Miners Shafted

[jerhobbs]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Bill Bird

June 15, 2010

(916) 651-4004



Gold Miners Shafted by Democrats in the State Assembly

Aanestad Refund Measure Hijacked With Hostile Amendment



SACRAMENTO: Legislation designed to provide full permit refunds to all Suction Dredge Miners in California has been hijacked in an Assembly policy committee. SB 889 – authored by Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) – would have given miners the opportunity to apply for and receive a full refund of the $47.00 permit fee they paid last year for the right to ply the trade of suction dredge mining on California streams and rivers.



But the measure – which Senator Aanestad introduced last year after the State Legislature took emergency action to ban the mining practice – was hijacked this morning in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. Committee Democrats rejected the notion of a full refund and instead hijacked the bill against Senator Aanestad’s wishes. They amended SB 889 to provide a refund of two-thirds of the original fee instead of the full amount.



“This committee is all over the map in suggesting what portion of the mining fee should be refunded – and it’s really just arbitrary,” said a frustrated Senator Aanestad during today’s hearing. “The only real fair number here is 100% of the $47.00 fee – and if you’re going to hold your vote for some arbitrary number that you’ve pulled out of thin air – you’re answerable to the people who elected you to office.”



Although the measure did pass with the hostile amendment attached – Senator Aanestad says he is unsure if he will continue to pursue the matter until he speaks with all stakeholders involved – including the mining organizations who sponsored SB 889. He notes that a Los Angeles small claims court (Wegner v. Koch et. al.) has already ruled in favor of full refunds for California gold miners. In that case, the court found for the plaintiff and ordered the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to refund the miner’s permit fee of $47.00 and pay court costs of $32.50. In addition to the cost of the judgment, the DFG and the California Attorney General's office incurred legal expenses associated with the claim.



“The courts have already ruled in favor of a full refund – and given the outcome of today’s committee hearing – additional claims against the state are almost guaranteed,” said Senator Aanestad. “That means additional costs to state taxpayers – possibly in the millions of dollars – because Democrats refuse to take the fair and right action.”



Nearly 4,000 suction dredge mining permits were purchased last year according to the DFG – and more than 3,000 of the permits were purchased by California residents alone. The cost of a permit for California residents is $47.00, and for out of state miners the permit fee is $185.25. In 2009, the Department collected about $250,000 from miners who were subsequently denied the right to mine.



The ban on suction dredge mining took place in early August of last year, following the successful passage of SB 670. It represented a $60 million hit to the Northern California economy where suction dredge mining was the most popular and profitable for miners.



“My hope is that every miner who paid this fee calls their legislator today to explain to them what the definition of fairness is,” said Senator Aanestad. “Some legislators clearly need a reminder.”

[russau]

election day is coming!

[jerhobbs]

In the light of what happened with Senator Amesteds bill I thought I would forward my story on to those who might not have read it before.I am grateful for Senator Amesteds work and his dedication to the small mining community,However I was very skeptical from the begining that the same Legislature that passed SB 670 would approve a refund of permit fees or that the girly man governor would sign it.This is not about the forty-seven dollars for me.This is about the future of our State and our Nation! Who oversees our legislature,our elected officials,our Judges,our police?
It is our responsability as American citizens to assert our legal rights no matter what the cost and this has cost me more time and money than $47.00 plus $32.50 filing fees! In my opinion if 25% of the people of this Nation stood up and said we are no longer going to say things like "well its just forty seven dollars,its not wirth the hassle" we could take back the rights that are taken from us and we can reclaim the greatest Nation in history and return it to the Citizens of America! I am still trying to collect my judgement from DFG and they are trying every trick to not pay! But I can tell you this"I am never giving up!" I am going to haul there ass back into court to answer to the Judge and I am going to hold the Judge accountable to the oath he or she Swore to the Constitution of the United States of America! As I have learned over the years working with Public Lands For The People,Comprimising is battle lost and as Small Scale Miners we must act individually as well as in groups.The power is in our hands.Will we take action or not?

Thanks,
Walt Wegner

[jerhobbs]

PLP Gets the Fee

by Walt Wegner
Vice President, Public Lands for the People

Me being as angry as everybody else regarding SB670 prohibition on suction dredge mining in the State of California, I wanted to take action immediately. So on August 10th 2009 I wrote a letter to Donald Koch, Director of California Department of Fish & Game, certified return receipt requested as I do with all official correspondence, stating that I purchased a dredge permit on May 12, 2009 in the amount of $47 and I included a copy of the application and the credit card receipt and stated that due to the subsequent legislation SB670 my permit is now null and void and demanded a refund of my $47 and if I don’t receive a response from your office in 14 days I will take legal action in small claims court to recover my permit fees, court costs and any other related expenses. Having not received a response from the California Department of Fish & Game. On October 8th I filed form SC-100 Plaintiff’s Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court listing myself as the plaintiff and Donald Koch, Director of Fish & Game in his official capacity as defendant claiming $47 for my suction dredge permit and $900 for a loss of gold due to my dredge season being cut short figuring I had another week in my dredge season. When I went in to file the small claims lawsuit, the clerk told me I could not file this in Van Nuys because the defendant was in Sacramento and I would have to file in Sacramento. I responded, No, the Director of Fish & Game does business in all of California and I purchased the permit in Los Angeles County, so I was filing in Los Angeles County court. At that same time, they told me I could not sue Donald Koch as an individual, that I could sue the Department. I asked them to see the law stating this. They were unable to provide me with the law, so they accepted and filed the lawsuit. On October 10th, 2 days later, I finally received a response from the Department of Fish& Game, it was not from Donald Koch, but the letter read that they received my letter and that SB 670 did not authorize refunds and they were not going to refund my money. My court date was set for December 14, 2009. On October 30th, I received Form SC-105 Request for Court Order and Answer. The person making the request was Bradley A Solomon, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California asking that the case be dismissed as the plaintiff’s had failed to plead exhaustion of his available administrative remedies, specifically plaintiff had failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. They also stated that the legislation did not provide for a refund and there were procedural defects in the Complaint as I had marked that I am not suing a public entity. They claim that Donald Koch in his official capacity is the same as a public entity. I then responded to the Court with the paperwork provided me SC-105 stating that the defendant in this case is Donald Koch it is not the Attorney general of California and that this was not a tort claim that I had paid for services that I did not receive and that I demand my day in court. I sent that on 11/5/2009. On 12/11/09, Friday before mycourt date, I received a Minute Order and Clerk’s Notice of Ruling from the LA Superior Court informing me that Court was convened at 8:30 am on 12/9/2009 in Department 108, Honorable Judge Gregg Marcus presiding, stating that the Court rules that my case had been dismissed without prejudice per court order giving no reason for dismissal and not allowing me to argue my case. Being very suspicious of this I showed up for my original court date, Monday, December 14th, to find that my case was not on the docket. I went to the clerk’s office and they confirmed that my case was dismissed in closed chambers without anyone appearing. I asked the clerk’s office for the law that allows a judge to dismiss a case without me being heard. She could not provide that. I told them at this time that I felt my right to due process had been violated, that they needed to show me the law. I then wrote a letter to Judge Marcus, who had dismissed my case, telling him the story from the beginning and stated that I was never notified that my case was to be heard in chambers or that the date had changed and that I believed at the very least my right to due process had been violated and at the worst there was a conspiracy to prevent my case from being heard. I requested the judge to indicate the specific law which would allow a case to be dismissed in chambers without notification. I again stated that my rights to due process had been violated. I requested the specific law and reasoning that his dismissal was based upon. I asked him to cite the specific law which stated that I could not sue Donald Koch as individual in this matter. I also stated that if the case was dismissed due to a problem with the filing to state the law upon which his decision was based. I requested a response within 30 days from the date of the letter and cc’d the letter to the original judge on the case, Fran Pavley my state senator and Brad Blumenfeld my state assemblyman. Then on or around the 14th of January I received another Minute Order and Clerk’s Notice of Ruling telling me that once again court had convened again at 8:30 am in Department 108 without me being present with the motion granted was to vacate dismissal of 12/9/09 set for oral argument on defendant’s motion both side to be present on 2/3/2010 at 10:00 am in department 108, Van Nuys, California listing me as the plaintiff, Donald Koch Director of Department of Fish & Game and Bradley H Solomon Deputy Attorney General as defendants. Once again I wrote a letter to Gregg Marcus stating that I received the letter notifying me of my new court date stating again that I did not sue the Assistant Attorney General and could only assume that he was going to be there to defend Donald Koch. I expressed my concern that as far as my knowledge goes, legal representation is not allowed in small claims court. I stated again that my right of due process had already been violated when the court previously dismissed my case without me being present and I asked the court to deny the representation of the assistant attorney general to aid Mr. Koch and to see that I’m fairly heard on the issue between myself and Mr. Koch. On February 3, 2010 I appeared in court. Donald Koch was not present. Instead Terry Dickerson from the CADFG appeared in place of Donald Koch. At the beginning of the hearing I stated to the judge that the defendant Donald Koch is not here and request that the judge rule in my favor due to the defendant not showing up. He did not respond to my request, I also requested the judge to ask Ms. Dickerson if she had a license to practice law. At that time the judge stated that this was irrelevant and I replied to the judge saying your honor on Form SC100, information handed out by the court house, you may talk to a lawyer before or after the case, but you may not have one represent you in court unless this is an appeal from a small claims case. The judge then asked T. Dickerson if she was an attorney. She replied, no, she was a biologist. The judge asked if I was satisfied, and I said yes. However, I was not satisfied to continue with the proceeding because she cannot represent Donald Koch in small claims court. The judge then asked me to plead my case, so I went through the order of events once again and I presented to the judge as evidence a letter from the CADFG stating Notice of Refund 2009-2010 Commercial Fishing Salmon Fees upon closure of the salmon fishing season. The judge stated to me that salmon fishing and suction dredging are two separate things. I stated, you’re right your honor, they are. Me as a mineral estate owner have been granted rights under federal law and salmon fishermen do not have the same rights as I do. Therefore, I’m even more entitled to my permit fees and I stated to the judge that the State of California does not authorized mining, they only regulate, reasonably. ha hah. At that time, he asked the defendant if she had a sworn affidavit from Donald Koch giving her authority to represent him in court. She stated, she did not. He asked her if she had a copy of SB670 stating that dredge permit fees were not approved for refund. She stated, she did not. He asked her if she had studied the law and if she could cite any of it. She responded, no. The judge then asked me to produce records to prove my loss of revenue from the dredge season. I did not provide the court with that record. My bad, as they say these days. Upon that he stated that he finds for the plaintiff in the amount of $47, case dismissed. After leaving the court room and speaking with Gerald Hobbs, pres of PLP, I realized that I should have asked for my court costs and any fees related to that from the judge, but in the heat of the moment, I forgot. Once again, my bad. Driving home from the courthouse, I thought to myself, WOW, I wonder what would happen if 50, 100, 300 or maybe 3,000 miners who purchased dredge permits asserted their rights and followed the same path I followed. Would the DFG then do what is right and refund permit fees? Or would they spend more time and money defending multiple lawsuits in small claims court.

Let me just say, that what one person can do, another person can do!

[El Dorado]

The return of the fee is minor compares to the ban on dredging. Where is PLP right now on actions to make it happen again? I fear that PLP is no longer a force in any of our battles.

[russau]

Steve, what causes you to come to that conclussion? i feel that PLP (and other groups)is the only thing keeping what we have so far.everything is in the courts.and the courts dont know the mining laws, they keep going back to the 1/2 trues and outright lies the dems and the wacoenviromentalists keep bringing up. their cr*p isnt backed by any scientific facts/documentation like ours is, but the courts keep siding with the wacos and dems. id like to see something happen like what just happened to o about the ban on oil drilling in the Gulf. a group of people filed suit and blocked o ban stating that his justification was BS.id like to see this same premise used in Cal. to return dredgeing to CA.........

[jerhobbs]

Eldorado

We are still here. We have just pulled in our horns alittle to keep from exposing all of our plans to the undesirables that follow many of these websites. How many times have we been surprized by the opposition, just wake up one morning and there they are banging on the door

[gremlin]

out of state miners the permit fee is $185.25. In 2009, the Department collected about $250,000 from miners who were subsequently denied the right to mine.

i am betting that the ones who filed from out of state used the postal service. with signature required. I am betting that the state of cal with holding the cash for services not rendered is mail fraud.


that would not only look bad for the state of cal but, getting the postal inspectors in to the mix would hurt them big time. there lawyers would cost the state a hefty chunk of change, and a nice fine on top.

[russau]

also if they paid by MC/VISA you could ask for a refund from the state and thetre denial of repayment means you could then file for a return of payment because of their lack of giving you what you paid for and let MC/VISA fight them for you!

[jerhobbs]

Maybe you would like to send a copy of this to the Ca. DFG director and ask him if he wants to pay you now or if he wants to pay you after you file your small claims action.

State of California Natural Resources Aqencv ARNoLD SCHWARZEIVEGGER, Governor S*U
Y
l'*,
-
&--. ..4
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME JOHN MgCAMMA^, ^. ' ' A; .'t* .
Northern Region
l-lon ,.l\u ',.lvlE 'JvntY tY'cvAtrItYtAtY' utlectol u*ilS t
601 Locust Street, Redding, CA 96001 q6*s'
www.dfg.ca.qov
June 16,2010
Mt WalLWeener
RE: Wegner v. Koch et al., Los Angeles Gounty Small Glaims Gourt No. LAV
09V06982, Payment in Satlsfaction of .,!udgment (February 3, 2010)
Dear Mr. Wegner:
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $79.50, in satisfaction of the Department of Fish
and Game's obligation as the judgment debtor in the matter referenced above.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address
referenced above.
Sincerely,
G. STOPHER
Acting Regional Manager
Mr. Thomas Gibson, Acting General Counsel
Ofiice of the General Counsel
Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1341
Sacramento, CA 95814
Q ons erving C a fifornia' s'V/i fffife S inc e 1 8 7 0
THE BACK OF THIS DOCUI\,4ENT CONTAINS AN ARTIFICIAL WATERMARK - VIEW AT AN ANGLE
TO:
z
E&
g
a
tr
=cEFz
Cc
942974
WALT WE GNER
r:IeIlilt.'tlr! 05qLl9?l'|Err.
$xxxx,xxTg,ri,50
Srere gttr &ruutrelntNoA
THE TREASURER OF THE STATE WILL PAY OUT OF THE
IDENTIFICATION NO.
3600
FUND NO. FUND NAME
O2OO FISH & GAME
MO.I DAYI YR.
oei zr i zo ro
tt
tr5*$4?974
PRE SE RVAT I O
90-1342t1211
0594?974
REMITTANCE ADVICE
srD.404c (REV. 4-95)
DEPARTI\,4ENT
DEPARTI\,4ENT ADDFESS
:Iji !i'tri !"r!; ::r''r . :l .i * :j -'. ri.:.. ;,' .'. .li.:,i '...
FEDERAL TAX ID NO. OR SSAN
a ! r' ti !'-.'': ! - i1
RP ryPE TAX YR TOTAL REPORTED TO IRS TOTAL PAYN4ENT
., STA_F OF CALIFORNIA ..'.1ir-..r.i i oor
rHE ENCTOSED WARRANI IS IN PAYMENT OT THE INVOICES SHOWN BELOW