California miner needs help after USFS employee steals his property from claim

H

Hefty1

Bronze Member
Dec 5, 2010
1,702
1,477
California miner needs help after USFS employee steals his property from claim without any notice. Please spread the word.

http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/legal-news/USFS-Terror-USFS-steals-miners-property-from-california%20-miner.html


Kerby Jackson
Chairman - Jefferson Mining District

When will we finally, as a group, stand together against this criminal assault on a fellow miner?

Oh, so you're too busy huh?

I'll venture to guess that if it was your property stolen in an illegal act, you'd make the time to be involved...

There is power in numbers.. why can't most of you understand that?
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!
Upvote 0
I get so damn upset when I see people litter, throwing trash and lit cigarettes out windows seem to be an American Pass time.
Not a day goes by that I dont see someone chuck something out of their window.

Parking lots and drive through's seem to be choice dumping grounds as they are always filled with litter NOT from that location ie Starbucks cups at Wendys or Mc Donalds Big Mac box's at the DMV and so on.

Get outside the city and it is do different, people pack in the trash but dont take it out.

Every time I go out I always bring trash home, now that I metal detect I dig trash up now too! lol

It is a sickness that the people of this country have come to love.

imo fines are not good enough, 1000+ hours of community service should also be mandatory.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!
When I meet someone wanting to learn how to prospect or is looking for a place to go mining, I will usually take them to a GPAA claim and work with them for a day or two. If I like their work and moral ethics I will take them to one of my claims. If they behave in the same way I will cut them loose by themselves with instructions as to what my rules are and what is expected of them. One infraction and they will never be allowed back. The reason for going to a GPAA claim and working with them is you get to know alot about a person visiting with them while you work and observing them. Also if they screw up on the GPAA claim you can either make them fix it or do it yourself after they leave which is usually easier. Like Hefty1 said the claim owner has alot of responsability.

B H Prospector
 

Hey Hefty


Don't know if you have seen or posted this but thought I would post....


You guys will be interested to know that the dredging moratorium is now being challenged in Plumas County Superior Court. There may be a fast track possibility of overturning the existing moratoriums in this case.

This case began with a criminal complaint against Brandon Renehart for possessing and using a suction dredge without a permit in violation of Section 5653 of the Fish & Game Code.

In response, our attorney, James Buchal (representing Brandon in this case) along with strong support from Public Lasnds for the People (PLP), challenged the criminal complaint on its face (called a "Demurrer" in California law) based upon federal supremacy laws. James makes a compelling legal argument that controlling case law in America prevents any State from enacting a prohibition against mining on the public lands -- which is clearly what the State of California has done through a moratorium which prevents permits from being issued until an impossible set of circumstances have been met.

In turn, the State has filed a vigorous response alleging that the current moratorium is just temporary; something we all know is blatantly false. But it is clear the State is fighting very hard to overcome the Demurrer. James' Reply to the State sets the record straight.

So now we will find out if the judge will dismiss the case or it will proceed to trial. My guess is that if the case is not dismissed here, since I believe there are no factual issues in dispute, and the resolution will be a matter of interpreting the law, this case could be rather quickly resolved in Summary Judgment. That could happen before the coming dredging season.

The above linked arguments make for interesting reading, because to a large extent, they mirror some of the main arguments that we are making in San Bernardino, a consolidation of civil cases that will perhaps take quite a bit longer to resolve.

In the event that the judge dismisses Brandon's case based upon the argument that California's present scheme of denying suction dredge permits to anyone is preempted by the supremacy clause, it would seem that suction dredging will immediately resume in California perhaps without any permits whatsoever. That would certainly be a reversal!

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Complaint-8-30-12.pdf
(the criminal charge against the miner, Brandon Reinhart)

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Demurrer-Memo-10-30-12.pdf
(the Demurrer)

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/States-response-to-demurrer.pdf
(the state's response

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Defs-Reply-Support-Demurrer.pdf
(James Buchal's response to the state)
 

Last edited:
Good post Oakview...
I have read about...but have not seen the paperwork you posted.
Thank you for that...and I hope the outcome is good for all!
 

Thanks, Oakview - for posting all the information above. I just finished reading the docs, and I feel there is a strong case for the defense. I wonder why this
has not been tested long before now? If this happens in more counties, what would result? - I wonder:dontknow:
 

Last edited:
I am far from a lawyer, but I am sure that a ruling would set case precedent and the state would have no choice but to return to the previous dredging regulations..... It is encouraging that this case as well as the cases in San Bernardino county are in areas with active mining... I am not a dredger, have always fancied giving it a whirl, but mostly just hate to see this state continue to trample on the rights of its citizens.
 

Last edited:
Oakview2 said:
Hey Hefty


Don't know if you have seen or posted this but thought I would post....


You guys will be interested to know that the dredging moratorium is now being challenged in Plumas County Superior Court. There may be a fast track possibility of overturning the existing moratoriums in this case.

This case began with a criminal complaint against Brandon Renehart for possessing and using a suction dredge without a permit in violation of Section 5653 of the Fish & Game Code.

In response, our attorney, James Buchal (representing Brandon in this case) along with strong support from Public Lasnds for the People (PLP), challenged the criminal complaint on its face (called a "Demurrer" in California law) based upon federal supremacy laws. James makes a compelling legal argument that controlling case law in America prevents any State from enacting a prohibition against mining on the public lands -- which is clearly what the State of California has done through a moratorium which prevents permits from being issued until an impossible set of circumstances have been met.

In turn, the State has filed a vigorous response alleging that the current moratorium is just temporary; something we all know is blatantly false. But it is clear the State is fighting very hard to overcome the Demurrer. James' Reply to the State sets the record straight.

So now we will find out if the judge will dismiss the case or it will proceed to trial. My guess is that if the case is not dismissed here, since I believe there are no factual issues in dispute, and the resolution will be a matter of interpreting the law, this case could be rather quickly resolved in Summary Judgment. That could happen before the coming dredging season.

The above linked arguments make for interesting reading, because to a large extent, they mirror some of the main arguments that we are making in San Bernardino, a consolidation of civil cases that will perhaps take quite a bit longer to resolve.

In the event that the judge dismisses Brandon's case based upon the argument that California's present scheme of denying suction dredge permits to anyone is preempted by the supremacy clause, it would seem that suction dredging will immediately resume in California perhaps without any permits whatsoever. That would certainly be a reversal!

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Complaint-8-30-12.pdf
(the criminal charge against the miner, Brandon Reinhart)

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Demurrer-Memo-10-30-12.pdf
(the Demurrer)

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/States-response-to-demurrer.pdf
(the state's response

http://www.goldgold.com//wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Defs-Reply-Support-Demurrer.pdf
(James Buchal's response to the state)
Click to expand...

Wed, December 19, 2012 9:11:10 AM
RE: Brandon Rinehart Case


From:James Buchal <[email protected]>

View Contact
To:

The Judge decided that he could not resolve the factual issues (e.g., take judicial notice that Brandon was on his own claim) and that the case would have to go to trial. A pretrial conference has been set for 1/30.

 

[h=1]Brandons case update[/h]
Hello Everyone,
Brandon R. here,

I just wanted to let everyone that was interested in attending my hearings in Quincy to know that we have postponed the Pre Trial Conference till after the San Bernadino hearings. The new date will now be on 2/20/13. I will post the time as soon as I know.

A pre- trial conference (pre-trial hearing) is a meeting held before a case goes to trial. All of the important team players such as the plaintiffs attorney, prosecution, defense attorney, judge or magistrate, are present. At this hearing the case is set into motion much like a play. The relevant facts along with any supporting evidence and documents are made known. Any concerns regarding the arrest, civil suit, claims, special requirements, time lines, objections, etc., are discussed and agreed upon or put to rest. The schedule is set and a judge enters all necessary requirements into a motion for all to follow during the course of a trial.

And not to distract from all the support needed for PLP and The New 49ers for all the other cases, but Western Mining Alliance(WMA)has agreed to help me in gaining awareness and bringing the miners together to fight as they always have.You can read about it in their January newsletter.

[url]http://westernminingalliance.org/?page_id=570[/URL]

Please help in anyway you can. Please spread the word to other miners as now is the time to get involved. I believe we have a real shot here!
1699e2bf-884e-4977-876a-30658bbf2bb.gif

 

Topic: Brandon's Case scheduled for 2/20/13 1:30pm in Qui
Posted: Yesterday at 12:11pm
Brandon Rinehart here,
This is the court room address and date for my next hearing in Plumas County Court. It is a Pretrial hearing similar to the one in San Bernardino but far less complicated where here, there is just one case to be heard instead of many.
My Criminal case is focusing on the same federal preemption issues granted by the 1872 mining laws, but thanks to the 6th Amendment, I have the right to “Trial by Jury” instead of the judge making the decision of guilt. I also have the granted constitutional right to a speedy trial which means my case will be heard and decided prior to the current mining season.
It would be nice to have a bunch of miners show up to the Hearing for support. Since the States demurrer to the Federal preemption claim in San Bernardino will not even be heard until the end of July, 2013, this may be the last chance we have at getting back in the water before the mining season begins.

As everyone probably already knows, lawyers are very expensive. Although I have received donations from the PLP and a couple of individual miners, I will be funding the rest of this effort out of my own pocket; I will be borrowing any monies from this point forward as I have exhausted my savings. Any help you as fellow miners can afford to give to support this cause would be appreciated. I am also a very good handyman (Electrician by trade) so if you live in or around the East Bay I would be willing to take on some extra work if necessary because I intend to fight this all the way even if it puts me further in debt. Trials can be very expensive.
I want to Thank PLP for their generous donation to help fund my efforts, and the Individual miners that have stepped forward and given money to my cause and WMA for their fundraising efforts. I am very appreciative of this and it just goes to show that there are people out there that care for everyone as a whole and not just their own mining efforts. Remember this case can help all of us get back in the water.

Donations can be sent to PLP just tell them it’s for Brandon’s case or given directly to me at the hearing.
Brandon Rinehart
Plumas superior court room
520 Main st.
Quincy CA, 95971
Hearing February 20, 2013
Superior court judge: IRA KAUFMAN
1:30 pm


 

From Brandon...

First of all, I want to thank everyone who came to my hearing yesterday and for all the generous donations that were recieved, and I was glad to finally put some faces to the names of people to which I have beeen in contact with.
We had around 30 people total there. Unfortunatly the judge did not want an audience and we did not get to here any of the arguments since they discussed everything in the judges private chambers.
I have copied an email that I asked my attorney, James Buchal to write to sum up yesterdays events and where we are going from here.
----------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I(James Buchal) appeared before Judge Ira Kaufman at the Plumas County Court for what was supposed to be a pretrial conference and resolution of some motions in limine. There was a crowd of miners in attendance, but the Judge insisted upon conducting nearly all the proceedings in a private conference room with only he, I, and the three lawyers for the State in attendance.
In the private conference, the Judge seemed to have a strong but unexplained reluctance to simply decide the preemption issue on the record as it stands, despite the fact that both I and the State urged him to do so. My best guess is that he is unwilling to enter a finding of preemption, but wants to assist us in assembling a full record for appeal in an economical fashion. He was also unwilling to rule on the motions in limine (yet).
The following proposal emerged after long discussion: (1) we would stipulate as to most of the pertinent facts (e.g., that Mr. Rinehart was mining on his claim); (2) we would waive a jury trial; (3) we would file an “offer of proof” in the form of affidavits from Mr. Rinehart and mining experts concerning the degree to which the statutory moratorium adversely affects mining in general and mining on Mr. Rinehart’s claim in particular; and (4) we would set a date for a court trial. In advance of trial, the State would file papers arguing that the evidence set forth in the “offer of proof” should not be admitted.
At that trial, the prosecution would prove its case in chief by means of the stipulation. It would then be our turn to offer the defense, and the Court would then make a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in the offer of proof. If he is dead-set against preemption, and following the wishes of the State, he will rule that none of this evidence can be admitted. We would rest our case, having no evidence we were allowed to offer, and Mr. Rinehart would be presumably be convicted. (There is the remote possibility that the Judge would come around to the view that preemption is obvious as a matter of law, but I am not hopeful.)
There is also the somewhat less remote but still not strong possibility that the Judge retains an open mind, and decides at this point that he wants to hear some of the evidence, at which point the trial would be set over so that witnesses could actually be brought in. The Court set a conference call for March 7th, by which time we are to be prepared to confirm that we are in agreement with proceeding in this fashion (or not), and if so, to set a trial date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214

Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939
 

Hefty1 said:
From Brandon...

First of all, I want to thank everyone who came to my hearing yesterday and for all the generous donations that were recieved, and I was glad to finally put some faces to the names of people to which I have beeen in contact with.
We had around 30 people total there. Unfortunatly the judge did not want an audience and we did not get to here any of the arguments since they discussed everything in the judges private chambers.
I have copied an email that I asked my attorney, James Buchal to write to sum up yesterdays events and where we are going from here.
----------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I(James Buchal) appeared before Judge Ira Kaufman at the Plumas County Court for what was supposed to be a pretrial conference and resolution of some motions in limine. There was a crowd of miners in attendance, but the Judge insisted upon conducting nearly all the proceedings in a private conference room with only he, I, and the three lawyers for the State in attendance.
In the private conference, the Judge seemed to have a strong but unexplained reluctance to simply decide the preemption issue on the record as it stands, despite the fact that both I and the State urged him to do so. My best guess is that he is unwilling to enter a finding of preemption, but wants to assist us in assembling a full record for appeal in an economical fashion. He was also unwilling to rule on the motions in limine (yet).
The following proposal emerged after long discussion: (1) we would stipulate as to most of the pertinent facts (e.g., that Mr. Rinehart was mining on his claim); (2) we would waive a jury trial; (3) we would file an “offer of proof” in the form of affidavits from Mr. Rinehart and mining experts concerning the degree to which the statutory moratorium adversely affects mining in general and mining on Mr. Rinehart’s claim in particular; and (4) we would set a date for a court trial. In advance of trial, the State would file papers arguing that the evidence set forth in the “offer of proof” should not be admitted.
At that trial, the prosecution would prove its case in chief by means of the stipulation. It would then be our turn to offer the defense, and the Court would then make a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in the offer of proof. If he is dead-set against preemption, and following the wishes of the State, he will rule that none of this evidence can be admitted. We would rest our case, having no evidence we were allowed to offer, and Mr. Rinehart would be presumably be convicted. (There is the remote possibility that the Judge would come around to the view that preemption is obvious as a matter of law, but I am not hopeful.)
There is also the somewhat less remote but still not strong possibility that the Judge retains an open mind, and decides at this point that he wants to hear some of the evidence, at which point the trial would be set over so that witnesses could actually be brought in. The Court set a conference call for March 7th, by which time we are to be prepared to confirm that we are in agreement with proceeding in this fashion (or not), and if so, to set a trial date.
----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214

Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939
Click to expand...


Sounds like the judge went south on Mr Buchal.


Subject: Conviction in Rinehart Case


FYI, I was informed of this; I am not happy

I am sorry to report that Judge Ira Kaufman of the Plumas County Superior Court yesterday ruled that no preemption defense was available to Mr. Rinehart’s misdemeanor charge of violating §§ 5653(a) & (d) of the California Fish and Game Code (operating without a permit, and possession of a dredge within 100 yards of a closed area). The Judge gave no reason for his decision. As a result, Mr. Rinehart was found guilty.

The Judge remarked that he thought Mr. Rinehart should be thought of as one engaged in civil disobedience, rather than an ordinary criminal, and set the base fine at $150, which given California’s various additional levies will wind up imposing $872 in total costs. He also put Mr. Rinehart on probation for three years, during which he must “obey all laws,” and pay an additional $140 if the probation is not completed successfully. The Judge warned the miners in attendance that he would be less lenient with other violators now that the law had been established.

The Judge also remarked that he thought the matter should be appealed. The case is pretty well positioned for appeal, because the Judge also ruled that Mr. Rinehart was not entitled to present any evidence concerning the degree to which § 5653.1’s prohibition on permits interfered with mining. He appeared to simply follow the suggestion of the prosecutor that the statute, on its face, simply did not give rise to a triable pre-emption issue at all. I think this decision is almost certainly wrong given existing precedent, though it remains to be seen whether the California courts will pay any attention to precedent.

While he has received some assistance from donations, this prosecution has been an expensive exercise for Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Rinehart must make up his mind whether to prosecute an appeal within thirty days. I think it would be to the benefit of the mining community to get this appeal heard, and hope that efforts can be made to assist Mr. Rinehart in this venture. I have made substantial contributions of unbilled time to the effort and will continue to do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214

Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939
 

No surprises here-judge gives no rhyme,law utilized or reason,miner guilty and lawyer and the state rakes in the coin-same ol same ol in kalif the anti mining state.-John
 

Thanks for the uptdate Hefty. Personally disappointed that we cannot seem to find a common sense judge who believes in the rule of law for mining...
 

johnnysau said:
Western Mining Alliance is trying to gather everybody togather also for support of the MINERS rights. I was at GPAA
meeting thats one of the things they were talking about. Heres a LINK:

westernminingalliance.org/
Click to expand...


dude this bums think the national forest belongs to them, and their job is keep the public OUT of thier backyard..you can see the evidence of all the 'green painted steel gates on every road leading off the state hiways..while they devistate the old growth and second groth timber behind a thin veneer of trees next to the road giving the ilussion of a forest...their clear cutting methods makes run off of mud and silt going in to the streams and rivers. killing more trout and salmon than all the dredgers in the state for 20 YEars...they are criminals..acting without recourse..I HAD ALL MY MINING EQUIP STOLEN BY THEM THAT TOOK ME 30 YEARS TO ACCUMULATE...ALMOST $10,000..I LEARNED TOO LATE THAT I COULD HAVE SUED THEM.,
DONT WAIT IF HAVE LOSSES, FINANCIAL, EMOTIONAL, HEATH WISE, SEARCH FOR THE FORM THAT YOU NEED TO SEND THEM WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE EVENT..IT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SUE THEM IN THE LOCAL COURT~!!!!!!!DONT DELAY,..IF YOU
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVENTED YOU
IN THAT TIMELINE, YOU CAN DO IT WITHIN A YEAR~!!!!! DOCUMENT EVERYTHING , GET WITNESS STATEMENTS NOTARIZED OR PERMISSION FOR THEM TO SHOW UP IN COURT TO TESTIFY...

WE WHO HAVE LOST PROPERTY TO THEM NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR STUFF ONE CASE IN COURT AT A TIME
[excuse the caps - but I am trying to make an important point for justice for miners~!!!

the eco-freaks have worked the way into the forest circus...and running away with our mining laws..this must stop..
unite - be active - dont take their crap - take them to court and you will win.
the forestry circus and the BLM..[big load mouths] are under a mandated issue to run the national forest under the concept of "HISTORICAL USE"WHICH MEANS GOLD MINING..THEY ARE OUT TO OUTLAW EVERY SEMBLANCE OF THAT ACTIVITY - THEY THEMSELVES ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND THE MANDATE!
DO SOMETHING OR WE ALL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MINE GOLD IN CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST
oro for the ones who ***** back
rangler
 

BH,
will not work, I tried that a couple of times, their response..that is a Federal Mining Claim, we are County~! The next step I would do would be to sue them in the local court in the county that your claim is in...perhaps call the US MARSHALS OFFICE AND SEE IF THEIR JURISDICTION HAS THE POWER.. I doubt it..best shot is the courts..get the right form you need, send it to them..it will give you right to sue otherwise you cant sue the Feds!
oro for the squeaking wheel
rangler
 

my gear is covered by my homeowners insurance. i think most gear is covered but most dont realize it! claim it on your homeowners insurance and tell them who it was it was from your information. let the insurance company go after them.
 

russau - could you get insurance for, say five dredges, that are liable to be confiscated by "the man"? How expensive would that be?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Prospecting with a canoe.

⬅️ Previous Thread

California Eastern Sierra places to prospect??

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top