CDFG Sac Meeting 2/11 Illegal

[CalGoldDredger]

AMEN.....

[old gold miner]

AMEN.....

IT IS WISE TO SEND THE SURVEY BACK SAYING SO.

OTHERWISE, if DFG gets only a few back, they will compile that data in a VERY distorted manner.

97% said this, 87% said that, 15% said something else.

The PRIMARY point, is RETURN the survey, so you get your words in the end result.

TELL THEM, the survey is not authorized by existing law.

Any results may not be included in a CEQA project.

CEQA funds cannot be used to promulgate such surveys.

REFUND canceled permit fees.

REMOVE the illegal suction dredge ban.

Provide me just compensation for the illegal private property “takings” SB 670 forced upon me.

Or, whatever you want.
Just get it on the record & keep a COPY of whatever you send in.

[old gold miner]

http://www.boc.ca.gov/claims/howtofile.aspx

This might be of interest to many involved that are damaged by the SB 670 suction dredge ban.
Right now SB 670 is the law.
As such, it is legal.
Once overturned in federal court, it is illegal.
The date it is overturned, is the date, this statute will toll.
Anyone damaged has 6 months from then to file.

[CalGoldDredger]

OGM, If all goes well with the FEDS, as what is being said then…
I will just be happy to get back in the water legally in May, which will be enough restitution for me.
I will go out find my golden restitution.
I will be willing to be lenient and forgive and maybe forget after some time. One can only hope at this point.

John

[tommyknocker]

All I am trying to do is protect my own, my families & all other miners involved RIGHTS.
Jerry Hobbs thought I should be there & got me through the door.
Am I wrong, should I stay away & let them screw things up, more than they already have.[/b][/quote]

OGM,
You are not wrong and you should not stay away and let them screw things up...Thank God you are there ( & the others that are standing for our rights). Sounds like the DF&G immediately broke their own "Member roles & responsibilities"..."Contribute data/info.to clarify issues & eliminate false assumptions". THIS WHOLE SB 670 BUCKET OF SEWAGE IS BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. I didn't get an illegal "survey", as a member of not only the "public" but also a purchaser of a DF&G suc-dredge permit for 29 years aren't I being denied due process in this mess?
Anyway, please keep up the good fight, keep hammering them with your savage clarity, truth & logic....

Tom

[old gold miner]

WOOT WOOT .......

California State Agency, The Governor & Attorney General are being sued in FEDERAL COURT……IN CALIFORNIA…..BY SOME BIG INDUSTRY…(WITH HUGE CLOUT & WELL FUNDED)…..about most of the same basic issues contained in PLP v. SB 670 complaint & pleadings against SB 670.

This case has direct bearing on ours.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, THE CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY, and THE CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE,
Plaintiffs,

V.

JAMES GOLDSTENE, in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board; MARY D. NICHOLS, DANIEL SPERLING, KEN YEAGER, DORENE D’ADAMO, BARBARA RIORDAN, JOHN R. BALMES, LYDIA H. KENNARD, SANDRA BERG, RON ROBERTS, JOHN G. TELLES, and RONALD O. LOVERIDGE, in their official capacities as members of the California Air Resources Board; ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; and EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

JURISDICTION
20. Subject matter jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this
case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

VENUE
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendants maintain their
offices within the Eastern District of California and the events giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this judicial district.

THREE CLAIMS
Violation of the Commerce Clause

FOURTH CLAIM
Violation of the Supremacy Clause

Is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the federal laws and regulations.

Defendants are purporting to act within the scope of their authority under state law in
enforcing and implementing the LCFS.

Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for proper redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
the LCFS deprives Plaintiffs’ members of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the LCFS violates the
United States Constitution and is unenforceable;

B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from implementing
or enforcing the LCFS;

C. An order awarding Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988; and

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this
action of all issues so triable.

LINK TO FULL COMPLAINT

http://www.npra.org/files/020210_LCFS_C ... _Filed.pdf

[goldfinds]

It looks simular to the lawsuit against sb670, I wonder if they based it on our Federal case. Or perhaps its a common tactic.

[old gold miner]

It looks simular to the lawsuit against sb670, I wonder if they based it on our Federal case. Or perhaps its a common tactic.

Whichever, it is the WINNING tactic. Otherwise, they would not use it.
The law firms representing plaintiffs in that suit against CA are top notch firms.
The best of the best “big bucks boys” would NOT file a suit without legal merit.
Because, their suit covers near identical issues.
It clearly shows PLP v. SB 670 is on firm legal ground & almost positively a winner.

[CalGoldDredger]

OGM, I wish we could appoint you grand federal judge or whatever they happen to call it.
Then I would feel much better and as certain as you are now,
I guess I will just keep my fingers and toes crossed in hope of a big fat WIN.

Thanks for all your hard work, you really get into it. You and folks like you definitely make a big difference.

I am starting to think about and plan which equipment can I use illegally (need be) and am willing to jepordize losing it to confiscation???? Spring is a coming!
You just can't keep the sun from a shining and that goes for keepin me out of the water.

John

[old gold miner]

THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS

The word “certain” is premature.
PLP v. SB 670 is a contest about who is right & who is wrong.
That contest is based on LAW.
It is also based on how well one presents the law to the Judge.

Given, PLP has a clear preponderance of both Federal & State Law on its side.
As well as set those governing precedents forth in a proper manner.
The odds are near “certain“, PLP suit will not be dismissed at the February 25th hearing.

Assuming, the PLP suit is not dismissed.
That adds considerable merit and tons of weight that an “injunction” will be granted at the March 25th hearing (or shortly thereafter).

The anticipated difficulty being, what will the “injunction” include?

I would make a significant wager, it will strike down the statewide total “prohibition” on suction dredging.
As being “preempted” by federal law.

If so, that means CA DFG is obligated to immediately issue suction dredge permits, per pre-existing regulations.

The immediate difficulty I see (assuming that happens) is, no 2010 suction dredge applications are on line.
How the hell can you “apply” for a permit, without an application. You cannot.

With that in mind, I brought that subject up to PAC/DFG.
That, they should as, a wise contingency, prepare to make permit application available, when required by federal injunction, they must.

The stance of DFG throughout all this is to totally ignore governing federal mining law.
But, they CANNOT ignore a federal court order, directed straight at them.
Unless, they would prefer being held in contempt, arrested, hand cuffed & spend some time in jail.

But, since when has DFG acted smartly, and quickly?

Clearly, the hand writing is on the wall, an ‘injunction” most probably will happen.
All the WORLD will see that coming when PLP v. SB 670 is not dismissed February 25th .

Again, DFG operates ignoring whatever they want, legal or not.
As such, only time will tell what / how / when these things will happen here.
I just hope for the best, meaning dredges back in the water ASAP.