Judge Ochoa rules tommorrow in San Bernadino cases on Preemption.

[Oakview2]

Lets say our prayers and keep our fingers crossed.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[rodoconnor]

OV2, you bet. Many of us have hands that look like pretzels

 

[minerrick]

For some reason, I am thinking that date was pushed out a couple of weeks. Not sure, but I think so.

 

[Oakview2]

This reported in ICMJ's prospecting and minning journal, The Judge made it known he will make his ruling without further oral argument the first week of January. Mandatory setlement statements to be heard Jan 23, 2015. HAS THIS CHANGED.??

 

[TheGoldProspector]

/\
That is the last I have heard on the matter...

Much Thanks OakView

 

[2cmorau]

The Judge made it known he will make his ruling without further oral argument the first week of January. He set the date to continue the Mandatory Settlement Conference on January 23, 2015 at 10am in his courtroom in San Bernardino. The courtroom itself is open to the public, but only parties to the litigation are allowed to participate in the discussions, typically held in the judge’s chambers or a conference room.
Significant progress made in court for California suction gold dredgers; still more work to be done - Miner's News - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

 

[NeoTokyo]

Any news today?

 

[Goldwasher]

don't think it happened today

 

[winners58]

Looking at the Docket, tried adding up what this has cost all partys I come up with close to three million dollars maybe more!
50 actions on each page, 11 pages, each action involved both partys and the court so I assigned a low of 5000 each action.
this does not Include personal loss and harm this has inflicted on the lives of Miners...

for some reason I had to click on this link 3 times(3tabs in the same window?) but its case # DS4720
link; http://openaccess.sb-court.org/Open...asenumber=DS4720&courtcode=X&casetype=JCP&dsn
.

 

[NeoTokyo]

yeah, it took 3 tries here too. Weird...

 

[enamel7]

When it says "stay is lifted", does that mean what I think it means?

 

[Bejay]

The Judge made it known he will make his ruling without further oral argument the first week of January. He set the date to continue the Mandatory Settlement Conference on January 23, 2015 at 10am in his courtroom in San Bernardino. The courtroom itself is open to the public, but only parties to the litigation are allowed to participate in the discussions, typically held in the judge’s chambers or a conference room.
Significant progress made in court for California suction gold dredgers; still more work to be done - Miner's News - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

Now I see a very slippery slope simply because of the way this is going to be settled as a "Mandatory Settlement Conference".

I know we hate to speculate. But the newsrooms do it all the time.

The judges is going to request that the two opposing parties reach a compromise. If the two can not do so, the judge will seek a judgment on the "unwillingness" of one party to submit to what he determines to be reasonable. Such a compromise solution will allow the judge to avoid giving a specific ruling on the issue of pre-emption and favor the willing party to compromise.

If such an action were to occur the judge avoids a specific determination and the matter can pass to another court and bring forth the record.

Just an observation by myself....not expert in such matters. But one who knows that such actions can carry on for extremely long periods of time.

Bejay

 

[winners58]

8 cases, Preemption, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, takings, regulations
The judge will give his ruling on preemption that was under stay from May.
Still a ways to go not going to get fixed overnight, not everyone is going to be happy.

 

[goldenIrishman]

What we need is some judges that don't leave their guts at the door when they put on their robes! This whole case has been about the preemption issue and not a one of them has been willing to make a ruling on it so far. Judges are paid to make rulings be they wrong or right. If they get it right well and good. If not the people can have it kicked up to a higher court.

Mining on federal land should only be controlled by the feds. As long as miners stick to the rules, the states should not be allowed to shut down a method of mining that is the most economical way to get the gold and cleans the waterways of toxic metals at the same time.

 

[winners58]

somethings up... CCP 166.1?
01/06/2015 OPPOSITION TO MOTION RE: DEFTS REQ UNDER CCP 166.1 SET FOR HEARING ON 05/01/15, FILED BY PLAINTIFF BEN KIMBLE (IMAGED)
01/06/2015 NEW 49ERS JOINDER ISO OPPO TO DEFTS REQ UNDER CCP 166.1 FILED.
01/06/2015 DEFTS RESPONSE TO MINER PLTFS OPPO TO REQ UNDER CCP 166.1 FILED.
01/06/2015 DEFTS REQ UNDER CCP 166.1 RE PENDING MSJS FILED.
01/05/2015 FILING FEE PAID BY THE NEW 49'ERS, INC FOR FAX
01/02/2015 OPPOSITION OF KIMBLE & PLP TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST UNDER CCP 166.1 RE OENDING MSJS FILED.

CCP 166.1
166.1. Upon the written request of any party or his or her counsel,
or at the judge's discretion, a judge may indicate in any
interlocutory order a belief that there is a controlling question of
law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of
opinion, appellate resolution of which may materially advance the
conclusion of the litigation. Neither the denial of a request for,
nor the objection of another party or counsel to, such a commentary
in the interlocutory order, may be grounds for a writ or appeal.

found a write up on interlocutory order;
http://www.ehrlichfirm.com/advocate...ect-Filing-Writ-Petitions-California-2002.pdf

 

[minerrick]

Winner, I cannot read goggledegook, what is it saying? I need a translation.

 

[winners58]

CCP 166.1 a disagreement on a point of law that is pivotal to the case will be set for a hearing on just that point?
This is all behind closed doors so we don’t really know, my guess is before a another judge with a hearing on May 1st 2015
How much more pain and suffering and harm is going to be inflicted on miners….

 

[bubba2996]

What a croc...

 

[fowledup]

Do I have this right? We requested a MSJS (motion for summary judgement), they, in response have filled the CCP 166.1 in case the MSJS goes against them?

 

[Oakview2]

I am concerned that the ruling was not published as was announced in open court at the last hearing. Further the state is attempting to have the case retried under CCP 166.1 in the fourth appealate court, seeking another bite of the apple, and rendering the Rhinehart case null. This is another delay tactic by the state and it gree allies to delay the start of the dredge season in 2015, and the courts need to hold these people held liable in both a civil and criminal proceeding.