Brandon's Case scheduled for 2/20/13 1:30pm in Quincy,CA

[Bnugget]

Brandon Rinehart here,

This is the court room address and date for my next hearing in Plumas County Court. It is a Pretrial hearing similar to the one in San Bernardino but far less complicated where here, there is just one case to be heard instead of many.

My Criminal case is focusing on the same federal preemption issues granted by the 1872 mining laws, but thanks to the 6th Amendment, I have the right to “Trial by Jury” instead of the judge making the decision of guilt. I also have the granted constitutional right to a speedy trial which means my case will be heard and decided prior to the current mining season.

It would be nice to have a bunch of miners show up to the Hearing for support. Since the States demurrer to the Federal preemption claim in San Bernardino will not even be heard until the end of July, 2013, this may be the last chance we have at getting back in the water before the mining season begins.
As everyone probably already knows, lawyers are very expensive. Although I have received donations from the PLP and a couple of individual miners, I will be funding the rest of this effort out of my own pocket; I will be borrowing any monies from this point forward as I have exhausted my savings. Any help you as fellow miners can afford to give to support this cause would be appreciated. I am also a very good handyman (Electrician by trade) so if you live in or around the East Bay I would be willing to take on some extra work if necessary because I intend to fight this all the way even if it puts me further in debt. Trials can be very expensive.

I want to Thank PLP for their generous donation to help fund my efforts, and the Individual miners that have stepped forward and given money to my cause and WMA for their fundraising efforts. I am very appreciative of this and it just goes to show that there are people out there that care for everyone as a whole and not just their own mining efforts. Remember this case can help all of us get back in the water.

Donations can be sent to PLP just tell them it’s for Brandon’s case or given directly to me at the hearing.

Brandon Rinehart

Plumas superior court room
520 Main st.
Quincy CA, 95971

Hearing February 20, 2013
Superior court judge: IRA KAUFMAN
1:30 pm

[Gold Seeker]

Brandon, good luck, I'm on the other side of the country so I can't be there, I don't know if it will help in time but when I get my tax return back I'll send a little $ help your way!!

Here's Brandon's story on page 4 for those that aren't aware of what Brandon is going through.

http://plp1.org/images/WMA_Jan_2013_Newsletter.pdf

[russau]

Good Luck Brandon! hopeing for a speedy/uneventfull/victorious day!

[Bluebeard]

Brandon, I am trying to get miners to come to your court case. Email me at minerrick@theminingalliance.com I am trying to find miners who want to help me call all the mining claim owners in Butte, Plumas, Sierra, and other surrounding counties to get them to show up to your hearing. Do you want to help me? Do you have any friends who want to help? We need to call a bunch of people, and we don't have much time.

Rick

[dickb]

I will donate to the PLP for your behalf. Hope this works out for you. Good Luck!

Dickb

[gremlin]

i wish i was close. it would take me a few days to get there.

[h20prospector]

Brandon,

I too live too far to make the commute, but a donation to PLP on your behalf would be my pleasure.

h20

[Bnugget]

First of all, I want to thank everyone who came to my hearing yesterday and for all the generous donations that were recieved, and I was glad to finally put some faces to the names of people to which I have beeen in contact with.

We had around 30 people total there. Unfortunatly the judge did not want an audience and we did not get to here any of the arguments since they discussed everything in the judges private chambers.

I have copied an email that I asked my attorney, James Buchal to write to sum up yesterdays events and where we are going from here.
----------------------------------------------------

Yesterday I(James Buchal) appeared before Judge Ira Kaufman at the Plumas County Court for what was supposed to be a pretrial conference and resolution of some motions in limine. There was a crowd of miners in attendance, but the Judge insisted upon conducting nearly all the proceedings in a private conference room with only he, I, and the three lawyers for the State in attendance.

In the private conference, the Judge seemed to have a strong but unexplained reluctance to simply decide the preemption issue on the record as it stands, despite the fact that both I and the State urged him to do so. My best guess is that he is unwilling to enter a finding of preemption, but wants to assist us in assembling a full record for appeal in an economical fashion. He was also unwilling to rule on the motions in limine (yet).

The following proposal emerged after long discussion: (1) we would stipulate as to most of the pertinent facts (e.g., that Mr. Rinehart was mining on his claim); (2) we would waive a jury trial; (3) we would file an “offer of proof” in the form of affidavits from Mr. Rinehart and mining experts concerning the degree to which the statutory moratorium adversely affects mining in general and mining on Mr. Rinehart’s claim in particular; and (4) we would set a date for a court trial. In advance of trial, the State would file papers arguing that the evidence set forth in the “offer of proof” should not be admitted.

At that trial, the prosecution would prove its case in chief by means of the stipulation. It would then be our turn to offer the defense, and the Court would then make a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in the offer of proof. If he is dead-set against preemption, and following the wishes of the State, he will rule that none of this evidence can be admitted. We would rest our case, having no evidence we were allowed to offer, and Mr. Rinehart would be presumably be convicted. (There is the remote possibility that the Judge would come around to the view that preemption is obvious as a matter of law, but I am not hopeful.)

There is also the somewhat less remote but still not strong possibility that the Judge retains an open mind, and decides at this point that he wants to hear some of the evidence, at which point the trial would be set over so that witnesses could actually be brought in. The Court set a conference call for March 7th, by which time we are to be prepared to confirm that we are in agreement with proceeding in this fashion (or not), and if so, to set a trial date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James L. Buchal

Murphy & Buchal LLP

3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100

Portland, OR 97214



Phone: 503-227-1011

Fax: 503-573-1939

[russau]

HMM??? very interesting! a noncommitment to either side....could go either way if the judge is upset by either sides pushiness for some sort of comitment on any certain issues!

[dickb]

My thought's are why would the court require the defense to prove it's case before trial?
It would seem that it's the responsibility of the State to prove that the miner was in violation of the law ( Brandon broke the law and was charged with breaking these specified laws).
I would expect that the state would present their case, then the defendant would defend himself against the charges presented in court.
The way it's set up now, the defendant must prove his case before trial, which then gives the state the opportunity to compile it's case based on the proof that has already been disclosed.
I thought you were presumed Innocent till the state presents it's case and convinces the court of the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kinda seems back wards to me. IMHO

Keep up the good fight.

Dickb