http://www.restoretherepublicradio.com/Behind_the_Woodshed_Show_Archives Behind the Woodshed on Restore The Republic Radio Restore The Republic Radio Restore The Republic Radio managers@restoretherepublicradio.com Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:53:44 -0700 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss managers@restoretherepublicradio.com managers@revolutionbroadcasting.com Welcome Behind the Woodshed at RevolutionBroadcasting.com I am scheduled to be with you 2 hours daily Monday through Friday at 3PM eastern Noon O'clock Pacific.I hope you can make Behind The Woodshed your regular source of information not available anywhere else. If you trust what government agents tell you, hear why this is a mistake.Email for comments, questions, consideration, suggestions etc.: markonthebeast@yahoo.comThe whole history of legislation relating to mining claims discloses a purpose on the part of Congress to provide the locator of such claims with the fullest opportunity to test in the courts the rights acquired by his locations. Thus 30 of Title 30 U.S.C.A. provides an elaborate manner for court trial of adverse claims to mining claims as a part of the procedure provided for issuing patents under 29. It would seem strange indeed if alongside these elaborate provisions for court hearings as to adverse claims Congress had established a system whereby a locator might lose his mining claim altogether through a non-reviewable decision of an administrative official, especially in view of the fact that a valid mining claim is property in the fullest sense.7 Such decisions have in fact been reviewed by the courts for many years and long before the Administrative Procedure Act came into existence. This fact, in our view, precludes any possible conclusion that they would fall into a non-reviewable category. In Ballinger v. United States ex rel. Frost, 216 U.S. 240, 248, 30 S.Ct. 338, 54 L.Ed. 464, the Court affirmed the action of the lower court in reviewing and disapproving the decision of the Secretary of the Interior not to issue a patent. The Court said (216 U.S. at page 248, 30 S.Ct. at page 340): 'We have no disposition to minimize the authority or control of the Secretary of the Interior, and the court should be reluctant to interfere with his action. But, as said by Mr. Justice Field in Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U.S. 456, 461, 9 S.Ct. 122, 32 L.Ed. 482: 'The power of supervision and correction is not an unlimited or an arbitrary power. It can be exerted only when the entry was made upon false testimony, or without authority of law. It cannot be exercised so as to deprive any person of land lawfully entered and paid for. By such entry and payment the purchaser secures a vested interest in the property and a right to a patent therefor, and can no more be deprived of it by order of the Commissioner than be can be deprived by such order of any other lawfully acquired property. Any attempted deprivation in that way of such interest will be corrected whenever the matter is presented so that the judiciary can act upon it." This express authorization of judicial review in this case disposes of the argument that the suit is in substance one against the United States where the United States has not given its consent to be sued. The United States has consented to this review. The fact that the United States has some interest in the controversy does not provide an exception to the grant of a right of review.8 Of course appellant's continued possession of and right to work the mining claims is not dependent upon a patent being issued.10 5 After citing cases to the effect that a mining claim is property in the fullest sense, and referring to the decision of the Wong Yang Sung case, supra, that the constitutional requirements of procedural due process requiring a hearing within the provisions of the Act must be complied with, the Secretary concluded as follows: 'Inasmuch as a mining claim is a property claim which may be invalidated without due process of law, hearings on the validity of such claims seem clearly to be within the scope of the court decisions referred to above holding that administrative proceedings in which a hearing is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of due process must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, even though there is no statute requiring that the matter be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing. In accordance with those decisions, the Department concludes that the hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are applicable to hearings on the validity of mining claims.' (63 I.D. 345). . . . And much more. I thank you for your continuing support.Behind The Woodshed, we put marks ON the Beast.-Hal Anthonymarkonthebeast@yahoo.com Behind the Woodshed / Restore The Republic Radio Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:00:00 -0800 01:00:00