IT APPEARS THAT WE WON

[Oakview2]

STILL TRYING TO WADE THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[minerrick]

I don't read gobbledy gook very well, but it looks like you are right.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I do read gobbledy gook... Break out the Champagne or whatever floats yer boat.

It's a win!

Here's the win:

Ruling
On its motions for summary adjudication the Court finds there is no triable issue of
material fact on the issue of Federal Preemption and that as a matter of law and in
actual fact that the State s extraordinary scheme of requiring permits and then refusing
to issue them whether and or being unable to issue permits for years stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress under
Granite Rock and a de facto ban.

Here is the loss for the State:

CDW MSA aqainst Kimble PLP and New 49 ers
The CDW motions for summary adjudication as to Kimble PLP and New 49 ers is
denied for reasons discussed above

Here's the part where you get to write the ticket.

Prevailing parties to prepare notice and order

Heavy Sluice Boxes

 

[2cmorau]

did i read this right, if we do get back in the water it will be under the rules and regs established in 2012 by DFW, or will this revert back to 94 rules and regs?

Oak do u have a link i am trying to post this to FB, and having no luck, Thanks

 

[fishnfacts]

After reading this and as a non-legal person but as a prospector, I can't wait to get to California and set up a dredge. If I read this it is a win and I look forward to joining my fellow miners some day soon. Lots of legal-beagle but if I read correctly they can't step over the federal laws regarding mining. The question is they can determine if I will effect stream, fish and other nature. and to get a permit, if they take their time could go on forever. Can someone break this down to Dummies for Mining?

 

[goldenIrishman]

All I can say is.......

YEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Oakview2]

Only link would be to this thread, the file was purchased off the courts website.

did i read this right, if we do get back in the water it will be under the rules and regs established in 2012 by DFW, or will this revert back to 94 rules and regs?

Oak do u have a link i am trying to post this to FB, and having no luck, Thanks

 

[chlsbrns]

A motion for Summary adjudication or summary judgment is when one party claims that there are no issues to be decided. In other words no need for endless court dates/hearings. The ruling means that the judge believes that there are issues to be decided in court. Now hearings have to be scheduled and decided.

 

[Oakview2]

WRONG< read the PDF, he found under Granite vs Costal Commision, the states moratorium is a defacto BAN

 

[Prospector70]

Stand firm for your rights Miners!!! Sic Semper tyrannis!
Don't think the other side will lie down and roll over for this one ruling. They will try to find other means, the devil never sleeps.

This is the best news I've had all year!
Thanks Everyone involved!

 

[Oakview2]

Glad you are not my attorney

"Rulinq
On their motions for summary adjudication the Court finds there is no triable issue of
material fact on the issue of Federal Preemption and that as a matter of law and in
actual fact that the State s extraordinary scheme of requiring permits and then refusing
to issue them whether and or being unable to issue permits for years stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress under
Granite Rock and a de facto ban"

 

[Clay Diggins]

A motion for Summary adjudication or summary judgment is when one party claims that there are no issues to be decided. In other words no need for endless court dates/hearings. The ruling means that the judge believes that there are issues to be decided in court. Now hearings have to be scheduled and decided.

I realize you and your Sierra Club friends are butt hurt over this but ignoring the facts won't change anything.

The Judge ruled:

the Court finds there is no triable issue of material fact

 

[chlsbrns]

Quote and post the decision. It should be on the last page.

 

[dredgeman]

This means the state cannot materially interfere with a valid federal mining claim.

 

[Oakview2]

The link is at the top, already posted the ruling above, read it and weep.

Quote and post the decision. It should be on the last page.

 

[chlsbrns]

Ok I read it. It looks like the State will have to issue permits to dredge. To receive a permit the dredger must comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and California's stricter Porter Cologne Act.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb...an_water_act_401/docs/401instructions2app.pdf

 

[Clay Diggins]

This means the state cannot materially interfere with a valid federal mining claim.

That is not what this Judgement says dredgeman. The single premption issue was whether the State had obstructed the full purposes and objectives of Congress by refusing to issue dredge permits.

Here is the ruling - nothing in there says anything about interfering with federal mining claims.

Ruling
On its motions for summary adjudication the Court finds there is no triable issue of
material fact on the issue of Federal Preemption and that as a matter of law and in
actual fact that the State s extraordinary scheme of requiring permits and then refusing
to issue them whether and or being unable to issue permits for years stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress under
Granite Rock and a de facto ban.

If you want to argue "the state cannot materially interfere with a valid federal mining claim" you will have to bring your own suit. You might want to read Granite Rock first.

Heavy Pans

 

[dredgeman]

Thanks Clay

I have read them all in context and with appropriate law dictionary for the time of the cases

and yes they can make reasonable regulations. I just think they cant be reasonable to mining in Calif

 

[Clay Diggins]

Ok I read it. It looks like the State will have to issue permits to dredge. To receive a permit the dredger must comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and California's stricter Porter Cologne Act.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb...an_water_act_401/docs/401instructions2app.pdf

There is nothing in this court decision or any other that says the State will have to issue dredge permits or that the dredger must comply with CWA or Porter Cologne Act. In fact the Supreme Court has ruled twice that the CWA doesn't apply.

I know you would like to take this win off track with discussions of these and other non relevant nonsense chlsbrns. Its become your MO here to argue anything but the fact and the law. You might find greener pastures for your fear mongering elsewhere. You are not the miners friend.

Let's just say the miner's won this round and leave your greenie soreness out of the discussion. Face the facts and you will be a much happier cowgirl.

 

[Oakview2]

It means no such thing and says NOTHING IN THE RULING REGARDING ANY WATER ACTS. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU HAVE KNOW IDEA OF WHICH YOU SPEAK. YOU ARE A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING AND ARE A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR THE IGNORE BUTTON.

Ok I read it. It looks like the State will have to issue permits to dredge. To receive a permit the dredger must comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and California's stricter Porter Cologne Act.

State Water Resources Control Board

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb...an_water_act_401/docs/401instructions2app.pdf