State opening on Rinehart

[ratled]

State's opening on Rinehart

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Rinehart-opening-brief-as-filed.pdf

For those who haven't seen it

ratled

James Buchal
C/O Brandon Rinehart case
3425 S.E. Yamhill, Suite 100,
Portland , OR 97214

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[yodi]

Its absolutely insane that a state that was literally built on the backs of gold miners has turned this green.

 

[Asmbandits]

Man, thats hard to take... A very legitimate argument on preemption, though I think the bigger argument is that no where in any state or federal law does it state that a federal mining claim is for recreational purposes and is limited to just that (and by banning the last form of profitable extraction we have makes it as such.) Ok, so lets take preemption out of the picture, with things the way there are right now the state law makes it impractical to remove my minerals but federal law does not, thats the bigger issue to me (which I still believe is ultimately the situation regardless, it is preemption of practical extraction of my minerals). The states hydraulic mining references towards preemption are what they are because yes, it doesn't take a scientific study to prove that it is much more harmful to the environment and should be banned or at least regulated extensively so it has been, yet its to the point now that the state has taken away every means for minerals or more exclusively placer gold to be "extracted and marketed at a profit" which is by definition one of the main things that makes a mining claim what it is. So say preemption fails in this case, ok how do I profitably extract the minerals that I own? With the laws being as such the government basically charges me to hold the minerals that I already own, yet lets me continue to pay them to get a small glimpse of my minerals in a pan while wasting my time effort and investments in the process? Highly unpractical making the claim null and void by definition. Seems like a big scam and smells like a form of entrapment at this point and should be argued as so.

Also I see no comparison of hydraulic mining and suction dredge mining the environmental affects are astronomically different, so the comparison of preemption should be viewed with that in mind. And these studies that conclude the environmental impact that justify the dredge ban is simply ludicrous.. With these ideals and veiws and arguments it seems very feasible that in ten years hiking boots on hiking trails will be enough of an environmental impact that there will be a ban in place on hiking boots (but you will still be able to hike barefoot im sure so dont worry..)

 

[Reed Lukens]

Bottom line is no dredging without a permit and no permits will be distributed because of the moratorium... In other words, people have spent a ton of money and nothing has significantly changed since the ban was put in place in 2009.

 

[H-2 CHARLIE]

Lets hope not . Whats going on about the New mineral laws ?

 

[fishnfacts]

I am by no means up to date on the laws of California and understand that you cannot DREDGE without a permit but could you bring in a big honking backhoe and just scoop the material? I think that would really piss them off it is legal. LOL

 

[2cmorau]

JMHO,2 grains worth, arguing the merits against this breif, should be done in private,
i am only on page 19 of the docs i see a temporay setback
i see strong reason for the countys to secede, will it happen? could, act of congress more importantly the voters
but more importantly Kamala wants to take over Boxer's job, vote accordingly

OK,OK< not enough coffee this am

 

[2cmorau]

FnF,
environmentals, trout un, and guberment approved this

 

[russau]

while reading the initial list of court cases , I was amazed at the list of suits and the countless $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ moneys that have been spent to defend / fight for our rights! it seems this will never end! Id like to see our defense go after these "others" and sue the beans out of them for violating our rights and ask for tons of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BUT they are using our tax dollars to fight us in takeing our rights away! so , where do we go from here without lineing their pockets again?

 

[ratled]

arguing the merits of this brief, should be done in private

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

 

[Hoser John]

There is NO MERIT to this insane bs and will the SP refuse to hear again?John

 

[Bejay]

Keep in mind this is a "process"! Gov Lawyers make their $$$$$ keeping the process going. Gov Lawyers get paid to argue! The more opportunities to argue, the more they justify their existence. Calif DOJ likes employment! In the end (when that finally comes).....we should see Calif : trying to row upstream without a paddle....IMHO. Bottom line: permits will be issued. The structure/nature of the permits may become an issue of contention. As long as there is no permit and miners mine the State is left to argue....IMHO. Conveying how this process works is NOT discussing the merits. The attorneys will do their things and we will be witness to it.....as it is a "public record". At least that is how I see it. thanks for the initial brief posting.

Bejay

 

[goldenmojo]

FnF,
environmentals, trout un, and guberment approved this

I watched this project at Nimbus Dam last year as I went back and forth to work. They cut a large trough through a cobble bar. They even had the loader halfway out in the main channel. I was thinking about dipping a pan in the trough but didn't want to get cited for creating a sediment trail.

 

[Clay Diggins]

JMHO,2 grains worth, arguing the merits against this breif, should be done in private

For what reason would you want to keep discussion private?

This is a republican form of government. The people have a right to learn, discuss and know the law. How would keeping discussion private make any difference in the law or the facts?

Critical thinking backed by a firm foundation in knowledge of the law could go a long way to calming your unfounded fears. This isn't a television drama show this is the Supreme Court where transparency isn't just a good idea it's the law.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[fowledup]

How much time is Buchal given for his response? And then what- oral arguments? Whats the process, procedure, and time frame?

 

[2cmorau]

Clay i agree, but there have been a few things mentioned that later showed up and emergency rule making ensued ie GTS
comments mentioned at public meetings later used to discredit miners or enhance leftwing pseudoscience

would it not be great if the law was not so prejudice, or the science used was facts, but for some reason government need not adhere to the law and exempts themselves from what they impose on the tax payer, i read these pages and shake my head, noise from a dredge will ruin the ambience ( been to a camp ground lately izzy, kamala, campfires, noise polution, trashed left behind by the beach goers)"
won't it be great if the public could look in on these closed doors conference
why is the government allowed to introduce foreign matter and the miner w/dredge can't even recycle and remove harmfuls?

 

[Clay Diggins]

How much time is Buchal given for his response? And then what- oral arguments? Whats the process, procedure, and time frame?

Buchal has 30 days to respond.

Within 30 days after the court grants the petition and files its order of review, the party may file a new brief on the merits or may file the brief he or she filed in the Court of Appeal, as provided in California Rules of Court, rule 8.520. The opposing party then has 30 days to file an answer brief or the brief that party filed in the Court of Appeal.

After a case is accepted for review, the Chief Justice assigns it to one of the justices for preparation of a “calendar memorandum,” which is then circulated among the remaining justices. After the justices conclude that they have had sufficient time to consider the matter and that it is ready to be heard, it is scheduled for oral argument. (Such scheduling typically occurs several months to a year after all briefs on the merits have been filed.) Oral argument is heard during one week in each month from September through June.

The court files its written opinion within 90 days of oral argument. The decision becomes final 30 days after filing. Up to 15 days after filing, the parties may petition for rehearing; the court may also, on its own motion, grant a rehearing or modify its decision up to an additional 60 days. On the date of filing, the opinion is posted to the Supreme Court’s Web page, and is then prepared for publication in the bound volumes of the Official California Reports.

These are the rules. Generally the Supreme Court sticks to these rule but they have a lot of room to change things around since they are the ones who write the rules.

Heavy Pans

 

[fowledup]

Very cool, excellent info. So my uneducated guess is since they don't hear anything July & August is no real movement until fall?

 

[Goldwasher]

This is the kind of thing that should be talked about constantly!!!!!!

 

[Bejay]

It would really be nice to go back in time about 12 years and just be able to go out a prospect/mine without hassle or the fear of Gov Intrusion. Those days are gone. It is going to take a lot of effort on the part of miners to overcome the injustice(s) being done against the small mining community. Probably many more such Rinehart instances. There is another one for observation on the: http://americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org/index.php

Bejay