Oakview2 Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 WE HAVE 20 DAYS TO REQUEST THAT THE DECISION IN THE RHINEHART CASE BE PUBLISHED. ALL YOU FOLKS WHO LOVE FREEDOM AND THE OUTDOORS NEED TO SEND A LETTER TO THE COURT IN THE NEXT 19 DAYS ASKING THE COURT TO PUBLISH ITS FINDINGS. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ALL MINERS AND LITIGANTS IN THE WEST. Third Appellate District914 Capitol Mall,Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 654-0209 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 A sample letter would make it a lot easier for folks. I will definitely write a letter and if I get it done soon enough will post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homefire Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Wouldn't it be available as public record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakview2 Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2055824&doc_no=C074662 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakview2 Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 As ruled, the judgement will not be published unless it is sufficiently appealed in the 20 day period, therefore NO litigants may use this case in their defense. This is ammo that our side needs badly, There are two cases in my county coming up in Nov, and the San Bernadino litigants could use as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakview2 Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homefire Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 As ruled, the judgement will not be published unless it is sufficiently appealed in the 20 day period, therefore NO litigants may use this case in their defense. This is ammo that our side needs badly, There are two cases in my county coming up in Nov, and the San Bernadino litigants could use as well. You can Down load it from the Court system . As a Public Record it is admissible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micro Nugget Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Requests directed to the Third Appellate District to certify the Rinehart opinion for publication must state the reason or reasons for publication and must be served on all parties (see California Rule of Court 8.1120). The reason or reasons for publication are limited to those contained in California Rule of Court 8.1105 under subdivision c [see in particular subdivisions © (6) and © (7)]. The lawyers representing Rinehart are fully qualified to perform this function and likely already have done so. However, any interested individual may do so as long as the request is timely and meets all the legal requirements.For my separate analysis of the Rinehart opinion please see the Miners Rights sub-forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn90403 Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I have just contacted the number above at 916-654-0209 and reached the court. The nice fella answering the phone told me that the address is correct:Third Appellate District914 Capitol Mall,Sacramento, CA 95814He also stated that there needs to be a case number in the letter of request. The case number is: C074662When I asked him if receiving letters would help the process of getting the decision published he said it could help (without him knowing any other facts).It probably won't hurt so I'll send a letter. It will probably be as simple as: (copy and paste if you like)To whom it may concern:I am a small, independent miner. I would like the Decision in The People v. Rinehart Case (C074662) published so that it can be applied to all similar cases.Sincerely, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relichunter2 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Thanks all for the heads up, I am sending mine in today.....and I would encourage you all to do it to.Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakview2 Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 Just in from the New 49ers legal teamAccording to our sources, the more people who express an interest in seeing the Rinehart Decision published, the more likely that it will happen. So we encourage you guys to pass this around far and wide.Here is a barebones sample letter that should be sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 8.1120. You are encouraged to provide further information in the second paragraph concerning who you are and your interest in the case.http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1120You may also think of other reasons to add to the third paragraph for why the opinion meets the Rule 8.1105 standards for publication.http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1105Please note that in addition to mailing the letter, you are required to mail copies to the parties on the service list for the case; the second form below is the “proof of service” form that contains those addresses.Hon. Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr.Hon. Ronald B. RobieHon. Andrea Lynn Hoch914 Capitol MallSacramento, CA 95814Re: People v. Rinehart (Case No. C074662)(Date)Dear Honorable Justices:Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.1120, I write to request that the Court order the slip opinion issued in People v. Rinehart (Case No. C074662) be certified for publication.As a miner in the State of California, I have a keen interest in establishing that federal mining laws impose substantive limits on the power of the State of California to regulate my activities on federal land.Publication is appropriate because this opinion establishes a rule of law not previously set forth in California opinions, though established in federal court cases, and involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits in California concerning the scope of the State’s regulatory powers over mining on federal land, and the absence of California precedent has caused increased costs and delay for litigants and the State.Thank you for your consideration of this request.Sincerely,_______________________(full name and address)PROOF OF SERVICEI am over the agent of 18, not a party to the above action. My address is________________________________________________________.On ______________, 2014, I served the attached letter requesting publication in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes and mailing them by First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:Matthew K. CarrDeputy District AttorneyPlumas County District Attorney520 Main Street, Room 404Quincy, CA 95971Marc N. MelnickDeputy District AttorneyOffice of the Attorney General1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000Oakland, CA 94612Clerk of the CourtPlumas County Superior Court520 Main Street, Room 104Quincy, CA 95971Jonathan EvansCenter for Biological Diversity351 California Street, Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Lynne SaxtonSaxton & Associates912 Cole Street, Suite 140San Francisco, CA 94117Damien Schiff & Jonathan WoodPacific Legal Foundation930 G StreetSacramento, CA 95814James Buchal3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100Portland, OR 97214I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _____________, at _______________. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micro Nugget Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Technical point: Don't forget to actually "execute" your proof of service (i.e., sign your name in ink at the end of the list of persons you served and attach it to the original letter addressed to the Third Appellate District). The copies sent to the list of addressees do not require an original signature -- just the original of what was sent to the Third Appellate District. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLNugget Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Are letters from non-residents of California going to be effective ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micro Nugget Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Possibly, depending on your nexus to the issues (e.g., some out of state folks have had California dredge permits in the past and/or have placer claims in California or intend to). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLNugget Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is a link to the court records were you can check to see if your letter has been received and accepted. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2055824&doc_no=C074662Scroll to the bottom of the page to see info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pairadiceau Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Of those listed on 10/1/14 twelve lacked signed proof of service.... Says they were mailed back, does that mean all the petitioner needs to do is sign the proof of service and re-submit? I got mine mailed today. It looks like there is going to be a large number of letters submitted by interested miners, and the forum heads up has been very effective. Kudos to the guys who posted this information!Jeff Edited October 2, 2014 by pairadiceau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLNugget Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think you are correct Jeff. Sign and return before the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Au Seeker Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 UPDATE!!!The request for publication of the Third Appellate Court's opinion on Brandon Rinehart's appeal has been granted!!!http://www.icmj.com/news-detail.php?id=264&keywords=Suction_gold_dredging_in_California_update%3A_Court_of_Appeals_orders_People_v._Rinehart_opinion_to_be_publishedhttp://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2055824&doc_no=C074662Great job on sending the letters everyone, over 300 letters sent in, with approximately 250 filled out correctly, enough to get the job done!!! Also thanks to all who posted instructions and pertinent info for sending the request letters, without that effort no one would have known or been able to send the request letters!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pairadiceau Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Good news, thanks again to those who brought this important issue to light via the forums! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Au Seeker Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 The lower court on 10-07-2014 requested a rehearing on the appeal and opinion by the Third Appellate Court, basically the lower court by requesting the rehearing was saying that the lower court thinks the 3 Justices of the Third Appellate Court made some mistakes during the appeal trial!!!"10/07/2014 Rehearing petition filed. By respondent."It was just announced that the Third Appellate Court denied the lower's court's request for a rehearing!!! "10/10/2014 Order denying rehearing petition filed. HULL, Acting P.J. (RoHh)"It's looking better all the time!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser John Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Games still a coming ---stays,appeals,injunctions, restraining orders blah blah blah dirty CENSORED DOGS are a tough $$$$$$ infused band a for sure-John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klunker Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I'm not going to buy a new dredge yet. I'm waiting for HJ to say it will be OK. These recent decisions may have a positive effect on U.S.F.S plans of operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser John Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 With the new lower court ruckus slapped down by the feds the final publication should be this week so we can FINALLY read the decision. Dredge in truck hahaha ready to go either way -John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakview2 Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 If they start issuing permits I want to see a picture of you dancing a jig on your 8 with a bottle of tequilla and a party till you puke t shirt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser John Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 READ IT AND WEEP-REMANDED BACK TO THE SAME LOWER COURT THAT HANDED DOWN THE CONVICTION.. JohnC074662 dredge case goes back to same court.DOC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.