Ban, not just dredging....

Open this link and check out # 11. ( at the bottom of the page, you can click on a "page" icon and read all the crap. ) http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/16/G...Power_Pumps.htm They aren't even proccessing the filings for claims. No one ever mentioned that, and I just now found that out. "...and unlawfully prohibited the location, utilization and developement of mining claims and mineral estates in California." I got the paperwork back from the BLM on my filing, but have not gotten anything from the county. Now I know why. So, am I in violation by panning and sluicing on my claim, the claim that Calif. doesn't recognize? The feds say I have a claim, and I have the papers to prove it. BTW, I'm in the Tahoe NATIONAL Forest. Not a state park. So KMA, Commifornia!!! Hey Ah-nold, I'LL be back! Where do I sign up for the class action suit? Oh ya, I paid all my fees! (taxes, by another name )...... and they cashed the checks.

You need to be a member of Goldprospectorsspace to add comments!

Join Goldprospectorsspace

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • O.K.,....
    Don't ask me to explain it back, I'll just confuse myself again.
    Went back and re-read papers several times and I got it now. It helped to bring them on the screen at the same time for comparison, that way, I didn't have to rely on my memory.
    Glad I was wrong.
    ( But I'm not off guard )
    I'm glad we have people watchin' out for us, and no, I'm not bein' sarcastic.
    I can't be at meetings, or file injunctions, but we do have the support of those who can.
    I think we need a new bumper sticker,....
    "Support Your Local Prospector"
    Or,....
    "Prospectors, Make My Bed-Rock"
    • and the class action suit would follow a federal ruling that sb670 is unconstitutional,combined with a federal injunction prohibiting ca. from stopping permitted dredging,in the absence of studies showing that dredging harms fish.(innocent until proven guilty)DUE PROCESS. then class action suit regarding takings.personally dont expect much to come of that.a showing of lost income would require that my tax returns reflect a prior documented income.however, the impact of the illegal dredge ban upon the devaluation of my real property,for any period of time,perhaps discrimination?certainly denial of federal equal protection act rights.will certainly take years to unravel this mess.from the civil suit side.steelpan perhaps produce thos bumper stickers,sell them for ten bux apiece,proceeds going to PLP?
      • I may look into that.
        Certainly can't hurt.

        Wouldn't need but a few choices in slogans.

        "Miners Allowed"
        "Support Your Local Prospector"
        "Prospectors Make My Bed-Rock"

        Hmmm, good idea!
  • Go to www.nuggetshooters.com .
    Look in the "Gold Prospecting Forum"

    Topic,
    CA SB 670 SUCTION DREDGE BAN
    I wonder if the Governent of CA, know this

    Posted by Old Gold Miner

    This link seems to work.
    http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16359

    Try the link from there.
  • Steelpan,

    The link is not opening for me...I get "HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found"....

    Can you post the link again?

    If this is in reference to the PLP lawsuit, then there is no need to post the link again, they have not banned mining claims, only dredging, and it is as Andrew stated that the ban makes it almost impossible to locate and work a claim without a dredge.

    You may need to follow up with the county to see what the holdup is with your claim papers with them, but it has nothing to do with SB670, just a normal county government feet dragging thing.

    Skip
  • i think ogm was right. the wording in the lawsuit refers to the prudent man test. most placer claims would not warrant the 170.00 filing costs in the absence of the ability to dredge.lawyers cover all angles.prudent man test only applies to claims being litigated,claims are still being filed, the only thing changed is ability to properly work a placer claim w/minimal surface disturbance i.e. suction dredging.
    • As I mentioned to OGM, I'll have to look deeper so that I fully understand the "wording". The wording in the suit is what confuses me. ( prohibited the location, utilization and developement of mining claims and mineral estates ) I found nothing mentioning the "prudant man", in section 11 of the suit. Maybe I'm having a "knee jerk" reaction, but dang it, I'm sick and tired of the attacks on our rights.
      No matter, I'll continue working my claim, reguardless.
      Prospecting is a RIGHT!
      They'll pry my pan from my cold dead left hand, and my 44mag from the right.
      • prohibits the location end quote is lawerese for (makes it unprofitable for minimal surface disturbance mining ie placer, dredging.in other words,why pay to locate,if the deposit cannot be economicaly mined without a plan/ops plus a bond.effectively prohibiting small scale placer mining in california.nothing in sb670 prohibits locating and maintaining claims.but dont worry, they will get to that soon.gettin my xxx reddy to git.bigrin
This reply was deleted.