State of California has petitioned the Supreme court in Rinehart decision

[Bnugget]

The state of California has now asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling in favor of Rinehart.

See the petition here.

Http://Peoplevrinehart.org/

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[jvan]

I'm not directing this at anyone but stating this in general as I'm just as much a victim and guilty as the next, but- I've always felt our education system is flawed in that we don't teach our students more about Law. I'm not talking about Government and Civics class, I mean the actual basic principals of law, emphasizing terminology and comprehension. Everyone of us is bound by the law from birth we should be doing more to prepare people and help them understand it from the get go. Although the government would probably disagree with me as the last thing they want is an informed and educated populace.
I've always encouraged my kids and grandkids to question what they here and think they know. To play devils advocate, and debate an issue with passion. Hopefully I've given enough attention in showing them how to evaluate their position and facts, and be willing to change their viewpoint or opinion with equal grace and humility when proven in error.

Could not agree more, we should have a law class in high school for at least one year for students to learn basic law, contracts etc etc, I sure wish we had that when I was in school...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Hefty1]

I find this quite amusing in the states argument, there our many others that stick out, but this made me laugh.
Page 14, last paragraph.

"If...it is the federal intent that [miners] conduct [their]mining unhindered by any state environmental regulation, one would expect to find the expression of this intent in these Forest Service regulations."


Ca became a state in 1850
Mining Law 1872
US Forest Service came about in The Transfer Act of 1905

["it is appropriate to expect an administrative regulation to declare any intention to pre-empt state law with some specificity"]

WHAT?

 

[Oakview2]

Just like the previous response, full of folly, meaning the response by CBD to the appealate, not you Hefty

 

[Tonto]

It's called a "writ of cetiorari", asking the Supreme Court to certify the decision of the Appellate Court. It is a short cut to avoid more trial time, and is actually in Rinehart's best interest. This way, he doesn't have to pay his attorney to write an appeal, and wait until it drags through the system.

 

[Clay Diggins]

It's called a "writ of cetiorari", asking the Supreme Court to certify the decision of the Appellate Court. It is a short cut to avoid more trial time, and is actually in Rinehart's best interest. This way, he doesn't have to pay his attorney to write an appeal, and wait until it drags through the system.

I think you misunderstand the process Tonto. Let's see if I can make the situation a little clearer.

The State has petitioned for a "writ of cetiorari".

The State is asking (petitioning) the Supreme Court to order the record of Brandon's case to be brought up from the appeals court. To get that record the Supreme Court would have to order the "writ of cetiorari".

A "writ of cetiorari" is just the order of a higher court to a lower court to send them the record of a case. It is not a method of certifying anything. Similiar words meaning different things. We get a lot of that in the secret language of law. Wouldn't want the masses understanding justice would we?

That has not happened yet and very well may not happen.

IF the State Supreme Court agrees to order a "writ of cetiorari" to the Appeals Court the ball would be in their court - not the Appeals Court or the original trial court.

At this point the case is not going to the State Supreme Court. The State has only asked the Supreme Court to consider ordering the record from the Appeals Court. If they don't order the writ the case goes back to the original court for a new trial that considers his right to mine. If they do order the writ they will consider only the correctness of the Appeals Court decision, they will not retry Brandon's case.

If the Supreme Court does grant a writ (big if) and if they overturn the Appeals Court decision (another big if) Brandon may or may not get his day in court. It all depends on the Supreme Court's ruling about the Appeals Court ruling.

If the Supreme Court does not agree to a writ the case will go back to the trial court and that judge will have to follow the instructions in the Appeal Court's decision.

Usually petitions for a writ of cetiorari in an appeal are not granted. To do so would put the Appeals Court decision on trial. Supreme Court Judges generally don't like to hold trials about other higher court Judge's decisions. The California Judiciary is one of the most political in the United States so they may take the record of the case under writ just to make a political decision and stop the lower courts one way or another. Welcome to California!

Something that needs to be understood about this whole process is that Brandon's case can not be retried by any court but the original trial court and even then only if their was an error by that original court. The Appeals Court ruled there was such an error.

The Appeals Court and the Supreme Court do not hold trials of fact and law - they determine whether proper justice was served by the original trial court. The only "win" for Brandon is if the original trial court finds him not guilty. If the original Appeals Court decision is allowed to stand Brandon will get that opportunity. The State Supreme Court can not find him "not guilty" - only the original trial court can do that.

I believe Brandon will eventually get his proper trial considering all his rights and he will be found not guilty. That would be justice in my opinion. Let's hope I am right.

Heavy Pans

 

[Oakview2]

Clay, thanks in advance for clearing up the process. If the state is not successful in depublishing the the appealte courts ruling, in your opinion will the state still pursue the case at the superior court. Also, I have heard some people speculating that the appealte ruling could mean that the state will have no say on federal minning claims. I know that most of these questions are speculative at best, but what is your be opinion.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay, thanks in advance for clearing up the process. If the state is not successful in depublishing the the appealte courts ruling, in your opinion will the state still pursue the case at the superior court. Also, I have heard some people speculating that the appealte ruling could mean that the state will have no say on federal minning claims. I know that most of these questions are speculative at best, but what is your be opinion.

I'm pretty sure there are several things that all humans have - one of them being an opinion. I'm not sure my opinion should be worth any more than all the other things we already possess naturally, even so I seem to have one. I'm guessing it's worth just about what I charge for it... nothing. Please take it in that spirit.

The State doesn't have much choice but to go through with the trial if the Appeal Court decision is upheld. The State's attorneys are officers of the court and they can't ignore the court order to do the trial over. This is not dependent on depublishing or not, if the Appeal Court is upheld the trial will take place.

The Appellate ruling in no way implies that the State has no say on mining claims. It's just not in there and wasn't even an issue at the trial or the appellate hearing. People have many different opinions but I see no basis for the opinion that the "state will have no say on federal minning claims".

That and $2.50 will buy you a styrofoam cup of lukewarm coffee.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bejay]

History teaches much about this though! The QUESTION will remain: "What role can a State play?" Such questions regarding State Authority vs. Federal Authority will continue. In "geology" there is a saying that applies: "THE PAST IS THE KEY TO THE FUTURE". State rights vs Federal rights will continue.

The final issue may simply boil down to "who has the rights to regulate what?" and to "what extent". Often this is not a black/white issue but rather many shades of grey! Unfortunately such issues require time to resolve. Once such issues become "political" in nature we find "resolve" to be extremely frustrating!

 

[Oakview2]

I will take the opinion in the spirit it was given. My guess is that the states secondary plan is to regulate by prohibition. Lets hope that the court does not allow this saftey net approach.

 

[The Gilded Lens]

Hefty- That would for sure be the best place, but I doubt the Nevada County DA would look the other way and refuse to involve himself. Plus we would dredge upstream/lake where the Mercury actually is and that would just pizz off the lakefront property owners waiting for their taxpayer funded shoreline makeover. I was actually thinking of an off chute of the Klamath in Siskiyou that has a rather large Cinnabar deposit. Easy pickens for the visual effect. Matters not whether its legacy or naturally occuring right? Mercury is mercury, bad gree gree. Makes a person wonder why they're not targeting some of the bigger more easily obtainable natural deposits on the west side of the state doesn't it? Bnugget- Hang in there Sparky, starting to see a glimmer of light. Like the new website, added it to favorites makes it easy to check in daily and keep up on the latest happenings.

I'd love to have it at Combie! Or even in the greenhorn area above Rollins. I don't have a dredge but I'd come out and learn and support. I'm only a 20 min drive from either.

 

[chlsbrns]

Im not going to waste my time commenting on any of the lame comments posted about me above by those who just dont get it but I will enlighten you all!

Have none of you caught on to the fact that the State did not comply with their own laws and proceedures for filing an emergency regulation?

More specifically the emergency regulation to change the definition of a dredge?

Emergency Regulation Process - Office of Administrative Law

CA Codes (gov:11346-11348)

I'll give you one instance. You can figure out the multitude of others.

What constitutes an emergency?
"'Emergency' means a situation that calls for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare." (Government Code section 11342.545.) In order for an emergency regulation to be approved, an emergency must be shown to exist.

How can they claim an emergency and serious harm to anything when they haven't completed any of the enviromental studies? You know the studies that must be completed before dredge permits can by made available.

Ok I'll give two examples!

The emergency regulation is good for 180 days. (Assuming there even was an emergency)

In another thread I posted a link to a 2008 karuk tribe newsletter. No one picked up on anything that could be used against them? Really?

 

[Hefty1]

Im not going to waste my time commenting on any of the lame comments posted about me above by those who just dont get it but I will enlighten you all!

Have none of you caught on to the fact that the State did not comply with their own laws and proceedures for filing an emergency regulation?

More specifically the emergency regulation to change the definition of a dredge?

Emergency Regulation Process - Office of Administrative Law

CA Codes (gov:11346-11348)

I'll give you one instance. You can figure out the multitude of others.

What constitutes an emergency?
"'Emergency' means a situation that calls for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare." (Government Code section 11342.545.) In order for an emergency regulation to be approved, an emergency must be shown to exist.

How can they claim an emergency and serious harm to anything when they haven't completed any of the enviromental studies? You know the studies that must be completed before dredge permits can by made available.

Ok I'll give two examples!

The emergency regulation is good for 180 days. (Assuming there even was an emergency)

In another thread I posted a link to a 2008 karuk tribe newsletter. No one picked up on anything that could be used against them? Really?

Because it is all OLD news, that we have discussed back when it happened.

 

[Oakview2]

Not only did we catch it, but we waged a letter writing campaign to stop the fraud. But our AG will have nothing to do with upholding law. You are several years behind the curve in this fight.

Im not going to waste my time commenting on any of the lame comments posted about me above by those who just dont get it but I will enlighten you all!

Have none of you caught on to the fact that the State did not comply with their own laws and proceedures for filing an emergency regulation?

More specifically the emergency regulation to change the definition of a dredge?

Emergency Regulation Process - Office of Administrative Law

CA Codes (gov:11346-11348)

I'll give you one instance. You can figure out the multitude of others.

What constitutes an emergency?
"'Emergency' means a situation that calls for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare." (Government Code section 11342.545.) In order for an emergency regulation to be approved, an emergency must be shown to exist.

How can they claim an emergency and serious harm to anything when they haven't completed any of the enviromental studies? You know the studies that must be completed before dredge permits can by made available.

Ok I'll give two examples!

The emergency regulation is good for 180 days. (Assuming there even was an emergency)

In another thread I posted a link to a 2008 karuk tribe newsletter. No one picked up on anything that could be used against them? Really?

 

[chlsbrns]

Not only did we catch it, but we waged a letter writing campaign to stop the fraud. But our AG will have nothing to do with upholding law. You are several years behind the curve in this fight.

Oh ok so what you are saying is that no one had enough sense to oppose it in a court and No one used it in a court. Got it!

In other words you let them get away with it!

Im a couple years behind? The amended definition was this year.

A definition is not a regulation.

And the 2008 karak newsletter?

 

[fowledup]

"In another thread I posted a link to a 2008 karuk tribe newsletter. No one picked up on anything that could be used against them? Really?"

WTH! Rather then insult your audience for their obvious ignorance, try explaining exactly what it is your trying to say. I read through it 4 times, like everyone else, I can't find one point of BS that wasn't debunked or addressed long before you or I started posting on this site. Yep were all stupid you win, now that we have that established lets go back to work fostering constructive debate and SUPPORTING those helping us get back into the water.

 

[chlsbrns]

"In another thread I posted a link to a 2008 karuk tribe newsletter. No one picked up on anything that could be used against them? Really?"

WTH! Rather then insult your audience for their obvious ignorance, try explaining exactly what it is your trying to say. I read through it 4 times, like everyone else, I can't find one point of BS that wasn't debunked or addressed long before you or I started posting on this site. Yep were all stupid you win, now that we have that established lets go back to work fostering constructive debate and SUPPORTING those helping us get back into the water.

Are you talking to me?

You want me to tell you?

Support me?

I've posted laws and obvious interoperations of the laws and get nothing but insults and opposition thrown at me so I left it to the so called legal genius's to explain. They know better than I do!

 

[Clay Diggins]

Please don't feed the Trolls it only encourages them.

Troll definition

1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

They will always be with us. It's just a part of some people's self centered view of the world. It's best to starve them. Without the attention they crave they will wander over to another forum where others may pay attention to them.

I apologize for having fed trolls here in the past. I just hate people spreading misinformation to get attention. I'll try harder in the future to ignore ignorant statements designed only to bring attention to the poster.

 

[Hefty1]

Are you talking to me?

You want me to tell you?

Support me?

I've posted laws and obvious interoperations of the laws and get nothing but insults and opposition thrown at me so I left it to the so called legal genius's to explain. They know better than I do!

BINGO!

 

[fowledup]

If there was ten dredgers in a location that is known to have mercury how much pounds of mercury could they get out in one day?

Specifics:

Full 10 hours of solid work
Same dredges being used (Keene) just as an example
Experienced dredgers
I
How much pounds of mercury could they cleanup?

First off, I believe I read your still in High school? Thank you for your interest and desire to learn all you can. Your generation carries the burden of most likely either turning the tide or finishing us off. I hope you stay involved in the fight to preserve the freedoms and rights we are losing.
Sorry I didnt respond earlier, I didn't see the post. No way to know for certain how much we'd recover, depends on many variables- size of deposit, material "holding" the Mercury, ease of extraction, operator experience, dredge set up, etc. Generally speaking. if we came across it we would capture it. The point to be made is that we can recover more Mercury, at little to no cost to the taxpayers, more efficiently, with proven experience- then what is currently being "proposed".
Thee current proposal at a cost of $6-9 million dollars of taxpayer money, is to dredge one location and recover
50- 150lbs of Mercury over a period of 2 yrs minimum. A very pertinent caveat to this proposal is it's unproven and all theory.
Two times, in August and September of 2000 the EPA, DTSC, and others did an experimental collection effort to recover Mercury at no cost to taxpayers. Dredge events sponsored by prospecting clubs were a suggestion as possible future examples of these same collection efforts/gatherings- hence the thought of a dredge-in. The collection was open to anyone- Miners, Dentists, etc. They collected 230lbs at those two collection events. Quite the difference!
$6-9 million dollars vs. $0 tax payer dollars
50-150lbs (hopefully) over two years vs. 230lbs proven twice in days not years, future collection unlimited
Single source waterway recovery point vs. Unlimited Statewide waterway, natural deposit, and industrial use source point recovery.
Tons of aggregate removed from source point vs. Gravels "cleaned" and returned to back to original location

The list goes on and on! It's a scam of epic proportion and everyone knows it. Maybe we screwed up by not charging the state for metals extraction during the dredging process. Plenty of good reading on the subject, read the sticky here on tnet or the articles at Western Mining Alliance, you can also do a search on EPA region 9 Mercury "Milkrun" program.

 

[H&F909ORO]

So then where is the taxpayers money going to? Millions of dollars vs time and a few bucks for gas? That seems way too far fetched, but knowing the environmentalists they are probably using the money to fuel more absurd ideas. So why do these people need millions for clean up when anyway people will come out doing the same thing and do it for free?

I will be working soon and have to pay my share of taxes and I wouldn't want money going to the scam that it is.