Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO SUCTION DREDGE MINING


Oakview2

Recommended Posts

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 District
914 Capitol Mall,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 654-0209

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ruled, the judgement will not be published unless it is sufficiently appealed in the 20 day period, therefore NO litigants may use this case in their defense.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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ruled, the judgement will not be published unless it is sufficiently appealed in the 20 day period, therefore NO litigants may use this case in their defense.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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 District
914 Capitol Mall,
Sacramento, CA 95814

He also stated that there needs to be a case number in the letter of request. The case number is: C074662

When 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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in from the New 49ers legal team

According 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_1120

You 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_1105

Please 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. Robie
Hon. Andrea Lynn Hoch
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: 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 SERVICE

I 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. Carr
Deputy District Attorney
Plumas County District Attorney
520 Main Street, Room 404
Quincy, CA 95971

Marc N. Melnick
Deputy District Attorney
Office of the Attorney General
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000
Oakland, CA 94612

Clerk of the Court
Plumas County Superior Court
520 Main Street, Room 104
Quincy, CA 95971

Jonathan Evans
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104

Lynne Saxton
Saxton & Associates
912 Cole Street, Suite 140
San Francisco, CA 94117

Damien Schiff & Jonathan Wood
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

James Buchal
3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100
Portland, OR 97214

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _____________, at _______________.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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=C074662

Scroll to the bottom of the page to see info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by pairadiceau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_published

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=2055824&doc_no=C074662

Great job on sending the letters everyone, over 300 letters sent in, with approximately 250 filled out correctly, enough to get the job done!!! :yesss:

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!!! :thumbsupanim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!! :yesss: :ROFL:

"10/10/2014 Order denying rehearing petition filed. HULL, Acting P.J. (RoHh)"

It's looking better all the time!! :thumbsupanim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :200: -John

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...