That is incorrect. Nowhere in the Judge's decision does it say anything close to that. Show me the exact language in the decision where it says it did meet the requirements as of the date of the patent hearing. I have a full copy right here on my desk, and it says that nowhere. Instead, it says this:
"The preponderance of the evidence in this proceeding establishes that valuable minerals do not exist within the limits of the Wells Creek claims in such quantity or quality as would on justify a person of ordinary prudence in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine. The evidence further establishes that there is not a sufficient valuable mineral deposit on any of the claims that could be mined, removed, and marketed at a profit."
If it said what you mistakenly claim it does, it would be worded very differently. Also, McFarland could have appealed or refilled the application with the new evidence. He did not, because there is none. The "mine" is worthless.
And a ALJ IS a Federal Judge. It is even more damning that any generic federal judge, because an ALJ judge only deals with specific cases in their specific field of expertise. BLM ALJ's are experts in land use, minerals and mining and understands all facets of the case. And knows beyond any doubt the "mine" is worthless.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
