O.K.
Time to REALLY get fired up here.....AGAIN! Time to IMMEDIATELY write the Court...
I copied in the "sample" letter & proof of service to the CA Supreme Court below Dave McCracken's e-mail......FYI.
Randy "C-17A"
P.S. As you complete the "Proof of Service" form (page 2)....fill in the actual state you reside........BUT, even if you are a member of another state than California......leave this line as is: "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct."
I mistakenly changed it to "...laws of the State of Colorado" last time....as I reside in Colorado........and I got my letters "rejected" as I had to submit to the laws of California in my penalty of perjury declaration. HTH!
O.K. EVERYONE............ONE BIG TIME ADDRESS CORRECTION SENT OUT LATE LAST NIGHT:
It has just been brought to my attention that in our haste to
> get yesterday's "Emergency Action" email out, our sample letter
> provided an incorrect address for the California Supreme Court!
> As unforgivable as this is, we still must work within the existing
> realities.
>
> Here is the correct address:
>
> Supreme Court of California
> 350 McAllister Street
> San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
>
> We have already changed this on our sample letter. If you have
> already opened the page, you should refresh it before copying
> the material:
>
> http://www.goldgold.com/sample-ltr-ca-s ... court.html
>
> If you have already sent out a letter to the wrong address, please
> do it again to the correct address above, because the other address
> is not going to work. If you want reimbursement for the duplicate
> postage costs, please send me copies of both mailing receipts at
> P.O. Box 47, Happy Camp, CA 96039. Despite our mistake, whatever
> the cost, even if I have to pay it, the immediate future of our
> industry depends on preserving the Rinehart Decision!
Dave Mack
-----------
> Dear Gold Prospectors,
>
> I am truly sorry to bother you with this, but it has just come to
> our attention that the State of California has petitioned the
> California Supreme Court to de-publish the Third Appellate Court's
> Rinehart Decision which confirms our federal mining rights on the
> public lands. Here it is:
>
> http://peoplevrinehart.org/wp-content/u ... on.pdf.pdf
>
> We only have 10 days from when the Petition was filed to deliver our
> own letters of opposition to the Court. That means our letters must
> reach the Court on or before this coming Thursday, 27 November.
>
> Our attorney believes it would be beneficial for the California Supreme
> Court to hear from an army of gold prospectors who have an interest in
> how this matter is resolved in California. It does not matter the state
> or country where you live.
>
> Once again, if the Rinehart Decision is de-publicized, we will not
> be able to rely upon it in the ongoing legal negotiations to get our
> suction dredge regulations back, or in any other litigation -- ever.
> It would basically put us back to square one.
>
> Here is a sample letter from which you can copy and paste, date,
> modify as you like, and add your name and address:
>
> http://www.goldgold.com/sample-ltr-ca-s ... court.html
>
> Please note that you must also date and sign the proof of service
> and include it with the letter.
>
> I am asking that you use some kind of express mail, overnight UPS or
> Fed Ex service to make sure your letter and proof of service reaches
> the California Supreme Court in time. You can send copies by regular
> mail to the other names on the proof of service page.
>
> The Rinehart Decision is perhaps the most important legal development
> for mining on the public lands in our lifetimes. It is the turning
> point which we have all worked so hard for. Please help us try to
> prevent the dark side from taking it away!
>
> Thanks for whatever you can do,
>
> Dave McCracken
> The New 49'ers Legal Fund
>
> The New 49er's, 27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039, USA
>
> To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
> http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?TOyMrBzstCxs ... ysnMwMLIw=
------------
November _____, 2014
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
Supreme Court of California
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: People v. Rinehart, Third Appellate District, Case No. C074662
Response to the People’s Request for Depublication
To the Honorable Tani Goree Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California, and to the Honorable Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.1125(b), I write to request that the Court deny the People’s request to depublish the opinion issued in People v. Rinehart, Third Appellate District Case No. C074662, 230 Cal. App.4th 419 (September 23, 2014).
As a suction dredge miner in the State of California, I have been denied my federal statutory right to explore and develop mineral claims on federal land in the State of California since 2009. Ever since the first statute stopping the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s longstanding permit program, the mining community has been engaged in civil litigation to establish that the State may not arbitrarily single out suction dredging for precious metals from all other suction dredging and other dredging activities, and refuse to issue any permits whatsoever. But no judge in any of the multiple civil cases has reached the merits of this claim, despite multiple motions and requests to do so.
Mr. Rinehart, at great personal cost, undertook to get the criminal justice system to demonstrate that the State’s regulatory power does not extend to a blanket prohibition that frustrates mineral development on federal land. The civil lawsuits now remain before the San Bernardino County Superior Court. There are settlement negotiations underway that could lead to the resumption of permit issuance. If the opinion is depublished, it will embolden the opponents of suction dredge mining who seek a permanent ban, and threaten to cause those settlement negotiations into pointless relitigation of the question.
It is worth noting that the State itself, in a joint motion seeking calendar preference before the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that the Rinehart opinion would “provide important guidance to the Superior Court in the coordinated proceedings”. Now that the case has come out confirming the position of the miners, by its request the State seeks to prevent the miners from even citing it to the Superior Court. This is unjust.
The Rinehart opinion meets the standards of publication because even though it addresses a particularly unique misuse of legislative authority to destroy a long-standing permit program, and applied clear federal and state precedents, it clarifies an issue of continuing public interest, and explains longstanding rules of federal supremacy in the mining context so that all parties can fashion a reasonable and workable permit program.
Please deny the State’s request for depublication, and thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
(Name and Address)
__________________________
__________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, __________________________, declare:
I am a resident of the State of _____________________ and am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the above action. My address is ________________________________________________________.
On November ______, 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
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100
Portland, OR 97214 Clerk of the Court
Third Appellate District
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November ______, at the following location: _________.
_________________________________ (Signature and Address)