anyone know about California dredging ban yet?

[ywevis]

Today was the day they are going to decide does anyone know the outcome?

[Gold Seeker]

Too early yet, it's only 3:30 California time.

Also it could take 2 or 3 days in court and not to mention God knows how long for a decision from the Judge.

[Gold Seeker]

I'm not sure how many has seen this email message from the PLP about 6 to 8 weeks ago, the highlighted red portion is why I said "2 to 3 days" .

"Email message from the PLP

"On May 1, 2014, David Young, Counsel for Public Lands For The People and other plaintiffs, appeared before Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa in Rancho Cucamonga to argue our Motions for Summary Judgments, and oppose the State’s cross-motions for Summary Judgments. These Motions regarded the issue of Federal preemption of the State’s prohibition of suction dredge mining in California. Judge Ochoa was knowledgeable about the pleadings that had been filed, the arguments made, and asked challenging questions regarding the State’s position that there was only a temporary moratorium, and not a prohibition of suction dredge mining in California. The State could give no assurance to Judge Ochoa as to a date when the so called “moratorium” would end. At the end of all arguments, Judge Ochoa took the matters under advisement, making no ruling from the bench.

Judge Ochoa then asked all counsel to meet with him in chambers. He stated that he would like to see the matter settled, if at all possible, before he ruled on the various motions. We discussed the previous settlement attempts with judge Ochoa which were not successful. Nevertheless, Judge Ochoa exercised his judicial authority to order a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) beginning June 24, 2014, which may continue for one or two more days. Judge Ochoa will personally preside at the MSC as the settlement Judge, and is prepared to make a substantial personal commitment of time and effort to see if any settlement can be achieved. Judge Ochoa will require all parties to the litigation to be either personally present in Court for the MSC, or to be available by telephone. Those parties who cannot attend personally, should be able to attend by telephone conference at no cost to them. Judge Ochoa has the authority to sanction any party who does not attend the MSC either in person, or by telephone.

When available, a copy of Judge Ochoa’s written Order regarding the MSC, and the mandatory attendance of all parties will be provided. Under any circumstances, Jerry Hobbs and David Young will be attending the MSC in person, and all other parties to the litigation are urged to attend in person. Judge Ochoa further stated that he would want to personally address the parties. The parties would have an opportunity, either through counsel, or personally to address Judge Ochoa. Since Judge Ochoa has yet to rule on the Motions now pending before him, the MSC should give everyone a more complete education on the realities of what it takes to actually engage in suction dredge mining in California, and the impact that the State’s prohibition has had on suction dredge miners.""

[Gold Seeker]

Went into the second day, now delayed until Sept. 4th, a little more on what transpired.

www.icmj.com/news-detail.php?id=247&keywords=California_suction_gold_dredge_settlement_hearings_concluded_for_now


"Miner's News

06/26/2014
California suction gold dredge settlement hearings concluded for now Print
On June 24 & 25, 2014, plaintiffs, defendents and attorneys attended mandatory settlement hearings in San Bernardino, California.

Judge Gilbert Ochoa met with the involved parties individually and in small groups in his chambers in an attempt to reach an agreement over the suction gold dredge permitting process and the current regulations. These hearings were not open to the public.

The bottom line is that there was no agreement. Honestly, we didn't expect an agreement to be reached. The State of California and environmental extremists want dredgers out of the water, but miners are not about to give up their rights.

The next step is for Judge Ochoa to rule on the merits of the case -- at least that was supposed to be the next step. However, he has thrown another monkey wrench into the process. Judge Ochoa continued the hearing until September 4, 2014. He ordered the involved parties to go through the new dredging regulations established in 2012 and address each point individually, then present their negotiating points to the court.

We obviously have a problem with this approach, and you can rest assured the miners and their attorneys do also. The 2012 regulations were based on bogus science, and I use the term "science" loosely. They were designed to promote an ideology. With the help of environmental groups, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife inserted countless roadblocks into the 2012 regulations to keep dredgers out of the water. For example, they closed over 600 gold-bearing waterways to suction dredging, but claimed the closure was offset by the opening of waterways in other areas. The newly opened waters are at snow-level elevations with an operating season of September through January, and they are in areas that contain little or no gold. Nice try.

Other unworkable portions of the 2012 regulations include:
prohibiting dredging within three feet of any bank, which eliminates many smaller waterways and puts much of the gold out of reach on larger waterways
limiting dredge permits to 1,500 per season, which takes away the rights of thousands of dredgers
filling in all dredge holes, which nature does naturally -- often within one season
outlawing the use of winches without prior approval for each use, creating a dangerous work environment
limiting nozzle sizes to four inches, which makes production unprofitable in many situations
requiring 500' between dredges, which creates conflict between dredgers on adjoining claims
reporting finds by dredgers along with their locations, which would be an invitation to all crooks to come take your gold
limiting working hours from 10am-4pm, which could make dredging unprofitable
requring complete mitigation, which included things like noise and aesthetics that are impossible to achieve
We could go on for many more pages, but what is the point? The 2012 regulations were crafted to prevent dredging, not to reasonably regulate it. In our view, using the 2012 regulations instead of the 1994 regulations as a starting point is purely a delay tactic. Nothing in the 2012 regulations is negotiable -- it all needs to be tossed out. But why would the judge be delaying this case?

Following are a couple of interesting side notes that might provide the answer.

A related case involving Brandon Rinehart is before the Third Appellate Court. Rinehart is a suction gold dredger, and he operated with a permit up until the time that the State of California stopped issuing permits. Unable to obtain a permit, he continued dredging in protest. On June 16, 2012, he was cited for dredging without a permit on his own federal mining claim.

Rinehart pled guilty while retaining his right to appeal. He was fined $832 and given three years probation. Attorney James Buchal is handling the appeal. In his opening brief, Buchal explained, "...the central, pivotal issue is the question of whether federal mining laws preempt state laws prohibiting and regulating suction dredge mining..."

Buchal did an excellent job of laying out the facts and backing Rinehart's position with federal laws and established case law in the thirty-eight page opening brief and subsequent reply briefs.

The usual suspects -- the Karuk Tribe and the Center for Biological Diversity -- filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the State of California. The Pacific Legal Foundation and Western Mining Alliance joined, filing amicus curiae briefs in support of Rinehart.

This issue of federal preemption is scheduled for oral arguments on Monday, September 15, 2014.

If the Third Appellate Court rules in favor of Rinehart, Judge Ochoa would have to rule the same way. It may be that Judge Ochoa is simply delaying a ruling in San Bernardino until the Rinehart case is settled.

We also have to remember that Judge Ochoa is an elected official trying to walk a tightrope, with government officials and powerful environmentalists on one side, and miners supported by current laws and case law on the other. I don't pretend to know what Judge Ochoa's aspirations are, but I'm sure he is well aware that his career could be riding on how he handles this decision."