We have until Nov 27 to write letters to the State Supreme court

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
Very short response time, and you must send a letter to each effected party and the court itself. It can be no more than 10 pages, lets stop the depublish drive by Kamela Harris and the corrupt state officials. Make sure you put the case number. We have been given until 12-1 because of the holidays. This can make a MAJOR difference as we all saw the results at the appellate court level

My letter, you can use this as a template if you wish.

The Honorable Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakuye
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102-4797

People vs Rinehart, Case No C074662

11-22-14

Dear Honorable Justices:

I am writing this letter to request that the States request to depublish the published opinion of The Third Appellate Court, People vs Rinehart, Case No C074662 be denied. We as independent miners have been prohibited from receiving the full benefit of our claims as provided for under the 1872 Mining Law. This temporary moratorium is well into its 6[SUP]th[/SUP] season of closure with no end in sight. The state continues to stall and seeks to have a significant ruling in our favor despublished from the record.


As a miner in the State of California, I have a keen interest in establishing that federal mining laws impose substantive limits on the power of the State of California to regulate my activities on federal land. We have suffered through numerous EIRS, all concluding no significant disturbance from suction mining, as well as compromised several permitting process.

Publication is appropriate because this opinion establishes a rule of law not previously set forth in California opinions, though established in federal court cases, and involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits in California concerning the scope of the State’s regulatory powers over mining on federal land, and the absence of California precedent has caused increased costs and delay for litigants and the State.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

_______________________
(full name and address)



PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the agent of 18, not a party to the above action. My address is

__________________________________________________ ______.


On ______________, 2014, I served the attached letter requesting publication in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes and mailing them by First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:



Clerk, Court of Appeal of the State of California
Third Appeallate District
Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building
914 Capitol Mall, 4th floor
Sacramento Ca 95814

Matthew K. Carr
Deputy District Attorney
Plumas County District Attorney
520 Main Street, Room 404
Quincy, CA 95971

Marc N. Melnick
Deputy District Attorney
Office of the Attorney General
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000
Oakland, CA 94612

Clerk of the Court
Plumas County Superior Court
520 Main Street, Room 104
Quincy, CA 95971

Jonathan Evans
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104

Lynne Saxton
Saxton & Associates
912 Cole Street, Suite 140
San Francisco, CA 94117

Damien Schiff & Jonathan Wood
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

James Buchal
3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100
Portland, OR 97214

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 11/22/14, at California.

Make sure you sign and date and where you signed at, as well put your address after each signature.
 

Last edited:
Upvote 0
Chlsbrns Your chance to be on the current edge of the fight to save our rights.
 

10-pages? Your letter should be no more than three-paragraphs. Any more than that and NO ONE will actually read it!
 

It can be no more than 10 pages, for the anal retentive politicians
 

My letter, you can use this as a template if you wish.

The Honorable Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakuye
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102-4797

People vs Rinehart, Case No C074662

11-22-14

Dear Honorable Justices:

I am writing this letter to request that the States request to depublish the published opinion of The Third Appellate Court, People vs Rinehart, Case No C074662 be denied. We as independent miners have been prohibited from receiving the full benefit of our claims as provided for under the 1872 Mining Law. This temporary moratorium is well into its 6[SUP]th[/SUP] season of closure with no end in sight. The state continues to stall and seeks to have a significant ruling in our favor despublished from the record.


As a miner in the State of California, I have a keen interest in establishing that federal mining laws impose substantive limits on the power of the State of California to regulate my activities on federal land. We have suffered through numerous EIRS, all concluding no significant disturbance from suction mining, as well as compromised several permitting process.

Publication is appropriate because this opinion establishes a rule of law not previously set forth in California opinions, though established in federal court cases, and involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits in California concerning the scope of the State’s regulatory powers over mining on federal land, and the absence of California precedent has caused increased costs and delay for litigants and the State.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

_______________________
(full name and address)



PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the agent of 18, not a party to the above action. My address is

__________________________________________________ ______.


On ______________, 2014, I served the attached letter requesting publication in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes and mailing them by First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:



Clerk, Court of Appeal of the State of California
Third Appeallate District
Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building
914 Capitol Mall, 4th floor
Sacramento Ca 95814

Matthew K. Carr
Deputy District Attorney
Plumas County District Attorney
520 Main Street, Room 404
Quincy, CA 95971

Marc N. Melnick
Deputy District Attorney
Office of the Attorney General
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000
Oakland, CA 94612

Clerk of the Court
Plumas County Superior Court
520 Main Street, Room 104
Quincy, CA 95971

Jonathan Evans
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104

Lynne Saxton
Saxton & Associates
912 Cole Street, Suite 140
San Francisco, CA 94117

Damien Schiff & Jonathan Wood
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

James Buchal
3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100
Portland, OR 97214

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 11/22/14, at Prather California.
 

Last edited:
Ball is in our court, time to fish or cut bait...... Lets show the courts we will not go silently into the night.
 

Much Thanks Oakview2!!

Typed out my letter(s). Sent them directly from the local PostOffice here in town.

Thanks Again, for withour people like You, Clay and Others, we would be down a mucky river..
Heavy Pans
 

Thank Brandon and the all else, they are the ones that have been the tip of the spear...
 

Thank Brandon and the all else, they are the ones that have been the tip of the spear...

Your welcome, when I start something I like to finish it. Many thanks to those who have contributed their time and efforts in helping my attorney with all the legal stuff behind the scenes and those who have contributed financially because without that we wouldn't have gotten this far.

We're far from being finished but I believe we will be victorious in the end.

Brandon R.
 

Hey, Oakview to all affected parties....meaning the clerk and all the addresses listed? I don't wanna not count because of a technicality.
 

yup should be a total of nine counting the supreme court
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top