Ron Gibson, Mining Engineer and Counselor

[morrand]

This post originated in a discarded draft of mine about the case of Shaw v. Hall, just out of the Seventh Circuit. I'd been chuckling heartily at it, when I found it, but in writing it up I realized there was not much there to justify the effort. In short: dog bites man, dog-catcher visits Shaw (who styles himself Marion-robert, which is the first sign of trouble), Shaw demands compensation for trampling his curtilage.

The most amusing thing when reviewing the case in PACER is that one of Marion-robert's witnesses was styled "Cindy-Lou," and you'll have to provide the punch line for that one if you want it.

Anyway: one of the points that Marion-Robert (his capitalization is inconsistent) tried to raise is that his land was held by way of land patent--an argument that, as you'd expect, the Seventh Circuit ultimately was not impressed by--and in order to try to establish this argument, Marion-robert attempted to introduce an "autobiography" of his expert witness.

May I present Ron Gibson, of Medford (or maybe Grants Pass), Oregon:

AUTOBIOGRAPHY
Ron Gibson
Medford, Oregon

To whom It may concern:

I, Ron Gibson, for the past forty-five (45) + years, have been in the construction and mining business.

I am an Engineer by training, my secondary studies was Constitutional Law. I worked for nineteen (19) years as a Mining and Mineral Consultant; I am also a mineral producer by profession.

I have been Involved in both precious metals and Industrial Minerals development in all phases.

My back ground also includes project evaluation, feasibility study, geology, drilling and testing, sampling, plant layout and design, running the day to day operation, marketing, environmental studies, estimating, and many other phases of a mining operation Including drilling and blasting.

As a managing consultant for large investment groups, I learned very early the Five P's Principle: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance!

I have directed large work crews In many different types of mining and mineral projects and pride my self in doing my Job well.

My background in Law includes a Counselor at Law; I am in the process of obtaining my Private Attorney General authority from the Senate Judiciary. I have been in the study of Constitutional Law, Contract Law, Water Right Law, Right of Way Law, and my specialties are Mining Law and Land Patent Law. On a number of occasions, I have testified as an expert witness, regarding Land Patent law eases, Water Right, Mining, Right of Way and other land issue cases.

Currently, I teach Mining Law and Land Patent Law at our local collage [sic] and at The Southwest Oregon Mining Association. I am the interim chairman of the Jefferson Mining District, which Is the largest mining district in the United Sates.

In addition, I am a marriage counselor for the past 30 years.

Quite the C.V. As to the specifics of this case:

4. Marion-robert has asked me to opine concerning the lawful application of Land Patent Law, with its history and intentions, along with its authority under Treaty Law, and protections under the U.S. Constitutional rights of privacy protections. I have research knowledge of Supreme Court Case Law, and how that pertains to the facts of this case.

My expertise in this field is gleaned through over 48+ years of study in law as well as experience working in this field. I have been called upon as expert witness in this area previously.

I apply that same knowledge and expertise here. Addressing the questions with the understanding, in my opinion, that the Constitutional, Treaty, Land Patent Laws give superior protection to the rights of the citizen and his private land over any State, County, or Town intrusion or action.

5. In my experience, working in this field of land rights and protections, having researched multitudinous Supreme Court case law, the Land Patent is superior title and its protections are far-reaching for the land owner. There is no Supreme Court Land Patent case that has ever been overturned.

7. [sic] I conclude by attaching pages from my book, Land Patent Hanbook, below, regarding the following:

III. HISTORICAL PREMISE
RELEVANCE
TRESPASS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY

And then Document 23-2 goes on for 13 pages about the wondrous and mystical (and apocryphal) powers of land patents. You can read the thing here; I'm not going to clog up the board with it, especially as it pretty well retraces the same stuff about land patents that we've seen here before, though with a lot of emphasis on how 180 years of court precedent support all of it.

I have no idea how prolific Mr. Gibson has been in this sort of thing over the years. I do find it appropriate that he would be invoked in a Western Wisconsin case (an area that I'd described originally as the Eastern Oregon of the Middle West), but if he's been called as a witness as often as he seems to claim he has, I felt it's probably worth leaving a note about him here.

[Pottapaug1938]

He probably got his legal training from YouTube University and the Google School of Law.

[wserra]

Mr. Gibson is indeed entertaining. Unfortunately, he does seem to have wasted those "48+ years" he spent studying law. Perhaps he should have devoted himself to knitting. Proof? Well, morrand has written about the wise assistance he rendered to "Marion-r(R)obert". Consider the things he has done on on his own behalf.

(1) In the matter perhaps most revealing of his legal talents, he attempted to remove a traffic ticket to federal court, in the process claiming violation of his "right to travel". Yes, a traffic ticket. 1:08-cv-03022 (DOR). Incredibly, the DJ didn't agree that a traffic ticket was federal court material.

(2) This one is a little more complicated. Gibson's son and daughter-in-law take out a mortgage to buy a house. They default, and the mortgage holder begins foreclosure proceedings. Son and daughter-in-law file suit to stop the foreclosure, which suit the holder removes to federal court in diversity. 1:12cv1542 (DOR). Things are not going well for them, so a week before the foreclosure sale son and daughter-in-law quitclaim the house to Pop Ron. Not exactly a Clarence-Darrow-level legal strategy. The Court: "Oh, you don't own the house anymore? Dismissed, no standing." So the benighted Gibsons say "We'll show them", and refile, this time with Pop Ron as a plaintiff. 1:13cv1819 (DOR). Well, no, not that either; while Pop Ron may have standing, per the Ninth Circuit he has no cause of action. Bye, house.

(3) Gibson and friends sue the Governor of Oregon, both the Republican and Democratic Parties of Oregon, and a cast of thousands over proposed Oregon state legislation that they claim would infringe on their rights as miners. 1:13-cv-01147 (DOR). If anyone wishes to know what arglebargle they use in support of this claim, feel free to pay PACER to download the 112-page complaint (it's split into three parts, so PACER's per-doc limit doesn't apply, and it's not on RECAP). In any event, you can see Judge Panner scratching his head - "Wait a second. I'm supposed to rule against something that is not law, and may never be law?" The order dismissing the case is exactly what you would expect. A month after the dismissal, Gibson files a 21-page whine about how unfair it all is. This one is in RECAP, so enjoy. The Court, of course, ignores him.

You think Gibson charged poor old Marion-r(R)obert?