Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

PLP v. SB 670 Ca claims sovereign immunity


old gold miner

Recommended Posts

PLP v. SB 670

Ca claims sovereign immunity.

WRONG ANSWER

The process by which territories obtain statehood is as follows: The people of a territory petition Congress to grant them statehood. If that body is favorably disposed, a so-called "enabling act" is passed, authorizing the framing of a state Constitution, prescribing the manner in which it shall be framed, and laying down certain requirements that must be met. All these conditions having been met, a resolution reciting this fact is passed by Congress, and the Territory declared a State and admitted as such into the Union.

The California Statehood Admission Act (Sec. 3) expressly provides; “…said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned…”.

In that California would not exist as a State, nor would its Constitution, except as provided by the Federal Enabling Act. It stands to reason that the Federal conditions imposed by the Act supersede any claim of sovereign immunity the state of California can assert in Federal court. Especially so when it openly defies the superior sovereign’s mandate that it shall never impair or question the right of the Federal government to dispose of applicable valuable minerals within Federal lands in California.

With regard to SB 670 mining prohibitions, the state of California claims sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The rule of state sovereign immunity is subject to an exception: where a suit seeks relief against a state agency for action contrary "to the supreme authority of the United States", it is not deemed a suit against the sovereign. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

The Stripping Doctrine: A state officer who acts in violation of federal law (either constitution or statute) is "stripped" of their official status and may not claim the state's sovereign immunity. Although "official capacity" suits are actually against the state, the stripping doctrine is engaged to allow enforcement of the federal supremacy clause. Federal courts may allow actions against state officers because foreclosure of such actions would ensure that no method existed of allowing enforcement of federal laws against the states. The principle is that state statutory law, in order to be valid, must be in conformity with U.S. Constitutional requirements.

SB 670 IS NOT :rasberry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perhaps, arguably, a corollary to the concept that the state and certain state officials can be sued in federal court under certain circumstances [such as conspiring to deprive citizens of their civil rights] would be the remedy of issuing a federal court injunction against the state, the governor and the director of F&G [in their official capacities] to prohibit them from enforcing SB 670, including the criminal sanctions contained in SB 670? The question then becomes whether the complaint that PLP filed contains facts or law that constitute a sufficient showing of the special circumstances required for nullifying sovereign immunity. Typically the 11th Amendment is used by states to preclude money judgments but not injunctive relief.

Here is a somewhat related thought stream: In some respects it seems that the state [in the prior Karuk litigation] could be said to have conspired to deprive holders of suction dredge permits their vested property rights [query: is a property right the same as a civil right?] to operate their federal claims without due process of law [prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, i.e., the state and the Karuks made an unpublicized agreement to enter into a stipulated court judgment adverse to the vested rights held by owners of certain federal mining claims]. It is noteworthy here, that the state only filed a bare answer to the Karuk complaint, but then did nothing in the way of discovery or a motion to dismiss prior to agreeing to settle. But the trial court in that case apparently recognized the possible due process violation and permitted the New 49ers to intervene [thus, arguably, ending the conspiracy as to the interveners?]. The state then failed to comply with the terms of the Karuk litigation settlement by not completing a SEIR in the time permitted [query: evidence of a continuing conspriracy?]. Something to think about. Then the state enacted SB 670, depriving ALL owners of federal mining claims situated on all waterways who use suction dredges [not just the group of miners who intervened in the Karuk litigation]. This last act, however, was accomplished with much prior notice and opportunities to be heard.

This is a case that raises many fundamental issues and questions both of fact and law. Regretfully, I suspect it will not be over with anytime soon. It is a process that will test our fortitude. We need to stick together to defend our interests any way we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am nothing more than a retired mining engineer. In short a rock, tunnel, raise, and shaft mechanic. Throughout my corporate career, no task was ever put before me, that presented a set of serious problems to “resolve”. So complex as is imposed by the immediate complete “takings” effect of SB 670.

From the perspective of a “victim” of SB 670. The effect is plain upon it’s face. I am forbidden by SB 670 to put my private property in California to all beneficial use. SB 670 disavows all that I have taught my children, and grandchildren about “survival” in trying economic times. I always asserted, having some gold was a secure hedge against the uncertainties of fiat paper currency, or other “paper“ denominated investments.

Better yet, owning mining claims that could profitably produce placer gold, gave them that much more steadfast security. In that, if all else failed, they had a perpetual source of ready income on which to rely, derived from those mining claims. I thought the sage “wisdom” of my words were both irrefutable, and infallible. Only to find, I was mistaken. At least from the perspective of owning placer gold mining claims in California.

I often wondered why, no California legislator requested an Attorney Generals legal opinion on the effects of SB 670, long prior to it’s passage. As that would have been the astute thing to do. Now, I know why. Without doubt, the Attorney Generals opinion would have been that SB 670 (as written) would impose a compensable “taking”, for which the state would be liable.

If today, an Attorney Generals legal opinion existed that stated that fact. The Attorney General would be in the untenable position of facing his own legal opinion effectively foreclosing almost all plausible defense in the present SB 670 litigation. Whether planned that way, or just happenstance, I know not. But, it reeks of a well thought out scheme to intentionally inflict a manifest injustice on a small minority of property owners in California.

As you say, and I agree much “fortitude” is required here. Unless by some miracle, Judge England happens to note the gold wedding band on his finger. Which, impart may have come from the endeavors of a small California gold miner. Giving him a flash of personal insight, and wherewithal to grant an injunction allowing small scale suction dredge gold mining to continue in California, while the rest of the matter is sorted out in litigation, and the tedious CEQA process.

But, place possible improbable miracles in one hand, and reality in the other. You are faced with hard reality, not miracles. Because I also taught my children, and grandchildren never to place all their eggs in one basket. We also own productive placer mining claims in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and elsewhere outside California.

Inevitably, weather permitting, this old man will have the pleasure of tending a Dutch oven, in campfire coals somewhere other than California. With the pleasant sound of family owned dredge motors murmuring nearby. Wondering if I should, take a nap, go catch a few trout, or how much gold the days clean up will produce. Thank God, we did not have have all our eggs in the California basket. I empathize greatly with those who do. ........ :olddude:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear, there exists hard evidence of collusion to commit FRAUD, by various state officials.

Both on the part of members of the California legislature, DFG, AG, et al.

Apparently, various correspondence was circulated within a sphere of state officials, state employees, et al.

That discussed the possible unconstitutional private property “takings” implications of both DFG actions, and SB 670.

At least, informally, an opinion was stated that “YES”, some DFG’s actions, and provisions of SB 670 would effect a ‘taking” of compensable private property rights, and vested property interests of mining claim owners in California.

For which the “State” could be liable, if the miners ever proved it.

Going on to explain, the difficulties those effected would face, in attempting to collect “compensation”.

In the sense that, DFG actions, and provisions of SB 670 would be a de facto regulatory taking, rather than a straight forward physical invasion, and occupation, or formal eminent domain type action.

Apparently, regardless that they were informed various “state” actions would effect a compensable “taking” of private property.

Those involved made the decision to proceed, knowing full well in advance, what they were about to do, would “victimize” those it effected.

The stance being, the victims legal representation was not capable of adequately defending against the power of the state.

Even if eventually proven, years down the road, the liability would be relatively trivial.

From my prospective, this amounts to misconduct so severe that it establishes official “malfeasance”.

Given the dollar values involved.

The result, would be large enough to fit within both a conspiracy to commit, and commission of felony fraud.

Those are grounds to pursue ‘impeachment”, “disbarment” , “criminal” , and punitive “civil” actions against all those involved.

But, I am nothing more than a near illiterate, old gold miner, and “victim” here.

So, I will leave it to attorneys well versed in law, how to proceed.

But, I have to restrain myself from shouting ........

“LET THE DISCOVERY PROCESS BEGIN”......... :olddude:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

http://www.homesculptor.com/rots.html

I recently learned that the U.S. Congress, after the bill of rights, discovered that these new rights could be the "demise" of the country, so they created the 11th amendment. As a private citizen I had to file a suit against government to redress grievance as a crime victim and this requires a great deal of focus, leading me to this awareness! This amendment took the teeth out of the bill of rights and most of the gums! Do the math: Bill of rights = Bill of rights + 11th amendment (times 0) = rights that you must purchase or litigate to be “equally protected” = 0 rights! The 11th amendment prevented any law suit for a simple injunction to bar slavery, or the right for blacks to sit anywhere on a buss! Nothing has changer really, they just had to stop overtly discriminating against "class affiliation," until recent, Willobrook v. Olec! Right now, most officials have enjoyed freedoms similar to dictators. They have no legal restraint from acting corrupt, and still have “qualified immunity” defense. But, armed with knowledge, you can hold officials accountable, and most of them don’t realize this yet! So they are acting “old school” abusing rights against individuals skewing class actions by limiting the overt use of simple adjectives when they abuse, that identify classes of citizens. I don’t recall in all my education about the origins of immunity or the discussion of its cause and effect.

What I have deduced from studies is that, the declaration of independence convinced British Subjects to become traitors to their country by promising to abandon the policy of immunity of Royals. The authors used the words "judicial" "tyranny" and "despotism;" semantics for those officials who acted as "tyrants" for issues such as paper without stamps, tea, quartering, etc., without fear of being held accountable, which was trinket that recruited soldiers to defend with their “worthless”1 lives by protecting the wealth of the aristocracy. That was the America of the Declaration of Independence. The 11th amendment was a breach of contract to the declaration. The 11th amendment gave standing for Judges to claim “absolute immunity.” Again do the math: King and Queens and Dictators are = absolute immunity = monarchy = United States Judges [which is not equal to] democracy or rule of law republic!

This doesn’t set well with me, but there is nothing I can do about it except write about it. However, that is why according to Bogan v. Scott the Supreme Court made “corrupt acts” a constitutionally protected right shared among government officials? This seems so ludicrous to me that now I can’t get off this topic, yet I seem to be a minority in the realization of this. Look at 18 USC 1346, 1960-,68 or 42 USC 1981-,82, 1983, 1985 among others. If attorneys were not controlled by the BAR those of them who were patriots to liberty would have easily done something to stop this, but they can’t or they will loose their jobs, talk about controlling! An attorney in LA exposed this story about corrupt judges http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Financial_Ties_Raise_Questions_About_SoCal_Judges_Los_Angeles.html Now they are trying to disbar him.

I filed a complaint about a corrupt judge who released a madman into society with the CJP.ca.gov and they found him guilty of wrong doing, so there is some concern and “corrective actions” are being taken to those who expose corruption. However, this “exposing” of corruption is met with retaliation. According to the Supreme Court there is civil remedy for redressing “retaliation” under 42 USC 1983 and 1985. Profit motive has been introduced for citizens to object to corruption and tyranny by those who abuse under color of law! This could be the salvation of our country! Although some members of Judiciary are up in arms and are diminishing your right redress. It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. and it can work for you as a “class of one” citizen, if you wake up and act now, otherwise the trend will have you in irons for complaining about official wrong doing.

I would like to know from private citizens who are concerned with justice for all, what is wrong with this argument! If you are a public servant please not that so we can determine any trends.

Thanks

1 By worthless, I mean if the colonist soldiers fought with the promise that officials could no longer arbitrarily and corruptly abuse them under the color of law, and this did not happen, congress under the 11th amendment believe the proletariat were worthless cattle who could be easily deceived, with minimal objection: visa vi this topic is actually the least popular topic in the universe! Yet the concept if true reveals that our democracy has not yet evolved into what was intended by Jefferson, Madison, and other starry eyed prophets? Poets? Of the time. Did the 11th amendment change the bill or rights? Please stop and examine this. If we remove corruption my supposition is this will be a bloodless revolution! The legal argument against this is merely “over-deterrence of corruption” will destroy the country! I like to look at nature, over weeding of weeds will eliminate weeds, but it is harder work! Ultimately the argument is “immunity is the cultivation of corruption.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looke at the 9th cicuit Kaahumanu v. City of Maui regarding "legislative immunity" "ad hoc" decisions that do not affect public policy hold officials liable in their personal private capacity. I think restricting your rights that restrice every bodies rights invoke immunity. Whereas, if they said you couldn't mine on your own property where similarly situated people have that right, then you got the SOB's. Otherwise, we got to keep moving to get the constitution back to the foundation of the declaration which would be the removal of the 11th amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the insight. That explains a lot, now I know why so many rights have been removed in America.

Where has Integrity gone, in the sense that integrity being the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one's actions, as well as being honest when no is looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...