SB838 Injunction papers filed

[M.E.G.]

Earlier on this week, Jefferson Mining District ( Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association ) filed a 100+ page SB838 Injunction filing with the Article III court in Washington DC

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[timberjack]

If you want your rights and to keep whats yours you have to fight for it!!!! My hats off to you!!

 

[russau]

SALUTE!

 

[M.E.G.]

Interesting results took/taking place. Discussion at next JMD meeting 12/19
For time, place and directions: Jefferson Mining District & South West Oregon Mining Association

 

[Oakview2]

I hope you can get some relief, and ***** slap the green movement.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Any links to the case, court or filing? I like to read.

 

[M.E.G.]

There is talk of full filing disclosures in the near future which will be posted to Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association . There will be plenty to read.

 

[KRIKITTS]

There is talk of full filing disclosures in the near future which will be posted to Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association . There will be plenty to read.

Which means the Article III court wants, or would want, more info?

 

[M.E.G.]

JMD meeting reminder; This Friday

 

[Bejay]

Earlier on this week, Jefferson Mining District ( Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association ) filed a 100+ page SB838 Injunction filing with the Article III court in Washington DC

For those less knowledgeable:

Federal Court System
Refers to one of two types of courts. 1. an Article III court. These courts get their name from the fact that they derive their power from Article III of the Constitution. These courts include (1) the U.S. District Courts, (2) the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court. They also include two special courts: (a) the U.S. Court of Claims and (b) the U.S. Court of International Trade. These courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of general jurisdiction can hear almost any case. All judges of Article III courts are appointed by the US President (ouch!) with the advice and consent of the Senate and hold office during good behavior.


The controversies that may be decided in the federal courts are identified in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. They include cases in which the United States government or one of its officers is either suing someone or being sued.

The federal courts also may decide cases for which state courts are inappropriate or might be suspected of partiality. Thus, federal courts may decide, in the language of the Constitution, 'Controversies between two or more states; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; [or] between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.' For example, one state might be sued by another state for the pollution of its air. Since the impartiality of the courts in either state could be questioned, such a suit might be decided in a federal court.


Bejay

 

[Jeff95531]

GD BJ, how'd you get so smart? I haven't played with the law since 1999 but that is some good chit right there. I'll admit tho, it's going to take some re-reading.
signed,
someone less knowledgeable

BTW, I've been keeping a close eye on the proposed, denied, object, denied, no I strenuously object...war on the nickle mine testing proposed in OR which just happens to be at the headwaters of our Smith River here in CA...the last remaining un-dammed water resource in CA. I'm no greenie but that IS my sole source of drinking water they are talking about here and accidents do happen...right Capt. Hazelwood? Exxon...BP?

Just saying.

 

[M.E.G.]

Discussed in the first 35 minutes Update on SB838 Injuction, Rinehart decision, and more: February 2, 2015 Behind The Woodshed Podcasts | Real Liberty Media

 

[KRIKITTS]

Discussed in the first 35 minutes Update on SB838 Injuction, Rinehart decision, and more: February 2, 2015 Behind The Woodshed Podcasts | Real Liberty Media

This should be a required listening for all miners...

I'd like to know more about returning without signature part. What do they gain by making THAT mistake?

 

[M.E.G.]

This should be a required listening for all miners...

I'd like to know more about returning without signature part. What do they gain by making THAT mistake?

No signature runs cover for the perpetrator(s) obstructing justice.
In other words, any one in the court could be intercepting the mail and returning it and there is no one to hold accountable, given that will be possible.

The rules required that the filing to the appeals court be docketed.
This was confirmed by a supervisor of the Clerk.

The return without a signature does not allow us to know who made the decision to not docket or review or whether or not the filing, because of a prior obstruction by the clerk, actually got to the intended recipient, the chief judge.

The inquiry now turns upon who actually received that certified mail, given the proof of service was not legible as required by postal rule, which should be determined upon our complaint to the postmaster and should determine who intercepted the mail, or confirm receipt by the judge which will get us closer to who may have returned the filing in violation of the law, given we still live under law.

I think this is all I can or will disclose for now pursuant to decisions made by the JMD Assembly because of the nature of the cause being pursued.

 

[russau]

Go getem M.E.G.!!!!!