PLP

[dieselram94]

As some members know, I sell on eBay. I also am very interested in helping PLP so I often donate from my auctions 10%-100% to PLP. I was wondering how many others do this. If not is there a reason why?


Sent from a spun out toilet paper tube (one ply)!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[dieselram94]

Another update, this one illustrates how PLP does help the small scale miner...


View this email in your browser

Latest News

U.S. v. Godfrey

Public Lands for the People and New 49ers Legal Fund assist miner cited for using a sluice box in a stream!

On August 21, 2014 the United States Forest Service filed five Class B misdemeanor counts against John Godfrey, a small scale miner from California.

Count One: Unauthorized cutting and damaging of any timber, tree and forest product. Violation of 36 C.F.R 261.6 (a)

Count Two: Causing timber, trees, slash, brush and grass to burn without a permit. Violation of 36 C.F.R 261.5 (c)

Count Three: Damaging any natural feature or property of the United States. Violation of 36 C.F.R. 261.9 (a)

Count Four: Unauthorized trail and significant surface disturbance on Forest Service managed lands. Violation of 36 C.F.R. 261.10 (a)

Count Five: Placing in or near a creek any substance which may pollute. Violation of 36 C.F.R 261.11 (c).

Mr. Godfrey, a member of PLP, contacted us and our Northern California office representative Clark Pearson assisted Mr. Godfrey in building his defense and coordinating with the Federal Defender’s office. On September 9 -10, 2014 a two day bench trial was held. Magistrate Judge Newman found Mr. Godfrey “NOT GUILTY” on counts One and Two because the defendant’s actions were “mining-related!” Needless to say, we were very happy with this ruling. However, the magistrate judge found defendants guilty on counts Three, Four and Five for the following reasons:

“… it was “not possible to look at the photographs in this case and find that there was not significant resource disturbance in this case, and that does include the cutting of trees; the removing of bushes and brush; the burning; the breaking up of boulders, and using chains and using a drill to do so; the use of chemicals, whether non-toxic or otherwise; the use of a hose, even if only for a few times, but then to use a hydraulic method; the damming of the water.”

On November 5, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to five years of probation, which may terminate in three years if he complies with all terms of probation, including the payment of restitution. Defendant was also ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid community service, pay $7,500 in restitution, and pay a $30 special assessment. Id. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3402, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58(g)(2)(B), and Local Rule 422, Defendant now appeals his convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Five.

On appeal, PLP and Clark Pearson contacted James Buchal who represents the New 49ers Legal Fund to write an Amicus brief for Mr. Godfrey’s appeal. The Amicus brief focused on the due process of law that was denied to Mr. Godfrey to argue the vagueness of the regulatory term: ‘significant surface resource disturbance’ and to stress in the Federal Defender’s Reply brief that Godfrey did not add or place anything that was not already present naturally in the stream course. The Clean Water Act only regulates “additions.”
PLP and the New 49ers worked with the Federal Defenders’ office for Mr. Godfrey’s appeal that was held on June 2, 2015. The Appeals Court (District Court) affirmed the convictions on counts Three and Four but reversed the conviction on count Five! Mr. Godfrey reserves the right to appeal counts Three and Four to the Ninth Circuit Court and PLP will be there to represent him if possible.
Regarding Count Five. Count Five charges that Mr. Godfrey was “polluting” the stream by running gravels through his sluice box! This is, of course, absurd! We really like the Judge’s opinion and Mr. Godfrey could forever be connected with the “Cheerios” decision! Here is what the Court stated:

Returning to the Supreme Court’s “one ladle of soup”
example, the Court agrees that the present case is not closely analogous. S. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 110 (2004)). Defendant did not merely remove water from one location in Poorman Creek and return that same water to another location in Poorman Creek. Rather, he diverted the water through his mining g operation, and returned it, along with “sands, silts and clays and bottom deposits” to Poorman Creek, downstream of his operation. However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge and as emphasized now by Defendant, the entire mining operation occurred beneath the high water mark of Poorman Creek. Importantly, there is no evidence that any foreign substance (such as a chemical) was introduced to Poorman Creek. See RT2 at 2-44 – 2-45 (the Magistrate Judge, noting that “there wasn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that any of those broken up rocks or chemicals ended up in the creek”); see also RT1 at 182 (testimony of Huggins, noting that “chemicals getting into the water” was “not the major concern in this case”). In this sense, a more apt analogy may be that of a bowl of cereal.
At its low point, Poorman Creek is much like a bowl of Cheerios with very little milk in it, with a number of Cheerios pieces “stranded” up on the sides of the bowl. Filling the bowl with milk releases those “stranded” Cherrios pieces back into the milk, but nothing foreign has been added to the bowl. Similarly, Defendant’s operation merely released sediment that was already part of the creek-bed back into the creek. As testified to by Jeff Huggins, this activity may have a caused a significant effect on Poorman Creek and those ecosystems which rely on it. RT1 at 1-177. Indeed, as discussed above, Defendant has been properly convicted of causing an unauthorized significant disturbance to surface resources. However, the Government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction under 36 C.F.R. § 261.11 for polluting the creek. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction on Count 5 is reversed.

BIG WIN HERE! BUT… we have two more Counts to appeal. On we must go to the Ninth Circuit! Public Lands for the People is excited about working hard to protect the rights of the small scale miners.

To read the full text of the court ruling, click here.

We could not do this without the support of the mining community at large and the work of other groups that are engaged in the fight for our rights such as The New 49ers, WMA and AMRA. Together we are making a difference.

Thank you for your continued support! Let’s take it back and KEEP IT!

Walt Wegner
President
Public Lands for the People


Updating Our Mailing List:

Thanks for being a member and supporter of Public Lands for the People. We are working on updating our mailing list so if you would no longer like to receive emails from us, please click the unsubscribe link at the bottom.

Facebook
Facebook
YouTube
YouTube
Website
Website
Copyright [emoji767] 2015 Public Lands For The People, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up or donated to Public Lands For The People

Our mailing address is:
Public Lands For The People
20929 Ventura Blvd
Ste: 47-466
Woodland Hills, Ca 91364

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list

update subscription preferences





Sent from a spun out toilet paper tube (one ply)!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[minerrick]

Count #3- do you know what that is about? It's because Johnny was cracking rocks on his claim. He was "damaging" government property. Apparently there is a new type of mining the gov approves where you don't have to break rocks to find gold. It will probably be a boon to the mining industry to know that if they break a rock, they will be damaging government property.

 

[fowledup]

Imagine the Restitution order had he been punching in a tunnel! To say the judge was reaching is a gross understatement.

 

[Goldwasher]

The irony is its easier to be allowed to work underground because of the Minimal surface disturbance.....its the processing and tailings...and buildings that become an issue.
look at sugar pine they aren't griping about the underground work. Its all about surface rights.

I feel like the desk jockeys involved don't like that the system wasn't set up to give more than a reasonable piece of the financial pie. The gov. depts. involved used to be there to facilitate the success of the industries that utilized our natural resources. Back in the day there were also people working for those depts.that had industry experience.
Now its college grads who are out to save the world from the resource users.....A prerequisite to employed in these agencies should be knowledge and understanding of the industry, its laws an practices. That situation would keep us at he forefront and conserve those resources as it used to.

What are those morons gonna do when they get everything shut down.....where is funding gonna com from when there is no process to need permits for....after you shut every potential mine down because the permitting process is so expensive no one can realize a profit and won't even bother trying....I will get pretty difficult to justify financial requests come budget time?? They don't even see how they are shooting themselves in the foot

 

[fowledup]

The irony is its easier to be allowed to work underground because of the Minimal surface disturbance.....its the processing and tailings...and buildings that become an issue.
look at sugar pine they aren't griping about the underground work. Its all about surface rights.

I feel like the desk jockeys involved don't like that the system wasn't set up to give more than a reasonable piece of the financial pie. The gov. depts. involved used to be there to facilitate the success of the industries that utilized our natural resources. Back in the day there were also people working for those depts.that had industry experience.
Now its college grads who are out to save the world from the resource users.....A prerequisite to employed in these agencies should be knowledge and understanding of the industry, its laws an practices. That situation would keep us at he forefront and conserve those resources as it used to.

What are those morons gonna do when they get everything shut down.....where is funding gonna com from when there is no process to need permits for....after you shut every potential mine down because the permitting process is so expensive no one can realize a profit and won't even bother trying....I will get pretty difficult to justify financial requests come budget time?? They don't even see how they are shooting themselves in the foot

AMen and well said. Yeah I know the difference in relation to subsurface vs surface management we stiil need that sarcasm font. I was sarcastically refrenceing all the unsightly piles of broken rock piling up on the surface outside the tunnel. They don't recognize the limitations of their surface rights authority what would make one think they wouldn't site for subsurface as it relates to the surface, lol!

 

[Oregon Viking]

Legal Update on Injunctive Relief

 

[Hefty1]

Reinhart appellate decision has been de-published and is under review from the California Supreme Court,

So when does this end....the REVIEW that is?

 

[goldenIrishman]

Most likely only when one side or the other runs out of money Hefty. They're going to fight us as long as they can afford to do so.

I feel that PLP is one of the better groups out there that is watching out for outdoors people and is well worth contributing to. We have to band together somehow and this seems like one of the best ways to do that so far. Face it folks... If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately. The big green money making machine is wanting to run us all down and they've got the resources behind them to do just that if we don't band together.

It's very hard for the little guy to stand up to these groups alone. It takes lots of time and money to defend our right to mine. Many of us can not afford either the time or the money to defend ourselves and PLP has helped many a miner already.

(soap box time)
As miners, it is our duty to be stewards of the lands we mine and to do our very best to return them to their pre-mining condition when we are finished working an area. What the Greenies don't understand is that mining and protecting the environment can go hand in hand. I run a clean operation in that I always fill in holes, don't leave any trash and avoid using fueled equipment as much as possible. Eventually I want to have all power used in the field supplied by solar. I always leave the area looking better than it did when I arrived by cleaning up trash left by others. (end of soapbox)