transfer an association placer claim to an individual or an association that is smaller in number than the association that located the claim, you -
(a) Must have discovered a valuable mineral deposit before the transfer; or
(b) Upon notice from BLM, you must reduce the acreage of the claim, if necessary, so that you meet the 20-acre per locator limit.

Just thinking ...

Absolutely spillercanyon. If the owners had proof of discovery they could keep them with only one claimant.

We know they don't have discovery proof for several reasons. The ad says they only did annual assessment work, the previous owners only had the claims for a couple of months, claims that have proof of discovery included sell for big money and include the discovery work proof as a major potion of the sale.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

if he sell's them they will be voided, and all the new owners could do is scramble to file new proper location notice's
or take the sellers to court. so its a good thing someone said something.

since the current owners haven't got the 30 day notice yet,
could they reduce them to two 40 acre claims and file two new claims on the remainder?

Thanks winners58.

Yes they can amend the claims down and make two new claims to cover the same, or different, ground.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

Yeah, you guys are right, we are going to pull the ad for now.

I wrote a big response, but deleted it as I didn't like the way it was stated.

Clay I will PM you in the near future.

Good choice. Thanks Rick.

You have my email and phone too.

Heavy Pans

 

[minerrick]

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2003/Rules and Regulations 61073

3833.33 How may I transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim?

You may transfer, sell, or otherwise convey an association placer mining claim at any time to an equal or greater number of mining claimant. If you want to transfer an association placer claim to an individual or an association that is smaller in number than the association that located the claim, you -
(a) Must have discovered a valuable mineral deposit before the transfer; or
(b) Upon notice from BLM, you must reduce the acreage of the claim, if necessary, so that you meet the 20-acre per locator limit.

Just thinking ...

I have read the regs extensively, and although they say the original claimants need to be 20 acres per claimant, it doesn't say that if you sell to less people than the original claimants the claim is invalid. Note, it says (b) UPON NOTICE FROM THE BLM, you must...... so it looks like when the blm notices that you have too few locators (and contacts you to challenge it), then you must reduce the acreage. I haven't found anywhere it stating that the claim is invalid. And as I mentioned before, (unfortunately on a lot of levels) the BLM doesn't enforce- they just take money. Apparently they used to be more active about chasing down the problems, but have - in more recent times- taken a back seat to the enforcement of the Federal Regs. The guys at the BLM tell us that they don't challenge people on that currently- it could change, but currently that isn't a big priority. For sake of argument, Bob will amend the location.

 

[winners58]

it was located as an association with four locators then transferred to Bob and Karen and are the owners of record, its a good claim until BLM sends a notice
if its sold what will BLM do, more often than not they will say it was transferred to less than whats allowed
they have to go by the first action item - the transfer to Bob and Karen, BUT they would no longer be the owners of record.
so my guess is they would probably void the claim.

I had some friends that bought a claim they thought was good but the person selling the claim had filed a small miners waver
and a few months earlier had gone over the limit of 10 claims so would have had to pay the full maintenance fee.
but since he was no longer the owner of record they voided the claim, they wouldn't even let the new owners pay the fee.
they ended up having to file a new location notice and all the BLM fees for a new location filing.