ratled
Hero Member
- Feb 18, 2014
- 950
- 2,396
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I have been asked why I believe so strongly that Rinehart is our best case. Rather than distract any more from the other current thread, here is why I consider this to be true:
Immediately after the Office of Administrative Law recorded SB 637 as law I reached out to Jonathan Wood at the Pacific Legal Foundation looking start a challenge to California SB 637. Mr. Wood was thoroughly familiar with the plight of the miners and with the Rinehart case as he was the one who wrote an amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court) brief supporting Rinehart. Mr. Wood spent about 30 minutes explaining that Rinehart was the stronger of the two cases and that PLF felt he would prevail in the California Supreme Court (baring any political pressure). He felt so strong about the case he pledged that PLF would take the case to the US Supreme Court should California fail Brandon.
With my involvement in the Consolidated Cases in San Bernardino before Judge Ochoa I felt comfortable with Mr. Wood’s legal assessment but I was uneasy with his “faith” in the California legal system. I contacted several specialty law firms both in and outside California for a challenge to SB 637. I had consultations with two of these firms. The first simply wanted to add billing hours to their books. The other proposed a feasibility study to see if it is worth perusing the challenge further. We agreed with the idea and commissioned them to prepare a study to see if a SB637 challenge was prudent, as well as conduct a review of the Consolidated Cases and Rinehart. After about 6 weeks they came back with the Consolidated Cases should move forward under the current direction, as they are legally sound though the outside political pressure is factor. They said Rinehart was on point and felt that Rinehart was the strongest case, and with the support of PLF behind it, felt that was the best course of action. They said that while a challenge to SB 637 was possible they felt the best course of action was to wait for Rinehart and to put our support behind Rinehart and our dollars into the Consolidated cases. They said that should Rinehart loose in the CA Supreme Court we could revisit a SB 637 challenge.
When the CA Supreme Court failed to uphold Brandon’s federal rights I contacted the firm to revisit the SB 637 challenge. After a quick review they felt that given the current case status and the ability bring outside political pressure to bear on the cases it was best to support Rinehart, as it was the strongest case, and that anything we would do would have to start at square one. It would take years and a significant amount of dollars just to catch up to Rinehart, and then Rinehart would still be the strongest of the two cases as it was denial of a federal right in a criminal case as opposed to a civil case on a state law.
When Donald Trump won the Presidential Election last November and literally changed the political climate of the nation overnight, I revisited a SB637 challenge. I contacted two mega law firms, both real powerhouses, for a pro bono case. One is a business and environmental law firm and the other was the same but also brought a political aspect too. The first was intrigued by the case but was unable to pro bono that size of a case. They said they could take it if we were a straight up client. They needed a $500k retainer but it would be a federal challenge and had a good likelihood of success.
I spent some time with the other firm discussing the cases. They said they too were unable to do a pro bono case because of it’s size and, with Rinehart such a strong case, and so far into the process, it would be in our best interest to see that through. I did ask if they knew of any mega corporate clients of theirs that might be interested in a grant to us for the case, some kind of dollar matching in a joint challenge or a combination of donations to any of the 501 3c groups for a straight up case. They said they would look into it but they haven’t found anything yet, and I still check back occasionally.
The only weak spot in Rinehart is that the Obama administration directed the DOJ to unconstitutionally submit a position against Brandon's rights. What I am asking in this week’s Trump letter is for as many people as we can get to send in a letter asking the current administration to direct the DOJ to undo this injustice and in fact ask that they reverse it and submit a position in favor of Rinehart.... as they should.
President Trump, and his Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Scott Pruitt Administrator of the EPA, and Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Department of Interior all have stated numerous times that they will undo the environmental movements junk science and the over regulations for the use of our natural resources and minerals. Rep Smith out Texas, and Chair of the House Science Committee, just wrote to Pruitt on behalf of the Pebble Mine in Alaska to reverse the EPA’s extraordinary action against the Pebble Mine.
Pebble Mine is being attacked by the same players as we are only more so, by the using the same junk science, often using the exact same verbiage as they use against us. The similarities as so comparable that Pebble Mine will be this week’s letter to Trump.
Lastly, I know that one other organization that also looked into a SB637 challenge. They were told basically the same thing. They were told that it would be a sizable six-figure cost to challenge SB637.
Now you know why I believe so strongly that Rinehart is our best chance for success. Won’t you please take moment and send in a letter support the cause?
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/532843-rinehart-letter-president-trump.html
Immediately after the Office of Administrative Law recorded SB 637 as law I reached out to Jonathan Wood at the Pacific Legal Foundation looking start a challenge to California SB 637. Mr. Wood was thoroughly familiar with the plight of the miners and with the Rinehart case as he was the one who wrote an amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court) brief supporting Rinehart. Mr. Wood spent about 30 minutes explaining that Rinehart was the stronger of the two cases and that PLF felt he would prevail in the California Supreme Court (baring any political pressure). He felt so strong about the case he pledged that PLF would take the case to the US Supreme Court should California fail Brandon.
With my involvement in the Consolidated Cases in San Bernardino before Judge Ochoa I felt comfortable with Mr. Wood’s legal assessment but I was uneasy with his “faith” in the California legal system. I contacted several specialty law firms both in and outside California for a challenge to SB 637. I had consultations with two of these firms. The first simply wanted to add billing hours to their books. The other proposed a feasibility study to see if it is worth perusing the challenge further. We agreed with the idea and commissioned them to prepare a study to see if a SB637 challenge was prudent, as well as conduct a review of the Consolidated Cases and Rinehart. After about 6 weeks they came back with the Consolidated Cases should move forward under the current direction, as they are legally sound though the outside political pressure is factor. They said Rinehart was on point and felt that Rinehart was the strongest case, and with the support of PLF behind it, felt that was the best course of action. They said that while a challenge to SB 637 was possible they felt the best course of action was to wait for Rinehart and to put our support behind Rinehart and our dollars into the Consolidated cases. They said that should Rinehart loose in the CA Supreme Court we could revisit a SB 637 challenge.
When the CA Supreme Court failed to uphold Brandon’s federal rights I contacted the firm to revisit the SB 637 challenge. After a quick review they felt that given the current case status and the ability bring outside political pressure to bear on the cases it was best to support Rinehart, as it was the strongest case, and that anything we would do would have to start at square one. It would take years and a significant amount of dollars just to catch up to Rinehart, and then Rinehart would still be the strongest of the two cases as it was denial of a federal right in a criminal case as opposed to a civil case on a state law.
When Donald Trump won the Presidential Election last November and literally changed the political climate of the nation overnight, I revisited a SB637 challenge. I contacted two mega law firms, both real powerhouses, for a pro bono case. One is a business and environmental law firm and the other was the same but also brought a political aspect too. The first was intrigued by the case but was unable to pro bono that size of a case. They said they could take it if we were a straight up client. They needed a $500k retainer but it would be a federal challenge and had a good likelihood of success.
I spent some time with the other firm discussing the cases. They said they too were unable to do a pro bono case because of it’s size and, with Rinehart such a strong case, and so far into the process, it would be in our best interest to see that through. I did ask if they knew of any mega corporate clients of theirs that might be interested in a grant to us for the case, some kind of dollar matching in a joint challenge or a combination of donations to any of the 501 3c groups for a straight up case. They said they would look into it but they haven’t found anything yet, and I still check back occasionally.
The only weak spot in Rinehart is that the Obama administration directed the DOJ to unconstitutionally submit a position against Brandon's rights. What I am asking in this week’s Trump letter is for as many people as we can get to send in a letter asking the current administration to direct the DOJ to undo this injustice and in fact ask that they reverse it and submit a position in favor of Rinehart.... as they should.
President Trump, and his Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Scott Pruitt Administrator of the EPA, and Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Department of Interior all have stated numerous times that they will undo the environmental movements junk science and the over regulations for the use of our natural resources and minerals. Rep Smith out Texas, and Chair of the House Science Committee, just wrote to Pruitt on behalf of the Pebble Mine in Alaska to reverse the EPA’s extraordinary action against the Pebble Mine.
Pebble Mine is being attacked by the same players as we are only more so, by the using the same junk science, often using the exact same verbiage as they use against us. The similarities as so comparable that Pebble Mine will be this week’s letter to Trump.
Lastly, I know that one other organization that also looked into a SB637 challenge. They were told basically the same thing. They were told that it would be a sizable six-figure cost to challenge SB637.
Now you know why I believe so strongly that Rinehart is our best chance for success. Won’t you please take moment and send in a letter support the cause?
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/532843-rinehart-letter-president-trump.html
Last edited:
Upvote
0
