Good news! Rinehart appeal court decision!

[Bnugget]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C074662.PDF

Good news! The California Third District Court of Appeals validates the federal preemption defense, but sends the case back for trial as to, among other things, whether the refusal to issue suction dredge mining permits renders it “commercially impracticable” to exercise mining rights.

Unfortunately, the Court also declared that the opinion should not be published, meaning, in theory, that other litigants in California are forbidden to cite it. I have always regarded this rule as an obvious violation of the First Amendment right to petition the government, and at some point, some one should invest in striking down the “no citation” rules

Please note that under Rule 8.1120 of the California Rules of Court, “any person” may request that an unpublished opinion be published. Mining and other interests throughout the West may wish to do so in compliance with that rule (see the Rule here).

Many thanks to those who have supported this litigation, and whose continuing support will be required to make a good record in the Superior Court of Plumas County going forward.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214

Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[dredgeman]

That went about the way it should. When the trial court didn't allow evidence they stopped the court record to prove them wrong.

Back to the lower court. A positive step towards what should be the end result of your winning.

Thanks for the Info. Let everyone know what else you need. Your case is the pivot to start taking back what was once normal.

 

[Oakview2]

It ain't the end all be all, BUT BY GOLLY IT IS A WIN FOR THE RULE OF LAW. Something we have not experienced in this five year fight.

 

[Hefty1]

GOOD JOB BRANDON AND TEAM!
In my eyes....this is a great win!


Copied and put into the "LAW" bag for the claim.

 

[Hefty1]

I do believe we can get a lot of requests in before 20 days are up!

2014 California Rules of Court

Rule 8.1120. Requesting publication of unpublished opinions
(a) Request
(1)

Any person may request that an unpublished opinion be ordered published.
(2)

The request must be made by a letter to the court that rendered the opinion, concisely stating the person's interest and the reason why the opinion meets a standard for publication.
(3)

The request must be delivered to the rendering court within 20 days after the opinion is filed.
(4)

The request must be served on all parties.
(b) Action by rendering court
(1)

If the rendering court does not or cannot grant the request before the decision is final in that court, it must forward the request to the Supreme Court with a copy of its opinion, its recommendation for disposition, and a brief statement of its reasons. The rendering court must forward these materials within 15 days after the decision is final in that court.
(2)

The rendering court must also send a copy of its recommendation and reasons to all parties and any person who requested publication.
(c) Action by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may order the opinion published or deny the request. The court must send notice of its action to the rendering court, all parties, and any person who requested publication.
(d) Effect of Supreme Court order to publish
A Supreme Court order to publish is not an expression of the court's opinion of the correctness of the result of the decision or of any law stated in the opinion.
Rule 8.1120 renumbered effective January 1, 2007; repealed and adopted as rule 978 effective January 1, 2005.
Advisory Committee Comment
Subdivision (a). This rule previously required generally that a publication request be made "promptly," but in practice the term proved so vague that requests were often made after the Court of Appeal had lost jurisdiction. To assist persons intending to request publication and to give the Court of Appeal adequate time to act, this rule was revised to specify that the request must be made within 20 days after the opinion is filed. The change is substantive.
Subdivision (b). This rule previously did not specify the time within which the Court of Appeal was required to forward to the Supreme Court a publication request that it had not or could not have granted. In practice, however, it was not uncommon for the court to forward such a request after the Supreme Court had denied a petition for review in the same case or, if there was no such petition, had lost jurisdiction to grant review on its own motion. To assist the Supreme Court in timely processing publication requests, therefore, this rule was revised to require the Court of Appeal to forward the request within 15 days after the decision is final in that court. The change is substantive.
[ Back to Top ]

 

[mxer47]

Thanks to all who fought for our rights. While residing in a neighboring state I knew it was going to be a matter of time. Now I don't think so.

 

[Hefty1]

From James L Buchal...

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/memo-Rinehart-developments-9-23-14.pdf

 

[NeoTokyo]

I saw this on Facebook first, like and reposted on my page!

Good news for all of us.

 

[timberjack]

What is the courts adress and what are the adresses of all parties involved? I want to do some requesting. Great job and thanks to everyone involved!

 

[2cmorau]

OK, great news, now is this the correct address for sending in a request for Publication ?

Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 654-0209

 

[2cmorau]

California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information​

 

[russau]

Great news SO FAR! lets see what kind of a end run these wacoenviromentalists come up with! and if/when they do I think they ought tobe sued for violating our Constitutional rights! and also ask for TONS of money to repay us!

 

[2cmorau]

yup RUS, thought the same thing so i went to TSF, and found these links but also want to post this,
Water Bond (Proposition #1) contains The Sierra Fund?s language to remediate mines, and more | The Sierra Fund
The Sierra Fund believes that this language leaves open the possibility of using funding from this section of Proposition #1 (if passed by the voters) for projects such as the one proposed by the Nevada Irrigation District at Combie Reservoir. Their project is seeking funding to test and implement new methods for removing the debris from behind this small dam on the Bear River between Placer and Nevada Counties. The project would not only restore capacity in the reservoir but would also safely remove and dispose of toxic mercury from the fine grain sands and clays held behind the dam that are a result of upstream legacy gold mining activities.

IRMA requests comments on new standard for responsible mining by Oct 22 | The Sierra Fund

Stakeholder Feedback - The IRMA Process - Initiative for Responsible Mining

 

[Oakview2]

I BEG ALL THOSE WHO READ THIS THREAD TO FILL THE THIRD COURTS PHONE AND MAILBOXES WITH REQUESTS TO PUBLISH...

 

[fowledup]

The CBD hasn't commented either. Looking at their website it appears they are moving on to oil spilling trains and the "immediate need for stricter regulation"- read: deeper pockets and far less public opposition- Choo Choo my brothers!

 

[Hefty1]

Hey Brandon....You think Mr Buchal could write up a proper request for this, with a list of all the players it needs to be sent to?

Or does anyone else know how? We need to get this RIGHT!

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bnugget]

Hey Brandon....You think Mr Buchal could write up a proper request for this, with a list of all the players it needs to be sent to? Or does anyone else know how? We need to get this RIGHT! Thanks in advance.

I believe there are people/groups working on this already, I'll try and find out. Remember James does not work for free and writing letters costs money which were out of at the moment and I still have to take this to trial.

Remember, the third appellant courts have confirmed that the states restrictions on permits is in violation of federal mining laws only if we can prove dredging is the only economically viable means of recovering underwater deposits which we should hopefully be able to prove. This is why we were sent back to trial court so that these facts can be entered into the record.

 

[Hefty1]

I believe there are people/groups working on this already, I'll try and find out. Remember James does not work for free and writing letters costs money which were out of at the moment and I still have to take this to trial.

Remember, the third appellant courts have confirmed that the states restrictions on permits is in violation of federal mining laws only if we can prove dredging is the only economically viable means of recovering underwater deposits which we should hopefully be able to prove. This is why we were sent back to trial court so that these facts can be entered into the record.

Yup...every word = $$$
Yea...my claim is 1/2 water right down the middle, with cliffs on both sides, and NO roads to it. Not getting any big equipment in there!

 

[theseeker]

Hey Brandon....You think Mr Buchal could write up a proper request for this, with a list of all the players it needs to be sent to?

Or does anyone else know how? We need to get this RIGHT!

Thanks in advance.

PROCEDURE TO FILE A REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION. This is stuff I researched on the net I am not an attorney. If any of this is incorrect please don't hesitate to set me straight!


This link is very informative.

VICTORY OVER CHASE: How To Request the California Court of Appeal Publish its Decision in Glaski v. Bank of America

Here is the case number: C074662

Here is the address of the court to send the request.

Court of Appeal
Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Here is the list of case parties and their attorney's. The request must be served on all parties.

Marc N. Melnick
Office of the State Attorney General
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Brandon Lance Rinehart : Defendant and Appellant

James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 S.E. Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214

Pacific Legal Foundation et al. : Amicus curiae for appellant

Jonathan Wood
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Karuk Tribe et al. : Amicus curiae for respondent

Jonathan Carter Evans
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104

Lynne R. Saxton
Saxton & Associates
912 Cole Street, #140
San Francisco, CA 94117

Hope this helps.

 

[CApicker]

Wow great work and Kudos. let's keep on the support of this!