PLF files final brief to the Supreme Court in petition to hear Rinehart case

[winners58]

PLF files final brief to the Supreme Court asking to hear the Rinehart case, April 20th 2017

Briefing complete on cert. petition in Rinehart v. California - PLF Liberty Blog

Final brief; http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FINAL-Rinehart-Cert-Reply.pdf
.

 

[Jeff95531]

Sure would like Trump to see this.

 

[goldenmojo]

Thanks for posting this Winners. It reads well. Hopefully the court takes it up.

 

[QNCrazy]

Just a litttle update:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-970.htm


The case has been forwarded to the Solicitor General for review.

 

[Assembler]

Hello
It appears that the "Views of the United States" will soon be made clear. Thanks for the update QNCrazy. History may be restated time will tell.

 

[Assembler]

Hello
Pay very close attention to the wording used from the Solicitor General in regards to the "Connection with the leasing of mineral lands" and the "Duties thereof". The rest may be a lot of 'Fluff and policies'?
A "Mine Surveys" is not the same as the "Leasing of mineral lands" check out page 366 section 510 of the (1947) "Manual of Surveying Instructions". Read the part about "Ties to the portals and improvements, as well as Dependent resurvey" regardless if there is a "Leasing of mineral lands" in 'Place" or any other "Surveys".

 

[Clay Diggins]

Not sure what Solicitor General remarks you are writing about Assembler but wherever they come from they have nothing to do with Brandon's appeal.

Mineral leasing has nothing to do with mining claims. Two different animals.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

"Review may not be in favoritism in this "Case"?

Hello
Just a thought. If there is a lack of "Ties to the portals and improvements, and the marking of the section and subdivision-of-sections lines within the mine which divides private and public lands" the "Review may not be in favoritism in this "Case"?

 

[Assembler]

"Marking of the section and subdivision-of-sections lines within the mine"

Hello
The "Marking of the section and subdivision-of-sections lines within the mine" is the 'Core issue' and the "Mine Survey" establishes this the final word.
To bad there are not some mentors out there to cover this in 'Plain talk'.
So yes the "Solicitor General" could use some wording to this 'Effect' as the above is the wording used in "Manual of Surveying Instructions" Gov. Printing Office.
Hope this helps cover the issue. Thanks for taking a look Clay Diggins

 

[chlsbrns]

I see that the brief mentions the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act. Have any of you bothered to read it?

Provisions of the 1872 Mining Law were changed with the implementation of the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) effective as of January 1981. Many of the provisions of FLPMA revised the surface uses allowed on mining claims under the 1872 mining law by halting or restricting unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Sec. 102. [43 U.S.C. 1701]
(8) the public lands be managed in a manner
that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,
historical, ecological, environmental, air and
atmospheric, water resource, and archeological
values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and
protect certain public lands in their natural condi-
tion; that will provide food and habitat for fish and
wildlife and domestic animals


CALIFORNIA DESERT
CONSERVATION AREA
Sec. 601. [43 U.S.C. 1781]

Im not going to waste my time quoting any more of what many will ignore... The facts!

The lawyer is of course going to keep pocketing the money and beating a dead horse. If the dredge ban gets lifted they can stuff more money in the lawyers pocket fighting the Clean Water Act that all but regulates you out of ever getting a permit to dredge.

 

[Assembler]

Fully and specifically state how identified on the ground.

Hello
Conflicts:

The field notes will fully and specifically state how identified on the ground, as well as those which appear to conflict, according to their returned tie or boundary lines, and report all material errors or discrepancies found in such survey.

The 'Land leasing person' of record can not do this and is not 'Recognized'.
Hope this help one's to start reading the wording used.

 

[Assembler]

"Public subdivisions"

Hello
chlsbrns pointed out:

Im not going to waste my time quoting any more of what many will ignore... The facts!
The lawyer is of course going to keep pocketing the money and beating a dead horse. If the dredge ban gets lifted they can stuff more money in the lawyers pocket fighting the Clean Water Act that all but regulates you out of ever getting a permit to dredge.

Boy you are quick and to the point there chlsbrns. Thanks for posting.
However 'Every one should be on there toes' as to some of the wording and "Cases used". May open some eyes out there.
This one is under the impression that no "Surveys" except "Public subdivisions" are part of this "Case"? Please show me otherwise.
If this is the case what does this all have to do with a "Mine Survey"?
This is how you get to the 'Core issue'.

 

[Assembler]

Act of March 3, 1925.

Hello

The Act of March 3, 1925 (43 Stat. 1144; 43 U.S.C. sec. 51; Manual, Appendix I), necessitated a detailed revision of the regulations governing the administration of mineral surveys, but the field surveying operations remained fixed.

Anyone read this and the facts therein? What are the "Distinguishing features of the Mineral Survey"?

Certain rules for these administrative procedures are the subject of instructions, contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Chapter I, Subchapter L, Mineral Lands, Part 185.

Any one read these facts?
This is definitely not just about "Land leasing Public lands".

 

[Assembler]

Pictures

See attachments.

 

[QNCrazy]

Another thread meant to be informative and helpful HACKED!!!

 

[Clay Diggins]

Yeah there are a lot of mining haters bringing BS to any quality mining information subject here.

There is only one reason why someone would bring this sort of distraction to a serious post about an ongoing case in front of the Supreme Court.

I have found if you use the ignore button those mining haters disappear from Tnet and for all intents and purposes end up blowing smoke up their own orifices. With the ignore button used this thread appears to be useful and informative. Try the ignore button yourself and improve your own life and help make Tnet a useful productive forum for all. Tnet gives us the tools to control our forum for the good but they won't work if you don't use them.

I've added a new useless distraction to my ignore list today - will you join me?

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

What does this "Case" have to do with?

What does this "Case" have to do with a "Mine Survey"? - None.
The "Case" has every thing to do with a "Public land lease" and the failed duties thereof? - not a satisfactory out come for the "Review".
Soon will find out the 'Costs of failing' to "ignore" the answers to these questions.

 

[chlsbrns]

Those who IGNORE the facts are the same ones who constantly make grossly incorrect statements. They want you to ignore those who know what they are talking about so that you will blindly believe the crap they post.

The fact is that IF California intends to put an end to recreational miners they have many options.

For example real miners file Federal & State tax returns. In California and other States they pay real estate taxes on their claims. If you have a claim and are not filing tax returns or paying property taxes they can get you for tax evasion. You would also be in violation of the Mining Act and could, probably would lose your rights to the claims that you currently hold.

I doubt California will press the tax issue. They have you by the nuggets with the water regulations. If somehow you get past the water issues you better start filing tax returns and property taxes!

 

[Assembler]

Information.

chlsbrns pointed out:

Those who IGNORE the facts are the same ones who constantly make grossly incorrect statements. They want you to ignore those who know what they are talking about so that you will blindly believe the crap they post.
The fact is that IF California intends to put an end to recreational miners they have many options.
For example real miners file Federal & State tax returns. In California and other States they pay real estate taxes on their claims. If you have a claim and are not filing tax returns or paying property taxes they can get you for tax evasion. You would also be in violation of the Mining Act and could, probably would lose your rights to the claims that you currently hold.
I doubt California will press the tax issue. They have you by the nuggets with the water regulations. If somehow you get past the water issues you better start filing tax returns and property taxes!

Good points. There is some "Case history" about one's not paying "Property taxes" if there is no exchange for "Bank Notes" and the register of "Property Tax Office" as there already is the "Mineral Patent" at the County Seat with its own County number issued. However in this day in age this is not happening. Thanks for the input.

 

[QNCrazy]

I've added a new useless distraction to my ignore list today - will you join me?

Absolutely