two dredging cases dismissed

[Goldwasher]

surprised this isn't here yet. Two dredgers had their cases dismissed. AMRA helped them out the judge dismissed "in the interest of justice"

As most of you know by now, AMRA represents miners (when we have the funds) who are wrongfully cited by government agencies, are harassed by the same agencies and are being told they need permits to do one thing or another.
https://americanminingrights.com/how-about-some-good-news/
In 2014, two men were cited in CA for dredging without a permit. AMRA, at no cost to the miners, hired an attorney, formulated the defense and took the case to court.
We are pleased to announce today that this case was dismissed this afternoon!
Join us in celebrating this great victory.

it was Ron Decker and Jim Uruttia.
the state protested but, none the less the judge did the right thing. I don't have the citation location details for the original tickets...maybe someone will fill that in...not sure what county I forgot they were cited last year.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[QNCrazy]

I believe it was Fresno County. My browser is outdated and I can't look up case information on Fresno County Superior Court. Search for thier case by thier name and click on the case number and you should see the docket results. In some cases there will be a good description of the judges decision and reason. Hopefully someone will post more later.

 

[Oakview2]

It was in Fresno County, the state was in opposition to dismissal, and the judge said he didn't care whose case it was or their opposition, that, "In the interest of justice I am dismissing this case. I was out of town yesterday, but one of the particiapants was my current minning partner. It was a great day, and I wish I could have seen the frosting applied to the cake.

 

[goldenmojo]

A judge that actually reasons. How did that happen? AMRA is moving to the top of my support list.

 

[goldenIrishman]

Actually I'd kind of liked to see the case have gotten to trial and the citing agencies get handed their heads by the courts. That would have sent a clear message to them to stop citing miners and confiscating their gear. So while this is a win for miners, it is in truth a shallow victory in my mind. The only true win will be when no miners have to worry about having things like this happen in the future.

 

[Oakview2]

"Actually I'd kind of liked to see the case have gotten to trial and the citing agencies get handed their heads by the courts. That would have sent a clear message to them to stop citing miners and confiscating their gear. So while this is a win for miners, it is in truth a shallow victory in my mind. The only true win will be when no miners have to worry about having things like this happen in the future. "




With the escalating costs and importance of the Rhinehart case, I don't believe that was financilly possible

 

[Jeff95531]

Thanks for the update as I hadn't heard. An unceremonious victory but a victory none the less. Hats off to AMRA!

 

[russau]

"Actually I'd kind of liked to see the case have gotten to trial and the citing agencies get handed their heads by the courts. That would have sent a clear message to them to stop citing miners and confiscating their gear. So while this is a win for miners, it is in truth a shallow victory in my mind. The only true win will be when no miners have to worry about having things like this happen in the future. "


Understood completely! BUT if im not mistaken ,and Clay can correct me if im wrong. was this dismissal with or without prejudice? if with prejudice?? if with prejudice "they can" come back and do it all over again! BUT without prejudice "they" cant ! SO a dismissal may be good or not! and im really happy that the case got dismissed for them and their familys welfare and piece of mind! I wonder if a counter suit to the person/agency that cited them would be in order to make them think about any other citations??

 

[Goldwasher]

"Actually I'd kind of liked to see the case have gotten to trial and the citing agencies get handed their heads by the courts. That would have sent a clear message to them to stop citing miners and confiscating their gear. So while this is a win for miners, it is in truth a shallow victory in my mind. The only true win will be when no miners have to worry about having things like this happen in the future. "


Understood completely! BUT if im not mistaken ,and Clay can correct me if im wrong. was this dismissal with or without prejudice? if with prejudice?? if with prejudice "they can" come back and do it all over again! BUT without prejudice "they" cant ! SO a dismissal may be good or not! and im really happy that the case got dismissed for them and their familys welfare and piece of mind! I wonder if a counter suit to the person/agency that cited them would be in order to make them think about any other citations??

Or make D.A.'s in other counties...think twice about prosecuting..........and Leos's less likely to cite?

 

[Aufisher]

Can these miners sue law enforcement for false conviction, confinscation or false imprisonment?

 

[goldenmojo]

I would be happy if every future arreast and case gets tossed out of court. A string of those would set some sort of precedence.

 

[Gold_FInger]

Can these miners sue law enforcement for false conviction, confinscation or false imprisonment?

Having a case dismissed does not make for a law suit....As another judge who presided over the arraignment obvious found probable cause or it would not/ could not go forward..The other issue is the D.A. who legally cannot bring a case they do not think they could win...Pretty tough burden to overcome in a law suit...What I havnt read was the actual ruling as to why it was dismissed and if it was being appealed....

 

[Jeff95531]

"Actually I'd kind of liked to see the case have gotten to trial and the citing agencies get handed their heads by the courts. That would have sent a clear message to them to stop citing miners and confiscating their gear. So while this is a win for miners, it is in truth a shallow victory in my mind. The only true win will be when no miners have to worry about having things like this happen in the future. "


Understood completely! BUT if im not mistaken ,and Clay can correct me if im wrong. was this dismissal with or without prejudice? if with prejudice?? if with prejudice "they can" come back and do it all over again! BUT without prejudice "they" cant ! SO a dismissal may be good or not! and im really happy that the case got dismissed for them and their family's welfare and piece of mind! I wonder if a counter suit to the person/agency that cited them would be in order to make them think about any other citations??

A VERY good and important point russ. I'd like that answer too...maybe someone with AMRA can find out.

It's basically a "get out of jail free" card to receive a dismissal w/o prejudice. As an LEO, I would always ask for "with" to burn em twice for failure to comply as that is how the system works.

Counter suit IMHO is not likely as "undue hardship" (financial or otherwise) has to be proven/presented as beyond a reasonable doubt to get a judge on board...even tho civil rules should apply...(as compared to 51% of the proof.)

 

[Clay Diggins]

"In the interest of Justice" means it would be unjust to pursue the case. Essentially it is the role of prosecuting attorneys, Judges, and all officers of the court to see that justice is done. Therefore, they can dismiss cases in the interest of justice if they see fit.

This dismissal only pertains to this single case - not the law involved. It's done in the common understanding that no matter what the law or regulation there can be no other result than dismissal that would serve the cause of justice.

It generally requires the consent of all parties to the case but usually the defense will make the motion requesting dismissal "In the interest of Justice". Sometimes the Judge will make the decision on his own if the case is in violation of the "speedy trial" laws. I suspect that is what happened here. The timer ran out.

There is no decision on the facts or the law in a case dismissed in the interest of Justice so no precedent is set. This was a win for the two defendants personally but doesn't affect other trials or court decisions.

__________________________________

When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it can not be brought before a court again. The dismissal decision is final and dispositive and there are no "do overs".

When a case is dismissed "without prejudice" is can be prosecuted again. "Do overs" are allowed.

Heavy Pans

 

[Gold_FInger]

As an LEO, I would always ask for "with" to burn em twice for failure to comply as that is how the system works.

Im confused..Why would a P.O. ask for any dismissal. especially "with"...??

I have only known a criminal case to be "Dismissed with Prejudice" is because Speedy Trial has run, so the Prosecution is barred constitutionally refiling the case, otherwise its a civil adjudication from the bench....

 

[Gold_FInger]

"In the interest of Justice" means it would be unjust to pursue the case. Essentially it is the role of prosecuting attorneys, Judges, and all officers of the court to see that justice is done. Therefore, they can dismiss cases in the interest of justice if they see fit.

This dismissal only pertains to this single case - not the law involved. It's done in the common understanding that no matter what the law or regulation there can be no other result than dismissal that would serve the cause of justice.

It generally requires the consent of all parties to the case but usually the defense will make the motion requesting dismissal "In the interest of Justice". Sometimes the Judge will make the decision on his own if the case is in violation of the "speedy trial" laws. I suspect that is what happened here. The timer ran out.

There is no decision on the facts or the law in a case dismissed in the interest of Justice so no precedent is set. This was a win for the two defendants personally but doesn't affect other trials or court decisions.

__________________________________

When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it can not be brought before a court again. The dismissal decision is final and dispositive and there are no "do overs".

When a case is dismissed "without prejudice" is can be prosecuted again. "Do overs" are allowed.

Heavy Pans

 

[Jeff95531]

I stand corrected Clay. "without". It always confused me so think how my defendants felt. IDK, since I don't have to remember, I try not to.

BRC It is to gain voluntary compliance with the law (no admission but will comply with a warning...but if it happens again X2) And it speed things up...which every judge loves. If a violation continues after the first (given time to comply by the judge), a second and the first cite can be brought to the attention of the judge.

 

[russau]

Ive seen also that some cases have been dismissed if the P.A. thinks they "might" lose their case and then a precident would be set for others to follow in their case. This was in Oregon about a dredger from Florida. several people on this site know him and he probly don't want his name posted.

 

[Oakview2]

The DA in this case wanted nothing to do with prosecuting this case, it was the state that insisted on the prosecution.

 

[chlsbrns]

A motion to supress evidence and dismiss was filed and granted in the interest of justice based on the facts and law.

http://www.shouselaw.com/15385-motion-to-supress.html

The attached pdf below is the court record of the case.