- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 60,915
- Reaction score
- 46,566
Are you not white? If not, what are you?Did I say I was white?
Are you not white? If not, what are you?Did I say I was white?
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.
Are you not white? If not, what are you?
Y-You're Einstein?! I knew you were still alive!Look at my avatar.
Look at my avatar.
But seriously what does that mean? That you're German? Or Jewish? Or both?
I felt bad for the guy in 300.
And I don't understand comparing cesar sayoc to him
@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.
nah, that's what I stand for.I apologize I'm a bit tired and the acronym isn't registering and google isn't helping. Black Asses Matter?
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?
All I've got is a bottle of Hennessey that's been collecting dust for 6 months.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.
No the Ninth Circuit explainedI’m going off your summary. Does MT law categorically define minerals?
All I've got is a bottle of Hennessey that's been collecting dust for 6 months.
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.
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.
All I've got is a bottle of Hennessey that's been collecting dust for 6 months.