anyone been watching the california gold trial?

[ywevis]

I lost track and haven't had time to see if there are any updates on it.

[Gold Seeker]

They completed the last two scheduled days, Sept 4th and 5th last week, those in attendance said it looks positive for our side but it too early to know for sure.

They have two more days scheduled at this time, because of the rules of the court nothing that has transpired can be discussed or released until a settlement has been reached in the case.

The next round is scheduled for Sept 16th and 17th, but I'm guessing that there will be more to follow.

It is said that the Judge is waiting to hear what happens in the Brandon Rhinehart appeal, which is happening on Monday Sept, 15th, this ruling could have a major affect on the outcome of the dredging settlement trial.

I'll post more as updates are available on both cases.

[oakview2]

Not too much to report on the the San Bernadio Mandatory Settlement on the 16th and the 17th, more scheduled for the 30th and the 1st in Judge Ochoa's courtroom. Biggest news this week was from the Third district Appealte court. This is a suit broght by Brandon Rhinehart who was ticketed by the state, for dredging his FEDERAL MINNING claim, without a permit. Something the state has refused to issue since they suspended in the middle of the 09 season with no refund. Mr. Rhinehart plead guilty without predijuce, and appealed on the grounds that the states moratorium, now over 5 years, is not regulatory but prohibition and there is prempting the 1872 Minning laws that specifically grant miners the right to mine their valid federal claims in the most economical manner.

www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/memo-rinehart-oral-argument.pdf

In case the link won't open

MEMORANDUM
JOINT DEFENSE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
To: Interested Parties
From: James L. Buchal
Date: September 15, 2014
Re: Oral Argument of Rinehart Case
This morning I traveled to Sacramento to argue the appeal of Brandon Rinehart’s criminal conviction before the Third District Court of Appeals. There were three Justices, Hull, Robie and Hoch, two of whom, Hull and Robie, were quite active in questioning both sides. It is always difficult to predict the outcome of a case based on the conduct of the Justices during an oral argument, but I left the argument feeling that the panel would not likely affirm Rinehart’s conviction; but rather reverse it or send the case back to Plumas County for further factfinding.
All three Justices appeared to reject the State’s position that there was no federal preemption at all, such that the State was empowered to ban all mining if it so chose. The Justices questioned the State’s attorney quite vigorously about this, and Justice Hull even disparaged the recent Pringle case as being based on “pretty thin” analysis.
At the same time, however, all the Justices seemed concerned that the Superior Court in Plumas County had not afforded Rinehart an opportunity to present witnesses and testimony concerning the degree to which a ban on suction dredge mining effectively barred commercial exploitation of the claim. Justice Robie, however, seemed concerned that federal preemption should somehow turn on the degree of interference with the commercial practicability of mining a claim, an analysis that would depend, among other things, upon the price of gold.
The Justices, particularly Justice Robie, also seemed to have been potentially confused by the State’s diabolical strategy of concealing the permit bans within a complex series of statutes that can be misrepresented as mere temporary delays while permit conditions are developed. The State noted that on the precise date Rinehart was cited, the ban on permit issuance was still set to expire in 2016 (it was not until later in June 2012 that the statute took its current form). The oral argument was helpful in characterizing SB 670 and its successors as per se unreasonable restrictions on issuing permits, rather than measures to assist in permit
development.
After the argument, the State’s attorneys privately offered their assessment that the
most likely outcome is that the case is remanded back to Plumas County for further
development of the facts on how a ban on issuing suction dredge mining permits “materially
interferes” with development of the claim. My own view is that there is at least as good a
chance that the Court will focus on how this statute is not really regulatory at all, the approach
taken in the Lawrence County case, which would allow them to reverse the conviction without
creating a significant workload for the lower courts.
Sincerely,
James L. Buchal

[Gold Seeker]

Update

bb.bbboy.net/thenew49ers-viewthread?forum=2&thread=1260



"After attending Brandon's case in Sacramento, Rich and I drove to Oakland CA to catch a flight to SB for two more days for MSC.



Rules of the MSC still apply but we continue to grind through it. We have two more days scheduled on 9/30 and 10/1



ratled"

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



"Actually, it is safe to say there is reason for hope at the end of the second day of Mandatory Settlement Discussions. This is now 4 days in all. Maybe Rich can weigh in with a little more detail without breaking the rules."

Dave Mack
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



"As Steve mentioned, we spent Monday in the Appellate Court in Sacramento listening to oral arguments in Brandon Rinehart's case. We drove back to the Bay Area where we both live, and jumped on a plane headed to the Ontario Airport eventually making our way to San Bernardino for the Mandatory Settlement Conference on Tuesday morning.

We arrived at the the courthouse about 8:30 AM and met with our attorney, Mr. James Buchal, for a quick briefing. Then the attorneys had their meetings with the judge, and then we all went to the conference room. The morning session seemed like it was moving slow with not much progress in discussing the regulations. After lunch we all met again for the afternoon session, and from my perspective, we seemed to be at stalemate when the judge adjourned the session for the day.

Steve and I returned to our motel room mentally drained, and feeling very uncertain as to what would happen on Wednesday. After a quick dinner, we spent the night preparing for the next day. We were on computers, iPads, and cell phones, doing research, and getting photographs together that we might need the next day.

About 2:00 AM, with only the illumination from the screens of computers and iPads lighting the room, I could see that Steve was still awake. We exchanged a few words, and we knew that several issues were weighing heavy on our minds. I'm not sure if we sleep much that night, but we were up early to meet with our attorney before going to the courthouse.

The morning started out as usual with the judge meeting with the attorneys, and then we all headed for the conference room. Judge Ochoa gave an opening statement, and the discussions of several points began. Within about fifteen minutes, Steve and I looked at each other, and without saying a word, we knew we were each wondering if we were in the right conference room talking to the same people as the previous day. Discussions were moving quickly and in a very positive direction. Maybe it was Judge Ochoa's opening statement, but both Steve and I had a very positive feeling. The conference was adjourned unfortunately at 1:00 PM, as we had made more progress in a couple of hours than we had in the last couple of days. The judge instructed us to return on September 30th and October 1st to continue the settlement conference.

Steve and I made the drive to the Ontario airport, and the flight home to the Bay Area still talking about how well the Wednesday conference session had gone and the progress that was made.

Steve and I wish we could give you more detailed information, but we are bound by rules of the conference. We can tell you that we feel real progress was made Wednesday, and we can only hope this progress continues at future conference meetings.

Thanks again to all of you for your kind comments, and continued support!



---
Rich Krimm
Director New 49'ers Internal Affairs"

[mark]

Thank you for keeping up with that Skip