Rinehart to be heard

[ratled]

Just a heads up the Rinehart case will be heard on June 1st

ratled

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hard Prospector]

I'd sure like to see this settled while we're all still warm...... here's to the big win!

 

[goldenIrishman]

Maybe....just MAYBE this can all be resolved. If it's not, then I for one will want to know why. The state has been grasping at straws lately so I've got my fingers crossed! (Plus my toes, arms, legs and eyes!)

 

[Hefty1]

Maybe....just MAYBE this can all be resolved. If it's not, then I for one will want to know why. The state has been grasping at straws lately so I've got my fingers crossed! (Plus my toes, arms, legs and eyes!)

How about them Horns....

 

[Hefty1]

Just a heads up the Rinehart case will be heard on June 1st

ratled

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

Where at?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Where at?

California Supreme Court.

It's not a trial. It's an appeal hearing (technically a "review").
Not a spectator sport. Best to stay home unless you already have an invite. Numbers don't matter and they could care less what the public has to say.
The Judges will hear both sides, usually for 30 minutes max, they might ask a few questions, then they move on to the next appeal. IF a decision is made we will hear about it later. Decisions are written.

2:00 P.M. Wednesday June 1
Ronald Reagan State Office Building
300 South Spring Street
Third Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles, California

Heavy Pans

 

[Hefty1]

California Supreme Court.

It's not a trial. It's an appeal hearing (technically a "review").
Not a spectator sport. Best to stay home unless you already have an invite. Numbers don't matter and they could care less what the public has to say.
The Judges will hear both sides, usually for 30 minutes max, they might ask a few questions, then they move on to the next appeal. IF a decision is made we will hear about it later. Decisions are written.

2:00 P.M. Wednesday June 1
Ronald Reagan State Office Building
300 South Spring Street
Third Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles, California

Heavy Pans

Thank you

 

[Clay Diggins]

Maybe....just MAYBE this can all be resolved. If it's not, then I for one will want to know why. The state has been grasping at straws lately so I've got my fingers crossed! (Plus my toes, arms, legs and eyes!)

Don't get all tangled up.
The Supreme Court is not deciding Brandon's case, that's done at a trial.
The Supreme Court is not deciding whether the dredging law is legal.

The best result we can hope for is the Supreme Court will uphold the Appellate court to send Brandon's case back to the trial court with instructions to hear it again and consider his right to mine under Federal law. The trial court refused to do that in the original case and Brandon's appeal is based on the fact he didn't get his fair day in court because the Judge wouldn't let his Federal right to mine be heard as part of his defense. This is the Federal Preemption argument that Brandon didn't get to bring up the first trial.

The Third Court of Appeals already sent the case back to the original trial court to hear the Federal Preemption argument. The State appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is really just deciding whether the Third was right to do that. Here's what the Third Court of Appeals already ordered in a nutshell:

In this case, we are asked to consider whether provisions of California Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.1, as applied, are preempted by federal law because they “stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment [and execution] of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

On this record, we are unable to make that determination and we remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the issue of federal preemption.

If the Supreme Court agrees that the Third did it's job right Brandon gets to have his Federal Preemption argument heard in court. That would be good for Brandon, he deserves to have his full defense considered. If he wins there may be more appeals and another round quite possibly ending up in the Supreme Court again. If that happens the Supreme Court will then hear the Federal Preemption argument and if miners win the State has to go home and figure a different way to put the screws to mining.

There is another possibility if Brandon gets his new trial and wins but we won't get too far ahead of the game just yet.

This is a war. The Supreme Court review on June 1 is just one skirmish in a battle in the war. You don't get the legal right to start dredging just because the Supreme Court listens to some lawyers argue on a Wednesday. More to come...

Heavy Pans

 

[ratled]

Actually Clay this has basically become a trial. As a result of this, and I don't why as this would be double jeopardy, but they have asked for opinions as how SB 637 will affect the case and the state was able to brief on the OR miners loss in federal court.

In the 3rd Appellate the Justices only allowed each side 10 minutes for oral arguments per side. That said, each side went about 20 minutes as the Justices asked some very good questions. I was surprised how engaged they were and that there was actually a thought process to the responses. Here is hoping for the same this time. It will be interesting to see if it is the basic 3 Justice court or if all 7 will be there for this one as all 7 agreed in favor to hear it.

Hopefully on a good note, the current make up was appointed by 4 Republicans and 3 by Democrat - Jerry Brown for all 3. And that is only if you count the ones Arnold did as Republican since he was the one who did this to us in the first place

If they do decide the 3rd got it right, that would still stand. It will be up to the state to decide if they wish to retry him in the lower court or not. The superior court would have to start all over and allow his federal evidence. The 3rd noted very strongly if they see this case again (Brandon still looses in the lower court and appeals to the 3rd), and there is basically no additional evidance aginst him they would strongly support his federal preemption.

BEST OF LUCK TO BRANDON

ratled

 

[Clay Diggins]

Actually Clay this has basically become a trial.

It will be up to the state to decide if they wish to retry him in the lower court or not.

BEST OF LUCK TO BRANDON

ratled

These are common misunderstandings about the legal process.

The Supreme Court does not hold trials. The appellate court does not hold trials. Only courts of original jurisdiction hold trials. What you see as a trial is not a trial in any of it's functions. It's only a review of the Appellate Court order.

The State has no choice but to attend Brandon's new trial should the Appellate Court decision be upheld. The Appellate Court ordered the trial court to hear Brandon's case. Brandon has been convicted and has a right to justice whether the State wants to continue or not. The State can't overrule the Court's decision and decide not to attend the trial. They don't have to work against Brandon's defense but they can't choose not to have the trial.

As I hinted earlier there are other ways this can go. First let's get through the Supreme Court's review of the Appellate court decision.

BEST OF LUCK TO BRANDON

Heavy Pans

 

[Oregon Viking]

It's great that he will be heard.....but....will they listen?

 

[Clay Diggins]

It's great that he will be heard.....but....will they listen?

We don't know yet that Brandon's case will be heard. That's what the Supreme Court is deciding.

I believe if he does have the opportunity to have his argument heard he will win in the trial court. Let's hope the Supreme Court has enough sense to allow justice.

Heavy Pans

 

[ratled]

These are common misunderstandings about the legal process.

The Supreme Court does not hold trials. The appellate court does not hold trials. Only courts of original jurisdiction hold trials. What you see as a trial is not a trial in any of it's functions. It's only a review of the Appellate Court order.

The State has no choice but to attend Brandon's new trial should the Appellate Court decision be upheld. The Appellate Court ordered the trial court to hear Brandon's case. Brandon has been convicted and has a right to justice whether the State wants to continue or not. The State can't overrule the Court's decision and decide not to attend the trial. They don't have to work against Brandon's defense but they can't choose not to have the trial.

As I hinted earlier there are other ways this can go. First let's get through the Supreme Court's review of the Appellate court decision.

BEST OF LUCK TO BRANDON

Heavy Pans

The 3rd set aside Brandon's conviction. The state may choose to retry him based on the original compliant, they may also choose not to also, but if they do they have to allow his federal evidence.

ratled

 

[Clay Diggins]

The 3rd set aside Brandon's conviction. The state may choose to retry him based on the original compliant, they may also choose not to also, but if they do they have to allow his federal evidence.

ratled

Incorrect. The case is still active if the Supreme Court upholds the appeal. The Appellate Court did not just reverse the trial court's judgement they also remanded Brandon's case with this order:

Remand is not only necessary because these questions cannot be answered by a review of the record of trial we have before us but also because it is fair to the defendant and to the People as each party may have evidence beyond the offer of proof and argument it wishes to offer beyond that which has thus far been offered in the trial court on the issue of federal preemption.

DISPOSITION​

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Remand:

A remand is an action taken by an appellate court in which it sends back a case to the trial court or lower appellate court for further action.

For example, if the trial judge committed a procedural error, failed to admit evidence or witnesses that the appellate court ruled should have been admitted, or ruled improperly on a litigant's motion, the appellate court may send the case back to the lower court for retrial or other action.

A case is said to be "remanded" when the superior court returns or sends back the case to the lower court. Also, a court may be said to retry the case "on remand."

The trial court must commit to "further proceedings" on this case. Those further proceedings might include dismissal by either the judge or the prosecutor but the trial court is still bound to act on the remanded case. There is no reason the prosecution could or would have to refile the case.

I doubt the State would refuse to prosecute due to some issues of liability. They have a few other dirty tricks that would be more effective than refusing to prosecute under the appellate court order.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention ratled. The minor differences in understanding here don't ultimately affect the outcome but I think it's important we understand the legal process if we are going to learn from these experiences.

Heavy Pans

 

[ratled]

When I post on the forum I "talk" in general terms. This has basically become a trail and has gone beyond just a review of the 3rd - SB637 and the OR federal challenge are new. The court requested the SB 637 briefs and the state was allowed to submit the brief the OR SB 838 stuff. If this was just a review of the 3rd and not something more, then a federal prosecutor would not be stepping in on this.

Yes if they choose to not to retry him, he was tried in superior court, - the 3rd determined it was improperly executed- they may choose not to retry him and dismiss in the interest of justice.

ratled

 

[BSminer]

Recommended reading, Rinehart's reply to CA on the OR SB838 stuff:
http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Answer-States-Supp-r-Bohmker-5-2-16.pdf
basically, it's an unpublished ruling made by a Magistrate (not a judge) and it's currently under appeal. OR SB838 should not be used as a reference in CA or anywhere else.
(for the State's position, look here: http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AR-M355N_20160422_101532.pdf)

 

[Goldwasher]

Incorrect. The case is still active if the Supreme Court upholds the appeal. The Appellate Court did not just reverse the trial court's judgement they also remanded Brandon's case with this order:


Remand:


The trial court must commit to "further proceedings" on this case. Those further proceedings might include dismissal by either the judge or the prosecutor but the trial court is still bound to act on the remanded case. There is no reason the prosecution could or would have to refile the case.

I doubt the State would refuse to prosecute due to some issues of liability. They have a few other dirty tricks that would be more effective than refusing to prosecute under the appellate court order.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention ratled. The minor differences in understanding here don't ultimately affect the outcome but I think it's important we understand the legal process if we are going to learn from these experiences.

Heavy Pans

Thanks for keeping the process clear for us Barry!

 

[goldenIrishman]

If they'd just write the laws in English instead of "Legaleeze", Barry wouldn't have to translate all this stuff for us. ...But I'm glad he hangs around and does it anyway.

 

[mikep691]

I was in the Quincy court that first day. Total railroaded, but I was not real impressed with the way his lawyer handled things. Just my opinion and view.

 

[Jeff95531]

Man...this hurts my head... I'll be back tomorrow