Brandons Case update! Seem like good news!

[Bnugget]

Brandon's Case update! Seem like good news!

I have recieved an update on my case, the court is asking for oral argument in regards to the Eighth Circuit's Decision on federal preemption in the South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County, which seems very positive!

...06/12/2014 Argument order sent. Monday, July 28, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the holding in South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County (8th Cir. 1998) 155 F.3d 1005. HULL, Acting P.J....

(This date may change due to scheduling conflicts per some emails I recieved.)

Here is a link,

155 F.3d 1005: South Dakota Mining Association, Inc.; Homestake Miningcompany, of California; Wharf Resources, a Montana Generalpartnership; Golden Reward Mining Company Limitedpartnership; Naneco Minerals, Inc.; Fred J. Gali; Iwalanai. Gali, Plainti

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

That's great news Brandon! Looks like you've hit a homerun for the miners. Congratulations and a big THANK YOU from myself and my mining group.

 

[Oakview2]

I am suprised that more people aren't hooting and hollering about this case.

 

[Goldwasher]

Cool hope it set some precedence.

 

[Clay Diggins]

The Spearfish case that will be the subject of the hearing is the precedence. In Spearfish the county banned surface mining in Spearfish Canyon and got their heads handed to them by every court that heard the case. No court could decide in favor of the county ban because of the Mining Act.

From Spearfish:

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Federal Mining Act of 1872, preempted the Lawrence County ordinance and ordered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance.

That's the issue. Here is the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and they rely entirely on the Mining Act, Congressional intent and prior Supreme Court decisions - precedence of the kind no court can ignore.

From Spearfish appeal:

The ordinance's de facto ban on mining on federal land acts as a clear obstacle to the accomplishment of the Congressional purposes and objectives embodied in the Mining Act. Congress has encouraged exploration and mining of valuable mineral deposits located on federal land and has granted certain rights to those who discover such minerals. Federal law also encourages the economical extraction and use of these minerals. The Lawrence County ordinance completely frustrates the accomplishment of these federally encouraged activities. A local government cannot prohibit a lawful use of the sovereign's land that the superior sovereign itself permits and encourages. To do so offends both the Property Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution.

Unless the Judge is doing psychedelics he has zoned in on the portion of Brandon's defense that forces him to recognize that the dredging moratorium is effectively a ban against a particular form of mining. That is illegal and unenforceable. As long as Brandon can establish that the State has no firm date on which dredging will resume he has a win in his pocket.

Barring the use of mind altering drugs the Judge is bound by precedence to reverse the lower courts conviction of Brandon... unless the State offers him a dredging permit.

 

[Bnugget]

I am suprised that more people aren't hooting and hollering about this case.

Yeah I almost thought everyone gave up on me, lol! Just kidding I know I have a lot of support out there.

 

[Aufisher]

I hope you hand them their asses! Is the price for used dredges about to shoot up?

 

[Oakview2]

If we don't win this, a case can't be won in this state.

 

[timberjack]

And what if they say o.k., you can dredge 2 weeks a year with a 3 inch dredge and a permit is $2500?

 

[gold tramp]

And what if they say o.k., you can dredge 2 weeks a year with a 3 inch dredge and a permit is $2500?

choose my grounds wiseley and dig like a madman for the 2 weeks. hope the gold god smiles on me !!!!

 

[Oakview2]

And what if they say o.k., you can dredge 2 weeks a year with a 3 inch dredge and a permit is $2500?

Any regs they inact must be reasonable, if you charge hunters and fishermen 35, you can't reasonable charge miners 2500. My understanding is that it would return to the previous regs and fees of 1994. And you cannot create a lottery like Oregon has either. All miners have the soverign right to mine thier claims in the most economical manner.

 

[Hoser John]

Those regs have been gone for many years,the legal clock does not get set back,would like to see but don't do acid so nope-Absolutely no verbage exists altogether yet another issue. Ask the loggers and fishermen who are MIGHTY well funded how good that went...base all actions on cases and facts are the foundation....John

 

[Oakview2]

Not so sure I would get a permit if they were free from the cheating bast*rds. Skull and crossbones

 

[rockygulchJoe]

Good luck Brandon, I did what little I could do to help.
I here Oakview2 too, F&W colluded whith the "greenbacks" in trying too destroy gold dredging. Its going to be hard too buy a permit from them because of that, especially whith those crazy new regs.
I still have a unused 09 permit never got a chance to use.

 

[russau]

And what if they say o.k., you can dredge 2 weeks a year with a 3 inch dredge and a permit is $2500?

That would be truly a unreasonable restriction!

 

[Doitlaynstyle]

Oh man you've got my hopes up on this one Brandon! That's not just a win for your state that would be a win in precedent for the state of Idaho against the EPA as well. They moved in 2 years ago and required that you get a dredging permit from them when Idaho already has a permit system. Then they restricted the numbers to 60 and everyone started selling dredges. If you win this at least the claim owners won't have to get an EPA permit and they can continue to use Idaho's water permit system.

 

[omnicron]

Oh man you've got my hopes up on this one Brandon! That's not just a win for your state that would be a win in precedent for the state of Idaho against the EPA as well. They moved in 2 years ago and required that you get a dredging permit from them when Idaho already has a permit system. Then they restricted the numbers to 60 and everyone started selling dredges. If you win this at least the claim owners won't have to get an EPA permit and they can continue to use Idaho's water permit system.

Huh? Restricted what to 60? Permits or water ways? As far as I know they have no limit on the number of permits they will issue but limit how many waters are open and in some water ways limit the number of hours a week they allow dredging. Maybe I've missed something, after all, I don't have a epa permit!

 

[Doitlaynstyle]

They only issued 60 dredge permits.

 

[timberjack]

Was just thinking about the enviros being allowed to dredge lake combie and planning other places,, how did they get around the ban? Seems like the judge might like to know enviros are recieving tax payer funding and have the blessing of state agencies? I know at this point in the case they are focusing on spacific points of law,,,,but,,, greenies got a permit!!!

 

[Oakview2]

If I remember right Fish and Shame granted them a variance or a Special Use permit. The.y were not granted a regular permit