CA Supreme court to Review Rinehart

Helogold, do the mining community a favor and sit tight for now. This is a critical time and we don't need renegades out in the rivers destroying the efforts of literally 9 years of work, the efforts of thousands of small scale miners and $millions of dollars thrown at this thing, because you are "itching to go dredging". Go out into the garage, take out a can of wax, and wax your dredge up. Pull out the photo album and vicariously enjoy the time you have spent on the rivers previously and sit tight right now. We don't need any renegades out there blowing this thing up in our faces. There is literally an army of volunteers, volunteering their time so there may be a possibility you may be dredging soon. Being renegade at this point in the game is severely stupid and will result in literally thousands of miners pissed off at you. Sit tight and recognize that there is a BIG EFFORT to get you back in the water as soon as possible, as all those people volunteering their time "have got your back". Please don't blow it for everyone because you are antsy.

Nobody really knows for sure where this thing is going. It is too soon to "get all cocky". Just sit tight and by the time the weather warms up, everyone will have a better feel for how this thing is working out. No need to jump the gun right here.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!
Last edited:
I don't beleive the California regulators will ever roll over on the dredge issue. These court proceedings will only force them to tweak current regulation and new issues will have to be fought in the future of a never ending cycle. California is not a state, but a peoples republic that rules by authority. When it does break, I think the State of Jefferson would be a good place to call home.
 

I wonder how yesterday's settlement hearing went, or if it was postponed while the Supreme Court reviews the appellate court decision
 

There was a full settlement session yesterday in SB. Rules of the MSC still apply. We're working it out with the attorneys as what can be released w/o violating the rules.

ratled
 

Thanks ratled it's good to know it happened. Hope there is good progress being made. As it was only suppose to be a temporary moratorium for no more than 5 years. There's no valid reason science or agenda based that justifies a prohibition of small scale mining on a federal mining claim.
 

minerrick said:
Helogold, do the mining community a favor and sit tight for now. This is a critical time and we don't need renegades out in the rivers destroying the efforts of literally 9 years of work, the efforts of thousands of small scale miners and $millions of dollars thrown at this thing, because you are "itching to go dredging". Go out into the garage, take out a can of wax, and wax your dredge up. Pull out the photo album and vicariously enjoy the time you have spent on the rivers previously and sit tight right now. We don't need any renegades out there blowing this thing up in our faces. There is literally an army of volunteers, volunteering their time so there may be a possibility you may be dredging soon. Being renegade at this point in the game is severely stupid and will result in literally thousands of miners pissed off at you. Sit tight and recognize that there is a BIG EFFORT to get you back in the water as soon as possible, as all those people volunteering their time "have got your back". Please don't blow it for everyone because you are antsy.

Nobody really knows for sure where this thing is going. It is too soon to "get all cocky". Just sit tight and by the time the weather warms up, everyone will have a better feel for how this thing is working out. No need to jump the gun right here.
Click to expand...

I would just like to point out that the only reason the miners in Cal, are in the position their in right now is because of one miner who didn't have a permit, got sited and brought a good fight. Not disagreeing with you at all but sometimes thats what it takes. Probably should have been doing more of that a long time ago.
Just my two cents worth.
 

Big thank you to Brandon and his family, and to those who have pledged to persevere and to continue to stand up for the rights of miners. It would be nice if the opposition would acquire common sense and try to see it from our perspective. We as miners respect the environment and have many of the same goals as the opposition, but they seem to be doing a lot of lying about the science of dredging. In my opinion they are being unreasonable and downright rude. Denying a lot of already proven science about dredging.
 

ScottC said:
Big thank you to Brandon and his family, and to those who have pledged to persevere and to continue to stand up for the rights of miners. It would be nice if the opposition would acquire common sense and try to see it from our perspective. We as miners respect the environment and have many of the same goals as the opposition, but they seem to be doing a lot of lying about the science of dredging. In my opinion they are being unreasonable and downright rude. Denying a lot of already proven science about dredging.
Click to expand...

Greed makes people say or do just about anything, hard to let go of the cash flow once it starts.
 

Hey, Jog just my opinion, and we both agree that Brandon did the right thing. But that was years ago; $Millions of dollars and thousands of hours ago- this process is one that we (as a group) have chosen has moved forward. There is a time to be defiant to an unjust and overpowering force and there is a time to play by the rules. We, as a group decided to seek judicial review, and thus, literally $Millions of dollars has been thrown at this and countless hours of volunteer time. It was a path that we chose. Had we given them the finger and told them "Molon Labe" (come get us), then that is when defiance is path to follow. But since the path of following THEIR court system was chosen, we need to follow this to the end following THEIR RULES. There is a process and unless we want to blow it - and throw away those $Millions of dollars spent on this and start all over, I think we need to give this process- THIS ONE that we decided to support both financially and time-wise- a chance before we go off half-cocked and potentially blow it. There's a "lot of chef's in this kitchen" and thus it is hard to stay on track and "know exactly where we are in the process". I think it is a good idea to trust in those who are steering this ship and wait patiently for them to tell us if it is "all clear". I am not sure who exactly is the spokesman for this whole affair, but those involved ought to choose some single person so the message presented to the constituency is the same message distributed from group to group. It would be nice to see some cohesiveness in the message that is delivered to everyone watching this process. I know it is a bit frustrating for those of us waiting to hear. Ratled- maybe you can work with your group and designate a single person as the "official" mouthpiece of the "miners representatives" of this group. So the information distributed can be vetted and sourced from a single source.
 

minerrick said:
Ratled- maybe you can work with your group and designate a single person as the "official" mouthpiece of the "miners representatives" of this group. So the information distributed can be vetted and sourced from a single source.
Click to expand...
It's always been there. The attorneys are the official mouthpiece. I have always said, at no other time that I know of has the solidarity of the mining community been stronger...... something we can all be proud of

ratled
 

Last edited:
minerrick said:
Hey, Jog just my opinion, and we both agree that Brandon did the right thing. But that was years ago; $Millions of dollars and thousands of hours ago- this process is one that we (as a group) have chosen has moved forward. There is a time to be defiant to an unjust and overpowering force and there is a time to play by the rules. We, as a group decided to seek judicial review, and thus, literally $Millions of dollars has been thrown at this and countless hours of volunteer time. It was a path that we chose. Had we given them the finger and told them "Molon Labe" (come get us), then that is when defiance is path to follow. But since the path of following THEIR court system was chosen, we need to follow this to the end following THEIR RULES. There is a process and unless we want to blow it - and throw away those $Millions of dollars spent on this and start all over, I think we need to give this process- THIS ONE that we decided to support both financially and time-wise- a chance before we go off half-cocked and potentially blow it. There's a "lot of chef's in this kitchen" and thus it is hard to stay on track and "know exactly where we are in the process". I think it is a good idea to trust in those who are steering this ship and wait patiently for them to tell us if it is "all clear". I am not sure who exactly is the spokesman for this whole affair, but those involved ought to choose some single person so the message presented to the constituency is the same message distributed from group to group. It would be nice to see some cohesiveness in the message that is delivered to everyone watching this process. I know it is a bit frustrating for those of us waiting to hear. Ratled- maybe you can work with your group and designate a single person as the "official" mouthpiece of the "miners representatives" of this group. So the information distributed can be vetted and sourced from a single source.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't dissagree with you, just trying to make a point. I have also been in touch with one of the main people involved in the fight there in Cal, I keep hearing him say the same thing over and over, "WE NEED TO ALL WORK TOGETHER".
 

There are clearly passionate and thoughtful views on the issue. At least one Org has encouraged dredgers to ask for and be denied a permit. This is important whether or not you plan on dredging prior to final rules being decided.

Each of us need to consider our actions going forward for ourselves.

Pursuit of liberty means different things to different people. Being United, while important, is probably not realistic. I hope we all can see the need to be good stewards in our industry.

I'm on the fence😖
 

Last edited:
goldog said:
Being United, while important, is probably not realistic. I hope we all can see the need to be good stewards in our industry.

I'm on the fence��
Click to expand...

That is the huge difficulty organizing miners. There are so many temperaments and viewpoints that it is really hard to get a single viewpoint or unified action. Herding Cats comes to mind. But from this point on, NO MATTER what we do OR HOW WE DO IT, we need to be viewed as doing it in an environmentally sound way. No rape and pillage allowed. Its a brave new world and the emphasis is on having as little impact on the nearby environment as possible. No matter whether "we's got's our rights" or not. And if and when this thing is "resolved" (for now) and the ink is dried, will will have to have "someone" actively paying attention to the machinations of the environmental lobby and legislative actions that affect our livelihoods. We will not be able to "go dredging and forget everything political", as there will be constant attempts to grind away at our abilities to make a living via one contrived reason or another. We will have to be forever vigilant or we will find ourselves in this situation again and again. We will never be able to put our guards down again.
 

PLP argued that the State already had a right to require permits and PLP confirmed in their argument that there was no need to withhold permits because the state already had the ability to offer regulatory authority. PLP used the Calf. state permits as a tool to convinced the court that adequate state regulation existed to continue to allow dredging. I took special note of this because I failed to understand how miners on federal lands, open to mineral exploration, operating under the MEG, were required to be regulated by a State.
The Rinehart case never acknowledged the "right of the state to regulate", but rather countered the contention using the "right of Federal preemption".

Now the State is stuck with that affirmation of preemption by the court which also ruled that the state must not deny permits. So it is going to be my observation that the State is going to maintain a permit regulatory authority and ask for further affirmation of this part of the ruling. One needs to really read the Ochoa ruling......as he acknowledge federal preemption but also acknowledged the right of a state regulatory authority. Ochoa used the term "extraordinary" in a special way.

IMHO the state will get their hand slapped, state permits will be offered and dredgers will either accept the permits as "reasonable" or not. Attorneys can argue points after points and this can go on for a very long time. Poor losers, who really don't have to fund their legal argument, because they are utilizing taxpayer attorneys hold an edge over a single miner who must fund his/her own court challenges.

That said the state must realize that the Brandon Rinehart case is going to go the full distance. No and's if's or but's about it! But state regulatory authority is going to be the issue.....how much and what is reasonable.....that is the question. IMHO
Uniting miners, and the small miner mining industry to support this to the end will play a big role. But reasonable State regulatory authority will be a primary issue...........IMHO. I believe it was M.E.G. who questioned the validity of a "WIN", and I believe it was Clay who stated that attorneys get paid to argue. Either way the Rinehart WIN is welcome but it is "NOT THE CATS MEOW" as of yet.....and may never be.
From what I have observed: I believe:
M.E.G. would contend that the state has no right to regulate, and I believe Clay would want to acknowledge the State does have the right to reasonably regulate. I believe if things were reasonable we would not be discussing such things! What is reasonable for one man may not be reasonable for another! HELLO STATE SUPREME COURT!.....what might you say?


Bejay
 

I have always found it's best not to discuss legal strategy, informed, uniformed or just speculation, on the open forums. No need to think of something for them if they haven't.

ratled
 

Any new news from down south???
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Exploring

⬅️ Previous Thread

A firend of mine pointed this out to me

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top