Last Post 28 Jan 2015 12:35 PM by  BRAD JONES
Rinehart letter sample requesting publishing of Decision
 19 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
WALTER EASON
Buzzard
Buzzard
Posts:581



--
25 Sep 2014 07:08 AM
    According to our sources, the more people who express an interest in seeing the Rinehart Decision published, the more likely that it will happen. So we encourage you guys to pass this around far and wide.

    Here is a barebones sample letter that should be sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 8.1120. You are encouraged to provide further information in the second paragraph concerning who you are and your interest in the case.

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/...mp;linkid=rule8_1120

    You may also think of other reasons to add to the third paragraph for why the opinion meets the Rule 8.1105 standards for publication.

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/...mp;linkid=rule8_1105

    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; the second form below is the “proof of service” form that contains those addresses.
    =======================================================================================================

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

    Re: People v. Rinehart (Case No. C074662)

    (Date)

    Dear Honorable Justices:

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

     

     

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

    Re: People v. Rinehart (Case No. C074662)

    (Date)

    Dear Honorable Justices:

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

    _______________________
    (full name and address)

    ========================================

    PROOF OF SERVICE

    I am over the agent of 18, 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
    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 _____________, at _______________.

     

     

     

     
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    25 Sep 2014 03:44 PM
    Can you use this form letter if you are a resident from another state?
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    25 Sep 2014 05:04 PM

    any one from any state can fill out the form and send it in. The reason for this is that it involves Federal Preemption which is involved within constitution through the Supremacy Clause.Here is an explanation of Supremacy Clause.

    Preemption


    The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."  This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

    Preemption can be either express or implied.  When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt.  Implied preemption presents more difficult issues, at least when the state law in question does not directly conflict with federal law.  The Court then looks beyond the express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has "occupied the field" in which the state is attempting to regulate, or whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.

    Federal "occupation of the field" occurs, according to the Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), when there is "no room" left for state regulation.  Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.

     

    Your reason being that you are a citizen of the United States and what effects the United States is paramount to you as a citizen. If states can ignore the Law of the Land then the United States no longer exists. Also you may be a dredger in California which is a secondary reason for your involvement. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I just saw the post.

    Thanks for getting involved we all appreciate it. 

    Walter Eason

     
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    25 Sep 2014 06:36 PM
    No need to apologize Walter, thanks for the response. Are you a lawyer? Now let me see if I got this right. I send a copy of the letter to each judge, 3 total and I send a copy to each individual on the service list and the proof of service goes to only the individuals on the service list. so I would be mailing a total of 10 letters 7 of which would be going to individuals on the service list with the proof of service.
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    26 Sep 2014 05:08 PM
    I am not an attorney and Haven't had any legal schooling. I just watch, listen, research and call people to ask questions. Not sure about service but on some cases I was on sent and received service paper on all copies. Judges should be original signatures. I always signed all original though. I would sign at bottom of service also, I didn't notice signature line. I work for GPAA in the claims department M - Thursday doing this on cell phone.
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    27 Sep 2014 07:48 AM
    I am taking them to the post office now to be mailed.
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    27 Sep 2014 11:47 AM
    Walter how about posting this on facebook, we may be able to get more people to get involved.
    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    27 Sep 2014 11:54 AM

    John, For Facebook posts, you will need to contact GPAA Web Content Manager Nicole McCleaf at nmccleaf@goldprospectors.org. However please CC me at content@goldprospectors.org so I have all the same information for the GPAA print publications, online stories and possible media releases.

     
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    27 Sep 2014 12:07 PM
    Thanks Brad, I sent her a message and asked if she could do that.
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    27 Sep 2014 02:23 PM
    the person to get hold of for posting on facebook is Brad Jones,  bjones@goldprospectors.org  or NICOLE MCCLEAF nmccleaf@goldprospectors.org if they post it they will watch it from GPAA which I can not do. Most persons computers at GPAA are block from all social media including me. I am hesitant to post anything that I could not monitor at work.
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    27 Sep 2014 03:22 PM

    I messaged Nicole and asked if she could do it. If we get it on facebook I can share it far and wide.
    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    28 Sep 2014 04:34 PM
    Public Lands for the People is now asking for solidarity from miners to request that the court publish the appeals court decision. Please support the PLP. Having the appellate court publish the decision would mean the court opinion could be used as a reference for other court cases. The Brandon Rinehart case decision puts the onus on the lower courts in California to rule on the issue of federal preemption, which is the crux of all the mining cases — the states cannot legally interfere with mining rights that are granted by Congress under the federal Mining Law of 1872 because federal law is the "supreme law of the land” under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    29 Sep 2014 07:55 AM

    There is some new information that I have been sent that should help. I will attach it. One thing to remember is that you need to make parts of any letter or form your own so don't just copy what someone else does. Many times copied letters are discounted or removed from count as coming from same person or as not individuals own decisions.

    PLP and the New 49er's legal team feel it is important to try to get this published. We all seem to be working as one team on this so lets get it done.

     ==============================

    Letter from Dave McCraken sent to me from PLP by Walt Wegner to stress importance

    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:

    http://www.goldgold.com/L...opinion-9-25-14.html
       
    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.

    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. 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 me very tired!

    Sincerely,

    Dave McCracken
    The New 49'ers Legal Fund

    The New 49er's, 27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039, USA
    =============================

     Remember to make some content your own in the form.      Attached information:  

    The People v Rinehart- CLUB or ASSOCIATION letter to court for preemption ruling.pdf

    The People v Rinehart- CLUB or ASSOCIATION letter to court for preemption ruling.doc    word document

    The People v Rinehart- CLUB or ASSOCIATION PROOF OF SERVICE.doc     Word Document 

    The People v Rinehart- CLUB or ASSOCIATION PROOF OF SERVICE.pdf 

    put in in both PDF and word as work is easy for most to work in and PDF is open source software.

    Hope this is of help lets do it

    Walter Eason

    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    08 Oct 2014 11:56 AM

    I am now verifying if indeed the order to publish the appellate court decision has been granted. See the last item on this website:

    http://appellatecases.cou...4&doc_no=C074662
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    08 Oct 2014 03:46 PM

    3rd Appellate District


    		<form> name="redirectform"> </form>

    Court data last updated: 10/08/2014 02:47 PM

    Case Summary Docket Briefs
    Disposition Parties and Attorneys Trial Court

    Disposition

    The People v. Rinehart
    Case Number C074662

    Description: Reversed & Remanded to trial court w/directions
    Date: 09/23/2014
    Status: Final
    The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
    Publication Status: Signed Published
    Author: Hull, Jr., Harry E.
    Participants: Hoch, Andrea L. (Concur)
    Robie, Ronald B. (Concur)
    Case Citation: none

    Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

    Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy © 2014 Judicial Council of California / Administrative Office of the Courts
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    08 Oct 2014 04:05 PM
    Looks like good news to me, thanks Brad.
    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    09 Oct 2014 02:54 PM
    Appeals court listens to miners
    People v. Rinehart opinion to be published!

    By Brad Jones
    GPAA Managing Editor

    The California Third Court of Appeals has ordered that the opinion of the People v. Rinehart case be published.

    Pro-mining groups, such as Public Lands for the People and the New ’49ers, issued statements last week in support of the appellate’s decision to overturn Rinehart’s earlier conviction of suction dredging without a permit. However, miners were displeased with the appellate court’s decision not to publish the opinion.

    But, after receiving more than 250 letters from miners — and dozens more that were rejected because of missing signatures and other errors — the Third Appeals Court ordered that the opinion be published.

    The publication order means that the People v. Rinehart opinion can now be used by attorneys representing suction dredge miners in the consolidated court cases in San Bernardino County, and Judge Gilbert Ochoa will have to follow the published opinion from the Third Court of Appeals. The opinion from the Third Court of Appeals needed to be published before it could be cited in state courts. State and federal law are different. While unpublished opinions can be used in federal courts, California law still forbids lawyers from citing unpublished opinions in state courts.

    Miners have been fighting since 2009 to end the state imposed dredging “moratorium,” which miners contend has become an illegal dredging ban. Since then, Brandon Rinehart, a gold miner, was charged with suction dredging without a permit on his own federal mining claim. Rinehart had earlier been convicted and sentenced to pay a $600 fine and three years probation.

    The judge who convicted Rinehart in the original case would not allow him to argue that federal mining laws preempt state mining laws under the Supremacy Clause, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution which states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land.” On those grounds, the appellate court ruled that the trial court erred because the federal preemption argument is relevant in this case and must be allowed.

    The case was remanded back to the lower court for trial. If the case goes to trial, Rinehart will argue that the state cannot preempt federal mining laws by prohibiting suction dredging, the only economically viable method of mining for gold on his federal mining claim, the same argument put forth by miners in the consolidated cases calling for an end to the statewide dredging ban.

    Meanwhile, the Mandatory Settlement Conference hearings ordered by Judge Ochoa continue Nov. 14. Ochoa is the mediator of negotiations between the suction gold dredging plaintiffs, mining attorneys, the Department of Fish & Wildlife, and attorneys representing environmental organizations and the State of California.

    Mining groups plan to give the judge a copy of the Rinehart opinion when the hearings resume.

    Public Lands for the People has been spearheading the effort to restore mining rights across the country. The Gold Prospectors Association of America and its members have donated tens of thousands of dollars to PLP to support your mining rights and rights of the public to access public lands. You can show your support by joining the GPAA or renewing your membership, and supporting the PLP.

    Public Lands for the People: www.plp1.org
    Join PLP: http://plp1.org/joindonate.html

    Link to the Third Court of Appeal case file for Brandon Rinehart: http://appellatecases.cou...55824&doc_no=C074662

    Brad Jones is the Managing Editor/Communications Director for the Gold Prospectors Association and the Lost Dutchman’s Mining Association. He can be reached at bjones@goldprospectors.org
    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    09 Oct 2014 02:59 PM
    Special thanks to GPAA Claims Researcher Walt Eason, the PLP and other miners for urging miners to send letters to the Third Court of Appeal requesting the People v. Rinehart opinion be published. Good job Walt. It worked!
    JOHN DORVAL
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    09 Oct 2014 03:21 PM
    Yes good job Walt it did work. See what social media can do, and what we can accomplish when we ban together as prospectors/ miners. Now lets put an end to all the dredging bans across the nation!!!!!!!
    BRAD JONES
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    28 Jan 2015 12:35 PM
    Here is an update on the Rinehart case: http://www.goldprospector...al-preemption-battle
    You are not authorized to post a reply.

    Forums All Things Prospecting Land Rights Issues