Laserfiche WebLink
y <br />Page 8 <br />10) 90 St.t 2734, Act of Oct 21,1976-FLPMA, Federal Land Policy <br />and Managment Act--codified mining claim surface use for mining <br />related purposes only. <br />11) Assays of FES04 barrel, showed it was mainly rainwater <br />with no hazardous component-EnviroChem, GrandJunction, Colo. <br />12) Mike Frick presents himself as "operator representative's <br />for M&MII, when the mining lease was already cancelled by Orvie <br />and therefore not authorized by claim owner to be on the project-- <br />actually in trespass. <br />13) U.S. v Ronald 0. Lex and Kenneth Waggoner, Appellants in <br />U.S. District Court. ED California, May 19,2003 Occupancy on <br />mining claims on Forest Service authorized by mining law on a <br />valid mining claim. <br />14) U.S. v Shumway, 199F3rd @ 1100 title of located mining claim <br />is property in the fullest pence of the word. <br />15) Dirt & Iron, INc. Descri ption of work between Oct 31,2002 and <br />Dec. 17, '03-complete destruction of Joker dill, all in trespass. <br />16) Abandonment- is a question of fact and the fact is to be <br />found in the intention of the owner. It is a quew.tion of fact <br />for the jury to determine--not the BLM. <br />17)Forfeiture-Where a leasee is under duty to do a certain thing <br />if he neglects to do it, his right of forfeiture without regard <br />to his intentions occurs as soon as the leasor declars a forfeiture. <br />18 ) Hankins v. U.S. underway 04-2196, Denver US. District Court <br />a) challenge to patent moratorium of March 2,1493 as illegal. <br />b) 43CFR3809 challenged as overly punitive to mining .industry. <br />c) 43CFR3715 challenged as contrary to Mining Law of 1872 <br />granting occupancy and use of raining claim surface. <br />19 U.S. v Lex, refer s' to Shumway--Locators have possession and <br />rights for all practical puposes as goad as though patented-