WTF is wrong with people? Part 2 [Archive]

View Full Version : WTF is wrong with people? Part 2

MagicMtnDan

06-15-2006, 02:12 AM

MONTCLAIR, Calif. - A homeowner digging for gold in his front yard said he got "carried away" and ended up with a 60-foot-deep hole, authorities said.
Norm Enrique, 63, began digging 10 days ago after his gold detector reported a positive hit near his front patio. He told authorities he only intended to go down three or four feet.
Fire officials called to the scene Tuesday found two men that Enrique hired were inside the un-reinforced hole, using a bucket and rope to remove dirt.
"We told him, 'You're done,'" said Montclair Fire Capt. Rich Baldwin. "It's amazing no one got killed."
Authorities fenced off Enrique's property.
Officials from the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration likely will visit the property Wednesday to determine how to shore up and fill the hole, authorities said.
Enrique will be required to hire and pay for a licensed engineer, Baldwin said.

RitcheyRch

06-15-2006, 04:43 AM

Heard this on the radio this morning coming to work. Just when you think you have heard everything you hear a story like this.

Water Romper

06-15-2006, 01:51 PM

H20 Party Starter

06-15-2006, 02:06 PM

MOst people don't know that they might own the land, but they DO NOT own the mineral rights to the land, ie gold/oil/copper etc. Idiot wouldn't be allowed to keep it anyway :rolleyes:

XFactor

06-15-2006, 02:10 PM

I saw this on the news...why can't the guy just put the dirt back? it's right next to the hole....but nooooo, the city claims they need engineers to shore it upWTF, shore what up? Its just a stupid holeput the dirt back and say sorry beside, its his own house and yardAND he has a chain link fence around the whole yard and the sides as well.
Never did find out if he struck gold or not. :crossx:
Maybe you can help him. I'm sure it would be real safe standing around that hole. :rolleyes: Ever hear of compaction? My guess is the lot was at approx 90% compaction. Dig it up and let the dirt dry out for a week. Fill the hole with same dirt and you'll have about 65-70% compaction. What do you think will happen when the first rains hit. The property around the hole will slide right into it. That's why the city claims they need engineers.

Kilrtoy

06-15-2006, 03:24 PM

Here's you sign

GHT

06-15-2006, 03:39 PM

MOst people don't know that they might own the land, but they DO NOT own the mineral rights to the land, ie gold/oil/copper etc. Idiot wouldn't be allowed to keep it anyway :rolleyes:
So what your saying is I should send the governing agency the quarter my kid dug up in the back yard? Also, if I find anything while my pool is being dug I should call the proper authorities and have them confiscate what every my pool contractor finds?
Whatever... :rolleyes:

Outnumbered

06-15-2006, 04:14 PM

H20 Party Starter

06-15-2006, 04:20 PM

So what your saying is I should send the governing agency the quarter my kid dug up in the back yard? Also, if I find anything while my pool is being dug I should call the proper authorities and have them confiscate what every my pool contractor finds?
Whatever... :rolleyes:
Knowledge before Keystrokes buddy :rolleyes: :)
Protect yourself. Find out what kind of property rights you have. You can start by using EWG's website to determine if there is a claim or patent on or near your land. If so, it is possible that someone could hold the right to mine on your property. But the best way to protect yourself is to hire an expert in so-called "split estates" to perform a title search on your property. Land experts say that such a search should reveal any potential for mining on your land.
Your property falls into one of the following categories:
You own everything, both the surface and the subsurface mineral rights. You are not at risk for a challenge from a mining company or speculator.
You own a split estate you own the surface rights, but a private party or the federal government owns the rights to minerals beneath your property. You are at potential risk for a mine opening on your land. The risk is low, but if a mining company or individual finds it would be profitable to open a mine on your property, you can do little to stop them. Courts have ruled that the mineral rights are "dominant" over the rights to the surface of the land that you own.
You own a property that has been sold to two different parties, once to you through a normal real estate transaction, and once to a mining company or speculator through the sale of an old mining patent that covered your property. See the story of Searchlight, Nevada below.
The Stock Raising Homestead Act (SRHA). If you own land that was granted under this piece of legislation, passed by Congress in 1916, you are at particular risk from mining activity. Under the SRHA, the federal government granted surface rights to land but reserved the mineral rights. Therefore, if you own land originally granted under the SRHA, someone else may still be able to stake a claim to mine your land under the 1872 Mining Law that allows mining on federal property (FR SHRA 2003).
In 1993, Congress passed an amendment to the SRHA that provided some protections for landowners. The amendment holds in part that anyone attempting to locate minerals on SRHA land must first notify the landowner by registered or certified mail. The amendment also provides that a third party can conduct mining activities without a landowner's consent only if the Interior Department first approves a plan of operations to minimize damage, and the third party posts a bond to cover damage and permanent loss of income (SRHA Amendment 2003).
Number of claims and notices of intent on SRHA property State Number of claims on SRHA property Number of notices filed to explore for minerals on SRHA property
Wyoming 971 441
Arizona 369 386
Montana 157 66
New Mexico 124 112
Nevada 38 47
Utah 29 39
Idaho 9 27
California 8 7
Colorado 1 10
Oregon 0 20
South Dakota 0 3
Washington 0 1
Conflicts over mining rights. In the cases outlined below companies or speculators confronted land owners with legal challenges to property rights, or with demands for money in exchange for rights to the metals beneath the property.
Montana Canyon Resources' bid for payoff from 3,000 homeowners and local businesses. In 2002, as many as 3,000 landowners in western Montana were given a sudden ultimatum by the mining company Canyon Resources: pay us up to $500 an acre for the mineral rights beneath your property, or we will auction them off. Through a complex chain of title transfers, the company had obtained the mineral rights beneath 900,000 acres of private land, and was orchestrating an attempt at a quick cash-out on lands with little mining value.
Residents scrambled to understand the risks, holding town meetings and consulting local BLM officlals. The asking price was far above the market value of much of the affected land. A researcher at the Montana Legislature's Environmental Policy Office told the Missoulian newspaper that residents had little reason to fear that their property would be used as a hard-rock mine because if rich mineral deposits existed they probably would have been previously discovered or developed. Still, the official said that having full ownership of the land would bring peace of mind.
The auction was held on August 6, 2002. Only three of 82 mineral rights parcels were sold before the auction company closed the sale due to lack of bids (The Missoulian 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).
Searchlight, Nevada Ed Seggerson's claim to a U.S. Senator's hometown. In October 2000, a retired miner named Ed Seggerson startled the residents of tiny Searchlight, Nevada when he tried to sell much of their town based on mining patents he bought at auction. Seggerson claimed that the patents he bought in 1970 gave him ownership of 105 acres in Searchlight, the hometown of U.S. Senate Minority Whip, Harry Reid (D-NV) (LVRJ 2000). According to the 8th Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, litigation involving Seggerson's rights is ongoing, despite Seggerson's death on October 31, 2003 (Eighth District Court 2004, Review-Journal 2003)[map of patents in Searchlight]
Tuscarora, Nevada Horizon Gold Shares' plan to swallow a town with a mine. Tuscarora, Nevada is a former mining boom town in the northern part of the state that nearly died and was resettled in the late 1970s and 1980s by senior citizens, artists and those seeking a simpler life. According to former Elko County Manager George Boucher, most of the new residents knew that they did not have legal title to their land. Even today, there is no recorded map of the town. In 1989, a mining company called Horizon Gold Shares alleged that mining patents gave it control of Tuscarora. The company developed plans to swallow much of the town with an open pit gold mine. After a legal battle, a 1993 settlement gave owners of 32 of the town's 64 lots the right to live on their land (through an instrument called a quitclaim deed) but not the subsurface mineral rights. (Boucher 2004, Waite 1998). [map of patents & claims in Tuscarora]
The right to mine on private property. A mining company holds a court-affirmed right to explore for minerals on a claim beneath private land. Courts have ruled that mineral rights are dominant over the rights of the surface landowner, and that the company can mine the property to the extent "reasonably necessary" to extract the minerals from the land. This generally accepted rule relating to what are called "split estates" - properties on which surface and subsurface rights are held by different owners - has been approved by all jurisdictions that have considered the matter.
The Court of Appeals of New Mexico has adopted the position that, "the [mineral] lessee is considered to have the dominant estate and the surface owner the subservient estate. The lessee of the mineral estate has a fundamentally superior position, which entitles him to the free and uninhibited use of the surface estate to such an extent as is reasonably necessary to explore for and develop mineral production.: (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). A Montana court stated that it was "obvious...that a mineral reservation carries with it implied rights of use of the surface which are not necessarily exploring, mining, or extracting, but may be indirectly related to those activities." (Mont. 1981)
At the same time that courts have codified the dominance of the mineral estates, state courts have curtailed activities that would destroy the value of private property. This important limit has been interpreted by some states to mean that strip mining and other grossly destructive practices are not allowed on private land, even if they would be allowed on public land. Ultimately, mining companies don't have the right to knock down a home, but they do have the right to develop a claim, or open a mine on private property.
Mining patents give rise to dual land ownership and messy legal disputes. Patented claims under the 1872 mining law have led to a strange and sometimes contentious dual property system in many western states. The confusion began when mining companies encouraged employees to live on land that the companies held through patents. Then the mining companies went out of business, but the residents remained.
A property system developed in which land that is bought and sold through conventional means may also be bought and sold by patent. Some western counties have lists for property and patent on their tax rolls that cover the same piece of land. Sometimes land is held in split ownership, with one party owning the surface and the other holding the right to mine. One expert told USA Today that western counties routinely sell mining patents to the public. In fact, Searchlight's Seggerson bought his patents at such a sale (Alvord 2000).
Property disputes have been rare because most patented land is in remote areas. But clashes have increased as the West becomes more populated (USA Today 2000). The cases described above involving Ed Seggerson's claim to the town of Searchlight, Nevada and Horizon Gold Shares' plans to swallow parts of Tuscarora, Nevada with an open pit gold mine, are examples of property disputes arising from the government's unique treatment of public land with respect to the mining industry.

H20 Party Starter

06-15-2006, 04:22 PM

In case you didn't read it all GHT
" A mining company holds a court-affirmed right to explore for minerals on a claim beneath private land. Courts have ruled that mineral rights are dominant over the rights of the surface landowner, and that the company can mine the property to the extent "reasonably necessary" to extract the minerals from the land."

GHT

06-15-2006, 07:52 PM

Knowledge before Keystrokes buddy :rolleyes: :)
Protect yourself. Find out what kind of property rights you have. You can start by using EWG's website to determine if there is a claim or patent on or near your land. If so, it is possible that someone could hold the right to mine on your property. But the best way to protect yourself is to hire an expert in so-called "split estates" to perform a title search on your property. Land experts say that such a search should reveal any potential for mining on your land.
Your property falls into one of the following categories:
You own everything, both the surface and the subsurface mineral rights. You are not at risk for a challenge from a mining company or speculator.
You own a split estate you own the surface rights, but a private party or the federal government owns the rights to minerals beneath your property. You are at potential risk for a mine opening on your land. The risk is low, but if a mining company or individual finds it would be profitable to open a mine on your property, you can do little to stop them. Courts have ruled that the mineral rights are "dominant" over the rights to the surface of the land that you own.
You own a property that has been sold to two different parties, once to you through a normal real estate transaction, and once to a mining company or speculator through the sale of an old mining patent that covered your property. See the story of Searchlight, Nevada below.
The Stock Raising Homestead Act (SRHA). If you own land that was granted under this piece of legislation, passed by Congress in 1916, you are at particular risk from mining activity. Under the SRHA, the federal government granted surface rights to land but reserved the mineral rights. Therefore, if you own land originally granted under the SRHA, someone else may still be able to stake a claim to mine your land under the 1872 Mining Law that allows mining on federal property (FR SHRA 2003).
In 1993, Congress passed an amendment to the SRHA that provided some protections for landowners. The amendment holds in part that anyone attempting to locate minerals on SRHA land must first notify the landowner by registered or certified mail. The amendment also provides that a third party can conduct mining activities without a landowner's consent only if the Interior Department first approves a plan of operations to minimize damage, and the third party posts a bond to cover damage and permanent loss of income (SRHA Amendment 2003).
Number of claims and notices of intent on SRHA property State Number of claims on SRHA property Number of notices filed to explore for minerals on SRHA property
Wyoming 971 441
Arizona 369 386
Montana 157 66
New Mexico 124 112
Nevada 38 47
Utah 29 39
Idaho 9 27
California 8 7
Colorado 1 10
Oregon 0 20
South Dakota 0 3
Washington 0 1
Conflicts over mining rights. In the cases outlined below companies or speculators confronted land owners with legal challenges to property rights, or with demands for money in exchange for rights to the metals beneath the property.
Montana Canyon Resources' bid for payoff from 3,000 homeowners and local businesses. In 2002, as many as 3,000 landowners in western Montana were given a sudden ultimatum by the mining company Canyon Resources: pay us up to $500 an acre for the mineral rights beneath your property, or we will auction them off. Through a complex chain of title transfers, the company had obtained the mineral rights beneath 900,000 acres of private land, and was orchestrating an attempt at a quick cash-out on lands with little mining value.
Residents scrambled to understand the risks, holding town meetings and consulting local BLM officlals. The asking price was far above the market value of much of the affected land. A researcher at the Montana Legislature's Environmental Policy Office told the Missoulian newspaper that residents had little reason to fear that their property would be used as a hard-rock mine because if rich mineral deposits existed they probably would have been previously discovered or developed. Still, the official said that having full ownership of the land would bring peace of mind.
The auction was held on August 6, 2002. Only three of 82 mineral rights parcels were sold before the auction company closed the sale due to lack of bids (The Missoulian 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).
Searchlight, Nevada Ed Seggerson's claim to a U.S. Senator's hometown. In October 2000, a retired miner named Ed Seggerson startled the residents of tiny Searchlight, Nevada when he tried to sell much of their town based on mining patents he bought at auction. Seggerson claimed that the patents he bought in 1970 gave him ownership of 105 acres in Searchlight, the hometown of U.S. Senate Minority Whip, Harry Reid (D-NV) (LVRJ 2000). According to the 8th Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, litigation involving Seggerson's rights is ongoing, despite Seggerson's death on October 31, 2003 (Eighth District Court 2004, Review-Journal 2003)[map of patents in Searchlight]
Tuscarora, Nevada Horizon Gold Shares' plan to swallow a town with a mine. Tuscarora, Nevada is a former mining boom town in the northern part of the state that nearly died and was resettled in the late 1970s and 1980s by senior citizens, artists and those seeking a simpler life. According to former Elko County Manager George Boucher, most of the new residents knew that they did not have legal title to their land. Even today, there is no recorded map of the town. In 1989, a mining company called Horizon Gold Shares alleged that mining patents gave it control of Tuscarora. The company developed plans to swallow much of the town with an open pit gold mine. After a legal battle, a 1993 settlement gave owners of 32 of the town's 64 lots the right to live on their land (through an instrument called a quitclaim deed) but not the subsurface mineral rights. (Boucher 2004, Waite 1998). [map of patents & claims in Tuscarora]
The right to mine on private property. A mining company holds a court-affirmed right to explore for minerals on a claim beneath private land. Courts have ruled that mineral rights are dominant over the rights of the surface landowner, and that the company can mine the property to the extent "reasonably necessary" to extract the minerals from the land. This generally accepted rule relating to what are called "split estates" - properties on which surface and subsurface rights are held by different owners - has been approved by all jurisdictions that have considered the matter.
The Court of Appeals of New Mexico has adopted the position that, "the [mineral] lessee is considered to have the dominant estate and the surface owner the subservient estate. The lessee of the mineral estate has a fundamentally superior position, which entitles him to the free and uninhibited use of the surface estate to such an extent as is reasonably necessary to explore for and develop mineral production.: (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). A Montana court stated that it was "obvious...that a mineral reservation carries with it implied rights of use of the surface which are not necessarily exploring, mining, or extracting, but may be indirectly related to those activities." (Mont. 1981)
At the same time that courts have codified the dominance of the mineral estates, state courts have curtailed activities that would destroy the value of private property. This important limit has been interpreted by some states to mean that strip mining and other grossly destructive practices are not allowed on private land, even if they would be allowed on public land. Ultimately, mining companies don't have the right to knock down a home, but they do have the right to develop a claim, or open a mine on private property.
Mining patents give rise to dual land ownership and messy legal disputes. Patented claims under the 1872 mining law have led to a strange and sometimes contentious dual property system in many western states. The confusion began when mining companies encouraged employees to live on land that the companies held through patents. Then the mining companies went out of business, but the residents remained.
A property system developed in which land that is bought and sold through conventional means may also be bought and sold by patent. Some western counties have lists for property and patent on their tax rolls that cover the same piece of land. Sometimes land is held in split ownership, with one party owning the surface and the other holding the right to mine. One expert told USA Today that western counties routinely sell mining patents to the public. In fact, Searchlight's Seggerson bought his patents at such a sale (Alvord 2000).
Property disputes have been rare because most patented land is in remote areas. But clashes have increased as the West becomes more populated (USA Today 2000). The cases described above involving Ed Seggerson's claim to the town of Searchlight, Nevada and Horizon Gold Shares' plans to swallow parts of Tuscarora, Nevada with an open pit gold mine, are examples of property disputes arising from the government's unique treatment of public land with respect to the mining industry.
Look... I got it alllllll the way from the first post when they said, "began digging 10 days ago after his gold detector reported a positive hit near his front patio". Get it?.. All he was diggin' up was something his metal detector got a signal on. Do you really think there would be enough there that he would have to worry about infringing on a mining company's mineral rights?
It doesn't take someone with a whole lot of knowledge to realize the old coot is runnin' his boat with the drain plug out. That is why I thought it a little odd someone would bring up Laws and rights (and lack of rights) regarding mineral rights. You are the one that said, "Idiot wouldn't be allowed to keep it anyway". What if it were a gold coin? Guess they (mining corps.) would be trying to take him to court for it.... :rolleyes:
:)