WE NEED A WIN

[Oakview2]

A sincere prayer that Judge Ochoa rules on the merits of the case, not the rantings of the state and CBD. We need judges to stand up for the Rule of Law. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and Federal Preemption has a long history of precedent. Gods Speed PLP!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Fullpan]

Two pieces of trivia associated - 1. - Judge Ochoa is not up for re-election until 2017. Probably a plus for us. 2. - the local media attention will be on the wildfire burning close by (10% contained today) - this might affect the courtroom attendance - who knows ?

 

[2cmorau]

merit will not win in this court

 

[2cmorau]

sorry for the shorth staement, i have been relly sick the last few weeks
http://www.idahoconservation.org/blog/dredgers-to-protest

 

[dredgeman]

AS THE WORLD TURNS

Looks like all parties submitted their argument for summary judgement or adjudication. Next date 6-24-14

 

[Oakview2]

We actually need a few wins, but the first would sure be nice out of the gate. On with the delays.

 

[dredgeman]

Some rumors are decision in two weeks.

 

[Oakview2]

I don't know if quick is good or bad, given case law should be good, but in this crazy state I guess its anybodys guess. I hear Assemblyman Patterson and Sheriff Mimms are having a protest and rally at the court house tomorrow at 3 pm. Patterson says the appeal process has started already reagarding frogs and toads.

 

[midnightmoon]

Update from ICMJ:

News from the California suction gold dredge hearing on May 1, 2014 - Miner's News - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

 

[Bejay]

QUOTE From the ICMJ article: "Current law and case precedent are in favor of suction dredge miners. Both dictate that while the State of California is allowed reasonable regulation of mining, they cannot prohibit mining."

===============================================================================

Point of interest: If a state can reasonably regulate mining. The word "reasonable" opens a vast amount of permitting issues. The one that is most worthy of fears is permit costs!

If you want to inhibit dredging all one has to do is charge a "justifiable permit fee". And I can assure you the State of Calif. will be creative in justifying a large fee. In Oregon the USFS charges $2,500.00 for a commercial mushroom picking permit.....and their administrative justification was what it was...no and's if's or but's about it.

Guess all one can do is hope for the best. But the PLP answer to the court was that state permitting was acceptable. I imagine such a large fee would separate the men from the boys.....and fit right into the states contention that the majority of "dredgers" do so for "RECREATION".

Bejay

 

[Oakview2]

They cannot legally charge us more than the hunters and fisherman, but they will try, and the second part of the suit seeks to throw out the newest regs as they are not reasonable, and seeks to roll back to the 94 regs and fees, $35 per permit

 

[jog]

Folks, please forward this to your email lists
Thanks
Jerry Hobbs

The following is a short statement that can be sent to the membership.

On May 1, 2014, David Young, Counsel for Public Lands For The People and other plaintiffs, appeared before Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa in Rancho Cucamonga to argue our Motions for Summary Judgments, and oppose the State’s cross-motions for Summary Judgments. These Motions regarded the issue of Federal preemption of the State’s prohibition of suction dredge mining in California. Judge Ochoa was knowledgeable about the pleadings that had been filed, the arguments made, and asked challenging questions regarding the State’s position that there was only a temporary moratorium, and not a prohibition of suction dredge mining in California. The State could give no assurance to Judge Ochoa as to a date when the so called “moratorium” would end. At the end of all arguments, Judge Ochoa took the matters under advisement, making no ruling from the bench.

Judge Ochoa then asked all counsel to meet with him in chambers. He stated that he would like to see the matter settled, if at all possible, before he ruled on the various motions. We discussed the previous settlement attempts with judge Ochoa which were not successful. Nevertheless, Judge Ochoa exercised his judicial authority to order a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) beginning June 24, 2014, which may continue for one or two more days. Judge Ochoa will personally preside at the MSC as the settlement Judge, and is prepared to make a substantial personal commitment of time and effort to see if any settlement can be achieved. Judge Ochoa will require all parties to the litigation to be either personally present in Court for the MSC, or to be available by telephone. Those parties who cannot attend personally, should be able to attend by telephone conference at no cost to them. Judge Ochoa has the authority to sanction any party who does not attend the MSC either in person, or by telephone.

When available, a copy of Judge Ochoa’s written Order regarding the MSC, and the mandatory attendance of all parties will be provided. Under any circumstances, Jerry Hobbs and David Young will be attending the MSC in person, and all other parties to the litigation are urged to attend in person. Judge Ochoa further stated that he would want to personally address the parties. The parties would have an opportunity, either through counsel, or personally to address Judge Ochoa. Since Judge Ochoa has yet to rule on the Motions now pending before him, the MSC should give everyone a more complete education on the realities of what it takes to actually engage in suction dredge mining in California, and the impact that the State’s prohibition has had on suction dredge miners.

 

[Bejay]

If the parties to the MSC were to settle, I wonder if said mandatory outcome would remove the court from making a decision; and thus there would be no precedence set. The "settlement" would remove the court/judge from the matter. If so I would request that the record of the court occur......and want a judgment.

Bejay

 

[Fullpan]

I may be way off base here, but isn't this "MSC" thing a classic back-room deal ? Where the underdog is pressured to give up the fight ?

 

[Bejay]

It is my guess the judge does not want to make a ruling. A ruling will undoubtedly be appealed and cost $$$$. If two parties can be coerced to reach an agreement there is no further action. As the parties AGREE !

Such State court actions resulting from the State's own moratorium cost the State Time and Money.....ouch to them finally. IMHO.

I have said all along that Gov simply does not have a bottomless well of revenue to fund such actions....they always hope the parties will give up: Per my personal experience with such USFS challenges. Keep the Gov in court and chew up their budgets.....revenue times are tough right now. Their budgets are set and their funding is limited.


Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

Why dont these judges grow a pair!
From the B.Rhinehart case all the way to this, they have backed off from the truth!
They are just hideing behind their little black robes as not to make waves.

MAKE A JUDGEMENT!

 

[russau]

don't kid yourself! these judges have been told on how judgements are to handeled and where their "other" paycheck comes from! they will Never grow any testicals,only greasey palms!

 

[Bejay]

Judge Frank J. Ochoa

http://www.sbcourts.org/gi/jo/ochoa.shtm


Born in Long Beach, California, Judge Frank Ochoa traces his roots back to the Spanish land grant era. After earning BA degrees in English and History from UCSB, he studied law at U.C. Davis School of Law, graduating in 1975. In 1980, he became the Executive Director of the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County. In 1983, at age 32, he was appointed to the Municipal Court by Governor Brown, making him the youngest judge in the state at the time. He also became the court's first Hispanic judge in this century.

Judge Ochoa was elected to the Superior Court in 1996. As Presiding Judge, he managed the court through the unification process, merging the Municipal Courts with the Superior Court. He has been appointed by the Chief Justice to serve on the California Trial Court Budget Commission and on Judicial Council's Probation Services Task Force. He has also served on the Executive Committee of the Presiding Judges Advisory Committee to Judicial Council. He has served on the Executive Board of the California Judges' Association.

Judge Ochoa started two successful adult drug court programs in Santa Barbara, the Substance Abuse Treatment Court and the Clean and Sober Calendar. These calendars offer intensive, court supervised treatment to drug offenders. He also started a Juvenile Drug Court program. He founded the Court Administered Appropriate Dispute Resolution program (CADRe), to provide early ADR opportunities for civil litigants. He has also served as a Justice Pro Tem for the California Court of Appeal.

He is a former President of the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law. He later served as a Professor at the Santa Barbara College of Law, teaching courses on Legal Process, Statutory Law, and Legal Ethics.

 

[Hefty1]

Nice....but I see nothing pertaining to Mining Law.

But he does owe Brown a favor.

 

[Bejay]

I believe the important aspect of said judge is he is: "State of Calif" court. Being a State judge he would tend to favor the States position. To deliver a judgment contrary to the State tends to diminish his appointed position....just saying! IMHO