Jump to content

Scott Harn - Editor

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Scott Harn - Editor

  1. Chris Ralph and I were just discussing that last night.

    About a year ago we were having problems with people using the forum for spamming and advertising, and it was very difficult to keep a handle on it. We were going to let the forum die a slow death.

    But we have reconsidered. There's a lot of good people on here and some past info that many still read because it's "good stuff."

    And we think we have solved a few of the problems with spammers. The forum was recently overhauled/updated on January 11, 2017, and we seem to have the spammers from China and Russia blocked for good now. (We'll see if that lasts.)

    We will still have to manually delete the advertisements and block the accounts of users who fail to read the terms of service or can't resist posting promotional material.

    Chris is going to put the word out that we are back, and would appreciate your help doing the same.

    Thank you very much for your support and your comments!


  2. We only do this every two years. It's going to be April 16-17 this time, with additional hands-on training classes on Friday April 15 & Monday April 18. Our underground class sold out in the first 48 hours, but there is still some room in the above ground placer class.


    Booth spaces are sold out for the vendor/lecture/exhibit portion on Saturday & Sunday. Lecture schedule is now set.


    More info: www.icmj.com/miningsummit.php

  3. FYI -- Two of the three Third Court of Appeals judges who recently ruled in favor of suction gold dredger Brandon Rinehart will be on the ballot for some of you in northern California. The two judges are Ronald B. Robie and Andrea Lynn Hoch.


    Robie and Hoch ruled that the lower court erred and should have allowed Rinehart to provide evidence that federal mining law preempts state mining law.


    Robie received a score of "7" on Huey's Judicial Index and a "9" for qualifications.


    Hoch received a score of "7" on Huey's Judicial Index and a "7" for qualifications.


    I would vote "Yes" for both of these Appeals Court judges if they were in my county.  They cover "District 3" and should be on the ballot in the following counties:

    Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo and Yuba.


    My home county -- Santa Cruz -- is in District 6 for the California Court of Appeals. Huey and I agree on these and I will be voting as follows:

    NO! - Marquez (activist judge)

    NO! - Grover (activist judge)

    YES!!! - Bamattre-Manoukian (Enthusiastic yes -- I'd vote for her multiple times if I could!)

    YES - Elia

    YES - Premo

  4. David, one of our readers from northern California, emailed me a very appropriate question today: Which judges should we be voting for?


    Here is my "two cents."


    First off, there's no way we have time to do background checks here at the Mining Journal on judges. It's beyond our resources.


    In my eyes, I want to eliminate "activist" judges who act based on their own agenda or set of beliefs. I want someone who upholds the US Constitution and values a free economy, family values and religious freedom. I know -- they are difficult to find sometimes in my home state of California.


    Fortunately, there is a gentleman by the name of Craig Huey who shares my views on this issue. He has taken the time and made the effort to research every judge on the ballot in California.  He was kind enough to come up with a rating system that takes into account experience and judicial activism.  He gives each candidate up to ten points for qualifications and up to another ten points based on their "Judicial Index" which consists of positions, rulings, statements, etc. The average of the two is their "score."


    If the candidate receives a "7" for qualifications but is an extreme activist and only gets a "1" for what Huey calls their "Judicial Index," the average of the two would be a score of "4."  The higher the score, the better the candidate.


    I don't agree with all of his recommendations, but I do agree with the majority of them. I tend to frown more heavily than Huey does on those judges who "legislate from the bench" instead of strictly adhering to law.


    One recommendation of his in particular I don't agree with is a "Yes" vote for Kathryn Mickle Werdegar for the California Supreme Court. She received a score of "9" for her qualifications, but could only muster a "4" in the Judicial Index category. In other words, according to Huey, she is more likely to follow her own agenda and beliefs than adhere to the law.  You could have a perfect "10" in terms of qualifications, but I'm not going to vote for you if you don't follow the Constitution and the rule of law.  I will be voting "no" for each of the California Supreme Court judges on the ballot this November 4.


    Superior Court judges run against each other and you can glean some decent information from their statements and endorsements.  Dig around and learn their backgrounds before you vote.


    Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court judges win or retain their seats if more than 50% say "Yes" on their voter cards and it's a little tougher to gather quality information.


    Huey does a fairly thorough job and provides ratings for every Superior Court, Appeals Court and Supreme Court judge in California seeking a seat at the bench.


    Huey's website is a good place to start: www.judgevoterguide.com


    If you have a similar or useful source for evaluating judges in your home state, please chime in and share that information with us.






    Scott Harn, Editor/Publisher

  5. ...or you can look at the article at www.icmj.com and click on the "print" link at the top right of each article page for a clean copy if you are an online subscriber.


    Here's the page, and you'll see the print link to the right of the title. (You have to log in to see it, so those of you who don't have an online subscription won't see it.)


    Also, in case you didn't know it, you can click on "About Us" then "Writers" and look up all the articles we've published by a particular writer for the past 15 years.



  6. Thanks JR.  I did a little online advertising in a few other countries to test out the interest. The online version is obviously much cheaper for us (and for foreign readers) when we don't have to mail a copy overseas. In just a few hours, we had 5,543 downloads in places like Peru, Ghana, Guyana, Brazil, South Africa, Ivory Coast, Burkino Faso...


    We are obviously excited about this opportunity to further expand our readership and many of our advertisers will certainly like the results.

  7. After nearly a year in the works, we are releasing an online flip version of ICMJs Prospecting and Mining Journal.

    The new version is compatible with a PC, Mac, iPad or Android device.

    Our goal is to reach out to the next generation of prospectors and miners who might prefer reading our monthly issues on a desktop computer or portable device.  Before you start worrying, we have no plans whatsoever to discontinue the printed version of our publication!

    We are striving to get all the bugs worked out in time to add this new version for our upcoming July 2014 issue, but it may be a few weeks into August to get it done.

    Those subscribers who have an online subscription (or online access added to their print subscription) will receive an email when the new flip version is released.

    One very nice benefit is that all website and email address links in the flip version are "live."  If you click on a website link in the text or on an advertisement, you will be taken to that website.  The same is true for email addresses.

    If you would like to check it out, here is a link to a sample copy (April 2014 issue).

    Additional features will included in the final version, including jumping from the Table of Contents to specific articles.

    Give it a try, and feel free to post comments/suggestions below.

    Scott Harn
    ICMJs Prospecting and Mining Journal

  8. We did manage to make it up to Placerville for our 2nd ICMJ Gold Show. Thanks Scott and Chris and the entire ICMJ staff and writers for another great event. I was able to attend the placer mining class on Monday and was able to obtain some very helpful instructions and suggestions during the session. In fact, several members of the gold prospecting club 'Mother Lode Gold Seekers' helped me troubleshoot a problem I've been having with my MineLab  that revealed the problem to be with the batteries amplifier circuit so I would say just this alone made the trip a success for me. I also purchased a couple of small nuggets (about a pennyweight each) during the show to practice with and we took advantage of our trip to visit a few old hydraulic mines up near Downieville. All-around a great vacation and we'll be looking forward to the next one.


    Glad you made it out Mark and that it was worthwhile for you!  

  9. Scott,

    Do you video record any of your training?  Something we could watch via YouTube or some other online media?


    Sorry, but we had many instructors going over numerous detecting brands simultaneously at the hands-on training site so it just wasn't feasible.  We split them up by brand, then down to model within the brand when possible.

  10. Thanks guys, but the "kudos" should rightfully go to our magazine staff and writers, the speakers, volunteers from the Mother Lode Goldhounds and Gold Country Treasure Seekers, the Fergot family and the Kleiwer family who drove several hundred miles just to help, and my extended family who took time off from their regular jobs just to help out. Even my old high school friend Mike flew in from Oregon to lend a hand, and my Aunt Marian (who worked for the Journal in the '60s) helped Saturday and Sunday.  


    Yes, I put a lot of hours into organizing the event, but I've learned that you make yourself look good by surrounding yourself with good people.  Most of our readers think we have a large staff in the office, but there's only four of us on most days. Pulling off something this large would be impossible without all of the excellent volunteers.


    Regarding the "next" show, we are sticking to an every other year schedule.  It literally takes us over six months to put the whole thing together, and if we tried to do it every year, I'm afraid my friends and family would no longer answer their phones when I call!!!



    We are looking at mid-April 2016 for our next Gold Prospecting and Mining Summit.