Live audio streaming of Supreme Court oral arguments this week

[Jeff95531]

Got the below from Dave McCracken yesterday.

In case you are interested in listening in, we have been informed that the
California Supreme Court will provide audio streaming of oral arguments for
the very important Rinehart case this coming week. You can find the place to
listen in right here:

Supreme Court Begins Live Webcasting | California Courts Newsroom

The case is set to be heard at 2 PM this coming Wednesday, June 1st. Each
side will be allowed 30 minutes. It is not unusual for the justices to ask
questions or make statements to the attorneys in these types of cases, which
can provide some insight to the way they are leaning.

I have also asked our attorney to provide a summary memo that will be linked
to our June newsletter in about a week.

I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone my personal best wishes and
a meaningful Memorial Day,

Dave McCracken
The New 49'ers Legal Fund

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[goldenIrishman]

This should be good! I am assuming that the time listed is Commiefornia time? Not that it matters to me since we are currently on the same time but others might need to adjust for time differences........

 

[Got_4by4]

It would help immensely if we had the case #?
That way we could look it up!

Answered my own question:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/calendars/SJUN116A.PDF

 

[Hoser John]

Live view stating requires 401 authorization and does not even show printed text-over 5 minutes into the hearing

 

[winners58]

set to start soon need flash turned on, hopefully It'll work mine is showing the first case to the right of the player.
Supreme Court - supreme_court click on the "live view player" it's audio only, if its setup right on your computer you should hear music

2:08 working PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG first
3:19 Brandon

 

[Terry Soloman]

I'm listening now (5:18pm EST), but it is not the Rinehart case. Frustrated!

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Case Summary[/SIZE][/FONT]

Supreme Court Case: S222620 Court of Appeal Case(s): Third Appellate District C074662 Case Caption: PEOPLE v. RINEHART Case Category: Review - Criminal Appeal Start Date: 11/17/2014 Case Status: scheduled for argument Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case presents the following issue: Does the Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq.) preempt California Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.1 with respect to the use of vacuum and suction dredging equipment? Case Citation: none

 

[OwenT]

Is now!

 

[Terry Soloman]

Listening now!

 

[Jeff95531]

I just now got my internet up and running. Something else I won't miss when I move

 

[winners58]

Oh gees, sounds like they have made up their minds

 

[Terry Soloman]

"Our" lawyer is not very good. Put a fork in it for us..

 

[OwenT]

"Say this claim is in Yosemite National Park" Lol, that guy is clueless.

 

[Hoser John]

Just done-what a joke-NEVER in my life have I heard such total incompetence in my life-Absolutely NO mention of standing studies,regulations,and impactus minimus from the army corp and a dozen agencies for over 50 years of dredge regulations-NO mention of banning all engines or all other power equipment. The lady judge did Elmer Fudd enviro lawyers job on a dozen fronts. Weze toast and deservedly so. Taped this asinine mess for posterity so when my ggggkids ask what happended to dredging gpa I can tell them. sic sic waste of $3,000,000++++ and 8 1/2 dredge seasons-John

 

[Goldwasher]

There was no outcome? So how is it DONE . Won't hear a decision for a month or more.

I swear se of you guys want Brandon to lose just to prove your right some how...it's weird

 

[MadMarshall]

GW
for myself I suppose I just a pessimist.. I don't think it has anything to do with proving anyone wrong just so they can be right.. You forget we all stand to lose something..
I am inclined to agree with Terry and Hoser.. I also felt that our case could have been better presented. I got the impression that it wasn't goin in our favor.. I also have long been under the impression that the attorney representing Mr. Rinehart has been a very poor choice..
you are absolutely right about no decision has been published and it will take some time.. But in the meantime I supect all of us will derive our own opinions.. But to suggest that some are doin it just for the sake of EGO is in very poor taste.

By all means did you listen to the broadcast? What are your thoughts and opinions? Are you optimistic about the future of mining in California?

 

[Goldwasher]

yea, and the lawyer who actually brought up evidence (or tried) and cited actual law was definetly not the states lawyer. You realize that a person can choose his council? Brandon and numerous others have great confidence in James. Including PLF.

 

[Clay Diggins]

The Supreme Court doesn't decide cases from the bench. We will get a full opinion when they have finished their work.

I wish I could have listened today but I had to work. The first of the month is a very busy time for us. I wouldn't run flash on any of my computers anyway so I guess I'll just have to wait for the transcript before I can form an opinion.

Heavy Pans

 

[MadMarshall]

forget about it..

 

[ratled]

Would of, could of, should of doesn't matter at this point. VERY similar to the 3rd. Both sides disappointed the Justices. I'm calling 4 to 3 in FAVOR of Rinehart. Neither side gave enough to over come the UNANIMOUS opinion of the third http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/opinion-9-23-14.pdf

ratled

 

[russau]

I missed the oral arguments yesterday. I had to replace my garage door opener. Ill have to read the printed version also. it don't sound good according to the comments hear , BUT we will have to wait-n-see what comes out of it!