New 49ers newsletter.

[Jeff95531]

New 49'ers newsletter.

The California Supreme Court is reviewing the landmark win which was handed to small-scale gold miners by the Third Appellate Court in the case of California v. Rinehart. Now they have asked for briefing on how California's new water quality law might affect the outcome. This very well may have opened the door to hear our argument that the new water quality law is nothing more than an extension of the State's intent to prohibit mining on the public lands of California; something they do not have the authority to do. Our briefing on the matter was submitted to the California Supreme Court today. You are welcome to read it right here:

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Rinehart-Letter-Brief-2-16-16.pdf

Here is a reminder that our ongoing legal fund-raiser will come to a close this next Friday, 26 February. The Legal Fund will be giving away three ounces of American Gold Eagles and 10 ounces of American Silver Eagles; 25 prizes in all. There has been very little participation in this drawing so far. We are sincerely hoping for you guys to provide some much needed support during this final week of the drawing. You can find more information right here:

» American Gold & Silver Eagles!

Thank you guys very much for all you do to support our efforts!

Dave Mack
The New 49'er Legal Fund

The New 49er's, 27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039, USA

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[goldenIrishman]

Once again another good argument (IMHO) from Brandons' lawyer! I really enjoy the way he writes legal stuff so even a non-lawyer type can understand it. Maybe.... Just maybe... This will be the kick in the pants that the courts need to take action against the state and our mining brother in California can get back into the waters without fear of being cited or arrested for trying to make a living! This has gone on way to long as it is.

 

[QNCrazy]

In regards to Bucal's brief, which is excellently written, i have a question for any of you legal beagles (Clay) out there. If the California Supreme Court finds in favor of Brandon, and agrees with Mr. Bucal that SB637 is just another illegal road block for miners, what power, if any, do they have to invalidate or remove SB637? What would be the course of action to do this?

 

[Clay Diggins]

In regards to Bucal's brief, which is excellently written, i have a question for any of you legal beagles (Clay) out there. If the California Supreme Court finds in favor of Brandon, and agrees with Mr. Bucal that SB637 is just another illegal road block for miners, what power, if any, do they have to invalidate or remove SB637? What would be the course of action to do this?

The Supreme Court is considering whether the Third Appellate Court was correct in their decision to remand (send back) Brandon's case to the original trial court. This is all about whether Brandon's case should be reheard, at the trial level, with his preemption argument being considered. The Supreme Court will only be considering whether the Third Appellate Court was right to do that.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Appellate Court have the power to retry Brandon. Only the original trial court can do that.

The Supreme Court has the power to declare a law, or part of a law, unconstitutional. That would be another case entirely. This case is all about whether the Third Appellate Court made the right decision. The Supreme Court doesn't want to waste their time considering whether the Third Appellate Court was correct if the change in the law would make their decision moot (decision of no effect). That is why they are asking for briefing on the effect of the water law. They will not be considering whether that law is constitutional, only how it might affect their decision about the Third Appellate Court ruling.

If you want to challenge the constitutionality of SB637 you will have to do that in a separate suit. Brandon's case and SB637 are different issues. The Supreme Court is not deciding Brandon's case but only his right to present an argument that the original trial court did not allow.

Heavy Pans

 

[QNCrazy]

Your the man Clay. I knew you would have the answer and bring clarity to a turbid (pardon the pun) area . Another question, how can the supreme court be considering the effects of SB637 on Brandon's case if SB637 wasn't in effect at the time Brandon was charged? He would have to be retried based on the laws in effect at the time of the violation. They cant retry him and cite current laws that weren't in effect then. Isn't that correct?

 

[motohed]

The really sad part of this is , that the money being spent . Even if this is overturned , It has cost 100 of thousands of dollars . I dought Brandon could ever find enough Gold , with a recreational dredge to recover the amount that has been spent . Obviously CA has it out for all mining , I wonder how much of this is funded by the Hollywood elete . I wonder where the american civil liberties are on this ?

 

[rick.ther]

The really sad part of this is , that the money being spent . Even if this is overturned , It has cost 100 of thousands of dollars . I dought Brandon could ever find enough Gold , with a recreational dredge to recover the amount that has been spent . Obviously CA has it out for all mining , I wonder how much of this is funded by the Hollywood elete . I wonder where the american civil liberties are on this ?

MotoHed, With all due respect, There is no such thing as "RECREATIONAL" Mining.

I believe that Brandon, And most "SMALL SCALE" miners would take exception to being tagged with that name. That being said, there is more too this than just the value of gold. no where in the constitution does it say mining is recreation, Its a right.
Rick

 

[motohed]

Ok Guy's I give . I am now a small scale mining operation . I have no place in the North Eastern USA , to make a claim . You have to realize , that when I was in the Gravel industry , we move 500 to 600 yards material per hour . That is where , I got my mining experience . I starting too realize that moving 4 or 5 yards of material is considered a small mining operation . I may only do that in a week . UGH I thought you actually would have to have a claim , to be considered to be a small scale miner . JMHO

 

[rick.ther]

Motohed,

Somewhere along the line, someone coined the phrase "recreational mining" and this is what the opposition is using against the small mining community. It doesn't matter whether you own the claim or you are working on working on free and open federal land.
it doesn't matter if you are using large equipment or just a pan, you are prospecting for valuable mineral deposits.
The environmentalists would have everyone believe that we are harming our planet with the equipment that we use, but in reality, our processes that we use today are the most environmentally friendly that have ever been used.
In fact look at what process is being used at the comby ( spelling? ) project. the equipment that is being used, and methods are far more damaging than the small scale miner.
What is at stake is the loss of our rights, whether you are a Miner, off roader, fisherman, hunter, boater etc.
Please don't take this as a beating, we all need to learn how to phrase our statements so as to inform the public that we are all Stewarts of the land, not just a few groups that think they can manipulate the sciences as to forward their agenda and force us off the lands that our forefathers fought and died for, had the insight to protect the rights for our citizens to freely enjoy.
I will now get off my soapbox now, Sometimes the little things set me off and I apologize for speaking badly. it was not meant to be a bad thing. sigh........
Rick

 

[motohed]

No Harm No Foul . I too understand ecoterorisium all to well , I had to fight the good fight to mine gravel and sand for many years . I've only been on the forum for a month or so . It's taken some time to realize , just how bad Gold Miners are treated by the government . The fact is they bought a lot of sand , gravel and stone from me . The real fact of Gold mining seems that they [ the government ] really want to keep the Gold for themselves . JMHO I still have a lot to learn about the Gold industry , but I do have a lot of experience that will carry over to the Gold Mining industry. Setting up plants ,etc . Sluicing is similar to washing gravel , it still relates to sizing and moving material . Setting up a sluice , the simple version , I could go indepth into the process , but won't here . The sluice needs to be at the correct angle with the correct amount of water for the material being run , it all depends on the aggrigates , Black sand with Iron content ,Gold and the like . Obviously if you have , clay you will need more water in the prewash to break it down . I could go into a lot of science on the subject , but you get the picture . You can do it all right and still not get any Gold if theres none to be had , especially if the gold is super fine . Supper fine Gold needs to be put through a special sorting system to remove it , other wise it will go off the end of the sluice , sight unseen .

 

[KevinInColorado]

Mining (small scale or large): on federally managed public lands. You have rights based on federal laws.
Recreational prospecting: on city, county or state's land designated for such use. You have privileges based on local rules and permissions.

Both are real. It depends on the lands you are on NOT the equipment used or your intentions or even what you personally believe!

 

[Jeff95531]

Yes Kevin. And the noose gets tighter with every page turned,