Laserfiche WebLink
p7/9 <br />Demand for Jury Trial:(con't) <br />Much emphasis was made about the BLM confiscating <br />equipment "abandoned on public lands". First of all, valid <br />mining claims are different than unappropriated public lands. <br />Mining claims are real property belonging to the claimant, not <br />the BLM. Judge Kleinfeld in his discussion of the mining law in <br />U.S. v Shumway,1999 , makes it very clear that the BLM is only <br />holding title in trust for the claimant until he obtains a patent <br />but that the title to a mining claim for all practical purposes <br />is title to real estate that is as good as if it were patented. <br />Further, mining equipment is private property, and any confiscation <br />by the government would have to be made to further a substantial <br />public purpose, and would have to be done providing substantive <br />due process to the equipment owner. And that is not just the verbal <br />statment that the BLM ownsthe equipment as was done with Orvie <br />Zimmerman at the Blue Jet Mine when involved with Rob Ernst.And <br />substantive due process was not provided to Orvie Zimmerman when <br />the Joker MIll was completely destroyei through the orchhsttatrions <br />of Rob Ernst and others as described in my letter to the Attorney <br />General of Nov . 27,2004. The jury should review that whole situation <br />and find out what the entire facts are and determine blame and <br />require compensation accordingly. <br />From my own personal knowledge, neither the Blue Jet, or the <br />Joker was ever "abandoned property: While gold prices were low, <br />there was understandably a lower level of activity in the area by <br />all miners, but, "abandonment" of a mine occurs only when the <br />Owner in??e_n_ds to permanently stop operations--not when a BLM employee <br />who has spent a few minute: once a year at the property says so.