CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Politically oriented information, blasts, kudo's for politician’s (probably won't be many of those)

Moderators: russau, Leonard

CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby C-17A » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:17 am

Hey Gold Dredgers...

We won! We need to get this court decision published ASAP! This could be the decision Judge Ochoa in SoCal can/will use to overturn the suction dredge ban in California....set a nationwide precedent on miner's rights and prevent preemption by the states to federal mining law!

I strongly urge "you all" to write letters as I am going to do...

Simply copy, paste, modify slightly if needed, sign...mail...

Even though I am living in Colorado, I do prospect in California and I do have a GREAT interest as a prospector/miner in seeing this court decision "published" and made a matter of public record for all future court cases and law suits...all across the country.

So, anyone and everyone PLEASE take a few minutes and 8 total stamps/envelopes/letters to do the same.

Simply write a letter to the Appellate Court in California and the 7 other interested parties on the Service List in the case below, as well:

"IMPORTANT:
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. So the proof of service form must be filled in, executed with your signature, and mailed as a second page to your request.

Your request must be received by the Court on or before 12 October 2014."


We need to make this pro-miner decision a matter of public record!

Cheers,

Randy Witham C-17A :)




Note: Please send both pages to all parties...

________________________________________





____________________________, 2014

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL


Hon. Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr.
Hon. Ronald B. Robie
Hon. Andrea Lynn Hoch
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: The People v. Rinehart, Case No. C074662
Request for Publication

Dear Honorable Justices:

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.1120, I write to request that the Court order slip
opinion issued in The 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,



Page 2

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 ______________, 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

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on __________(date)__________, at ____(your location)_____.


(signature) _________________________________

--------------------

Here's the source e-mail I was forwarded FYI:

-------------------

Subject: 9-28-2014 COURT DECISION information from PLP & Request
CC:
Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in Mother Lode Goldhounds. Don't forget to add cyned0523@yahoo.com to your address book so we'll be sure to land in your inbox!

Hi Goldhounds!

Here is a notice that I received from PLP about the court decision in the Reinhart case & a request. They need our help once more. We are getting closer, and now is no time to give up!

Cyndy


This request is being forwarded to you by Public Lands for the People due to its extreme importance on the future of prospecting and mining in California.

Thank You for timely acting on this request.

I am sorry to burden you with this request. I would not bother you unless it was of the utmost importance. But if we cannot persuade California's Third Appellate Court to publish its recent Decision overturning the conviction of Brian Rinehart, we will not be able to make use of the stunning victory we have all worked so hard for as we move forward with future litigation.

I am told that the Appellate Court can be persuaded to publish a Decision if enough of the public demonstrates an interest in the case. Therefore, we need as many supporters as possible to send a letter to the Appellate Court in California. Here follows a sample letter from which you can copy and paste to create your own letter:

Link:
Letter sample regarding publication of Appelate court's opinion

You are welcome to provide different information in the second paragraph concerning who you are and your interest in the case. Even if you reside outside of California, it is important to make it clear that you have a personal mining interest inside of California.

IMPORTANT:
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. So the proof of service form must be filled in, executed with your signature, and mailed as a second page to your request.

Your request must be received by the Court on or before 12 October 2014.

Thanks very much for making the effort on this. All of our many years of hard work and investment will be solidified into an important legal milestone if we can just get this Decision published.

If the Decision is not published, we will basically be starting over from the beginning!
I don't know about you guys, but the prospect of that reality makes all of us very tired!



Please Pass on to all Your e-mail contacts.
You can subscribe to these emails at http://plp1.org/contactus.html

Fighting for your right to mine is very expensive so PLP is auctioning off Gold or any donations you can make to help raise money.

If you will help we will take just about anything from old heirlooms to vehicles to GOLD dust or nuggets. CASH will be accepted also.

DONATIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE.
WE ARE A NONPROFIT 501(C)(3)
C-17A
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:24 pm

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby russau » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:46 am

PLEASE do NOT copy this letter verbatum! use it ONLY as a reference to write your own letter! handwritten is PREFERED over typed!!!!! copying form letters ARE regaurded as 1 letter NOMATTER how many are written and sent in! 100,000,000. copyed letters are worth less than 2 handwritten letters of your own words! I canot express this more as to its importance!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby Plumas » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:00 pm

20 minutes and seven first class stamps. Done!

Plumas
Ah ain't no flatlander!
Plumas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:02 pm

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby dickb » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:40 pm

Plumas:
You need to send eight letters, not seven or it will not count. The address on the top of the first letter is where the eight letter is sent plus the seven on the proof of service.

FYI

Dickb
78 Retired and Free
Eastern Iowa
User avatar
dickb
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: E. Iowa

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby dickb » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:06 am

Well, if I am reading this right, the court has granted the miners wish to publish the decision in the Federal Register.

Look to the bottom of this list of the court is reporting.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ ... no=C074662

Looks like writing all those letters has paid off for the Miners.

Dickb
78 Retired and Free
Eastern Iowa
User avatar
dickb
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: E. Iowa

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby russau » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:12 pm

Dick thanks for passing along this good news!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby Plumas » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:29 pm

Nah dickb. Seven stamps did the job. For me, the Plumas County courthouse is walking distance. The eighth letter was hand delivered. :idea:

Plumas
Ah ain't no flatlander!
Plumas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:02 pm

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby dickb » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:24 pm

Well Plumas, it's good to see that you have a dog in this fight. I just wanted to make sure you effort was not wasted. Now on to the big fight!

Dickb
78 Retired and Free
Eastern Iowa
User avatar
dickb
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: E. Iowa

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby Gold Seeker » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:21 pm

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 re-trial!!! :lol: :lol:

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

It's looking better all the time!!
Skip P.

God, Family, Friends, and Gold!!!
User avatar
Gold Seeker
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: CA COURT DECISION info from PLP & Letter Sending

Postby Plumas » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:24 pm

Yeah dickb, if the math still seems fuzzy.. the letter to Matt Carr at the DA's office was mailed. Something about climbing the all those stairs to the forth floor and genuine lack of desire to be well known in that office. :roll:

I hope you understand.

Kind regards,
Plumas.
Ah ain't no flatlander!
Plumas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:02 pm


Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron