WAR ROOM LOUNGE V23: November Sixth LOOMS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've casually referred to bits in that post. Not going to dig around for a heavy post at this time. Maybe we'll revisit. It's frankly not a really interesting subject to me, but I see that it consumes you now. Austrian Greoric was wrong about almost everything, but his interests aligned with mine more than White Nationalist Greoric's do.

Alright, well here are some data points for you to consider.

Only a majority of Caucasians support gun rights.

Only a majority of Caucasians support freedom of speech.

And only a majority of Caucasians support limited government.

All foundational values that white men codified in the founding documents, and again, values only a majority of whites support. Race, unfortunately matters. So for the people that want to maintain the fundamental values of our country, its going to have to remain a white majority.
 
But seriously what does that mean? That you're German? Or Jewish? Or both?

Can't fool you... you smart cookie.
InfantileDisloyalBordercollie-size_restricted.gif
 
Just saw a video of the street of the Old City in Mosul...

Jesus Christ.
 
I felt bad for the guy in 300.

And I don't understand comparing cesar sayoc to him

That Ross Pearson lookalike sold out the 300 and his entire nation for a hat with a bell on it. He's even worse than the irl wacko.
 
@JamesRussler @Quipling did the Ninth Circuit get this right?
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/06/16-35506.pdf?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRrNU5URmpNV1k1TVdZdyIsInQiOiJXZlFaalhkdFg1K1ZoNDVSS1FkSVFidU9ac2IrUkcwak5CZkd4SURHMXBxdEdDT2VUZzRLUnhxd3EwUlBwZEJJbXo4ZWl2T0VEU3dENkpSRzFndWFzNWdJZ1BzUGVlK2xJS3NhdjJCU0Q4MmNycTdYb09RbXNMUG83OTRYMlwvUzMifQ==

Two dinosaurs (a theropod and ceratopsian) fight, die some 66 million years ago in what is now Garfield County, Mont. Their fossils, still intertwined, are now extremely valuable. But do they belong to the surface-estate landowner or to party that owns the rights to mine minerals on the land? To the mineral rights owner, says the Ninth Circuit; fossils are minerals under Montana law. Judge Murguia, dissenting: Fossils are indeed organic matter that become a mineral compound over time, but they are not mined, they are not typically extracted for economic purpose, and they just aren’t minerals as the term is ordinarily understood.

I’m going off your summary. Does MT law categorically define minerals?
 
Jesus. I'm out on Bourbon. Grabbing some absinthe and I just fucking starched some old dude.

I feel a hand in my pocket and swing on a motherfucker. Legit some bitch says "it's not his fault he's from Trenton"

Anyway. Now I'm drinking some absinthe, any other fans?
 
Jesus. I'm out on Bourbon. Grabbing some absinthe and I just fucking starched some old dude.

I feel a hand in my pocket and swing on a motherfucker. Legit some bitch says "it's not his fault he's from Trenton"

Anyway. Now I'm drinking some absinthe, any other fans?

Thanks for reminding me I have an unopened bottle someone brought back from Spain ( I think). Not a big fan of the taste. Guess that's why it's still unopened.
 
Thanks for reminding me I have an unopened bottle someone brought back from Spain ( I think). Not a big fan of the taste. Guess that's why it's still unopened.
All I've got is a bottle of Hennessey that's been collecting dust for 6 months.
 
I’m going off your summary. Does MT law categorically define minerals?
No the Ninth Circuit explained
The Montana Supreme Court, when tasked with interpreting the meaning of the word “minerals” in a similar deed, noted that the need to determine the ordinary and popular meaning of the term “mineral” has created “considerable confusion in mineral law litigation nationwide.” Farley v. Booth Brothers Land & Livestock Co., 890 P.2d 377, 379 (Mont. 1995). Attempting to make sense of the legal morass regarding the term “mineral,” the court observed: [t]he only reliable rule which surfaces from the confusing and inconsistent approaches taken by those courts attempting to ferret out the subjective intent of the parties is that the word ‘mineral’ means what the court says it means. The result is title uncertainty and the need to litigate each general reservation of minerals to determine which minerals it encompasses. Id. (quoting Miller v. Land & Mineral v. Highway Comm’n, 757 P.2d 1001, 1002 (Wyo. 1988)). Explaining that the question of the interpretation of the word “mineral” in a land transfer agreement was one of first impression in Montana, the court surveyed the definition of “mineral” in several Montana statutes and case law from other states. Finding these statutory definitions inconclusive,8 the court rested on the following test from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1949):


Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1949): substances such as sand, gravel and limestone are not minerals within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word unless they are rare and exceptional in character or possess a peculiar property giving them special value, as for example sand that is valuable for making glass and limestone of such quality that it may be profitably be manufactured into cement. Such substances, when they are useful only for building and road-making purposes, are not regarded as minerals in the ordinary and generally accepted meaning of the word. Id. at 380 (quoting Holland v. Dolese Co., 540 P.2d 549, 550–51 (Okla. 1975) (citing Heinatz, 217 S.W.2d at 997)).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for reminding me I have an unopened bottle someone brought back from Spain ( I think). Not a big fan of the taste. Guess that's why it's still unopened.

I actually love the taste. I had it at a famous pirate bar here, the place the defense of NOLA against the Anglos during the war of 1812 was planned.

Last time I had absinthe I was at this insane Magicians party, he owned a warehouse converted into rooms, each room was crazy and after like twelve of them I was invited to the roof. The Magician filled a cup full of absinthe for me, and I'm climbing a ladder to the roof and like an idiot I look up, but I'm holding the cup in my mouth on the ladder. I chug basically an entire plastic cup of absinthe in one go.. the problem was I was about eight feet up on the ladder, so if I fell I would have fucked up a leg.

I was basically convulsing on a ladder chugging Absinthe, but in the end I survived and also got laid. So.. alls well that ends well.
 
No the Ninth Circuit explained
The Montana Supreme Court, when tasked with interpreting the meaning of the word “minerals” in a similar deed, noted that the need to determine the ordinary and popular meaning of the term “mineral” has created “considerable confusion in mineral law litigation nationwide.” Farley v. Booth Brothers Land & Livestock Co., 890 P.2d 377, 379 (Mont. 1995). Attempting to make sense of the legal morass regarding the term “mineral,” the court observed: [t]he only reliable rule which surfaces from the confusing and inconsistent approaches taken by those courts attempting to ferret out the subjective intent of the parties is that the word ‘mineral’ means what the court says it means. The result is title uncertainty and the need to litigate each general reservation of minerals to determine which minerals it encompasses. Id. (quoting Miller v. Land & Mineral v. Highway Comm’n, 757 P.2d 1001, 1002 (Wyo. 1988)). Explaining that the question of the interpretation of the word “mineral” in a land transfer agreement was one of first impression in Montana, the court surveyed the definition of “mineral” in several Montana statutes and case law from other states. Finding these statutory definitions inconclusive,8 the court rested on the following test from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1949):

Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1949): substances such as sand, gravel and limestone are not minerals within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word unless they are rare and exceptional in character or possess a peculiar property giving them special value, as for example sand that is valuable for making glass and limestone of such quality that it may be profitably be manufactured into cement. Such substances, when they are useful only for building and road-making purposes, are not regarded as minerals in the ordinary and generally accepted meaning of the word. Id. at 380 (quoting Holland v. Dolese Co., 540 P.2d 549, 550–51 (Okla. 1975) (citing Heinatz, 217 S.W.2d at 997)).

Seems like some tortured reasoning to me. So if you use it to make cement, it's a mineral, but if you use it to make a building, it's not? What if you use it to make a cement building? Sound like the Court is suggesting that as long as the substance changes form a few times, it's a mineral.
 
Seems like some tortured reasoning to me. So if you use it to make cement, it's a mineral, but if you use it to make a building, it's not? What if you use it to make a cement building? Sound like the Court is suggesting that as long as the substance changes form a few times, it's a mineral.

I don't know there was a fairly vigorous dissent. This just feels like the worst 1l property exam question ever
 
All I've got is a bottle of Hennessey that's been collecting dust for 6 months.

Hennessy wouldn't last one day in my place. Love the stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top