whats going on in the Rinehart case

[winners58]

looks like they are accepting parts and throwing out other parts after its already been argued and submitted.

California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information

07/15/2016 Request for judicial notice granted People's Request for Judicial Notice, filed March 23, 2015: The request is granted for Exhibits A-M and Q. The request is denied for Exhibits N-P. People's Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, filed June 11, 2015: The request is denied in its entirety (Exhibits R-X). Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice, filed April 22, 2015: The request is granted for Exhibits A-C and E. The request is denied for Exhibits D and F. Defendant's First Conditional Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, filed July 7, 2015: The request is denied in its entirety (Exhibits 1-12). Defendant's Second Conditional Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, filed September 28, 2015: The request is denied in its entirety (Exhibits 13-15). Defendant's Third Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, filed May 3, 2016: The request is granted for Exhibit 20. The request is denied for Exhibits 16-19

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[winners58]

link to exhibits the ones that say "Judicial Notice" you have to go by the date, compare in the post above.
June 1-2, 2016 Oral Argument Cases - supreme_court

 

[russau]

I know we wont get the reason for the "denials" but Id sure like to see the reason for the "denials"!! Probably , the greenies don't want the courts to let the cat out of the bag! After all , "they" are running the courts / gubermint , aren't they! THANKS winners for the update!

 

[ClaimStake]

what the state is doing is so illegal.

they don't have the authority to make permanent laws without the approval of the public.

I don't remember a vote on anything.

it's about time to break out the torches and pitchforks.

 

[ratled]

House keeping before they issue the opinion

ratled

 

[jere64ca]

This entry on the Docket is stating which exhibits the Supreme Court has accepted as evidence, and the ones it does not conciser as relevant evidence. It also means that they are currently looking at the case and it would seem that a decision could be coming soon. The Supreme Court is required to have a decision within 90 days (Aug. 29th if I counted right) of the hearing date that was on June 1st.

russau,,,,, there will be "reasons" for there decision in the judgement,,,,, if you can wade through the bs.

 

[winners58]

Gotta remember this case is not 'does federal law preempt state law', its about should he have been allowed to argue it before the court.
the first court didn't allow it, the appeal reversed that and said he should get his day in court, the other suction dredge cases allowed it.
He has a very good chance of winning, the state is going to great lengths to shut down the preemption argument.
what happens if he wins, the state could send it to trial court but more likely just dismiss the charges, so he doesn't really win much,
but then the other cases could move forward, and who knows...

 

[jere64ca]

This case is very much about preemption, it is the central issue of both the States and Reinharts arguments. You are absolutely correct Brandon was never allowed to present his defense to a court, that was just skipped over, very odd, on the first appeal it should have been sent back to the previous court for argument to present his defense. I believe the mentality of the court was that Brandon's infraction was rather insignificant and the real issue is whether or not the State can ban altogether dredging so the case has progressed to determine if dredging can be banned rather than if Brandon broke any laws.

 

[jere64ca]

A win in the Rienhart case would be huge! The State would be put in there place! and told you can just ban something because you want to. Unfortunately, I do not hold your same optimism. If the Supreme Court rules strictly on the rule of law it is an easy win for us, the laws are clearly on our side but the courts are full of ideology and agenda these days and that hurdle is almost insurmountable with facts. For Reinhart to win the Supreme Court, effectually, would have to say,,,, "ohhh okay, you are right we are not all powerful, we don't have the right to regulate what ever we want." I have a hard time seeing the State of California admitting their power is limited.

Either way the decision goes it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, if they even will hear the case is unlikely. The good news is PLF (Pacific Legal Foundation) has made murmurings of picking up the case if it goes to the US Supreme Court. PLF has a really good track record these days in the Supreme Court so everyone go make a donation to PLF right now!,,,,,grin.

 

[ratled]

winners is right in that the this isn't about preemption..... remember Brandon has not had his FAIR day in court yet. The 3rd set aside the lower courts guilty ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court. Brandon appealed to the 3rd to say he should have been allowed to present his federal evidence. The appeals court agreed he should be allowed to present whatever he wanted. The state argued they 3rd made mistakes in determining their opinion and and it was this that the Supreme Court was to have heard.

jere64ca also sorta got it right in that WHEN Brandon prevails it will be huge. Brandon's case will never see the inside of a court room if the Supreme Court rules in favor of him.

PLF has clearly stated they will represent him if it goes to the US Supreme Court. There is good chance it will get picked up as this is in conflict with other standing rulings (Granite Rock int he 9th and Spear Fish in the 8th to name two).

ratled

 

[russau]

russau,,,,, there will be "reasons" for there decision in the judgement,,,,, if you can wade through the bs.[/QUOTE] Yes I understand they will put some cr*p in print for us to read BUT Id like to read the REAL REASON ,like in "follow the money" as to whos directing the courts comments OR what greenie group is using the courts as "their mouth peice"!

 

[ratled]

russau,,,,, there will be "reasons" for there decision in the judgement,,,,, if you can wade through the bs.

Yes I understand they will put some cr*p in print for us to read BUT Id like to read the REAL REASON ,like in "follow the money" as to whos directing the courts comments OR what greenie group is using the courts as "their mouth peice"![/QUOTE]

Russ if you don't like Rinehart then you really don't want to get into Pebble up in AK.

ratled

 

[russau]

ratled I have NO problem with Brandon ! maybe you misinterpreted my post?? I wish Brandon whips their buts and makes them pay for his legal bills and runs them out of town forever!!

 

[ratled]

ratled I have NO problem with Brandon ! maybe you misinterpreted my post?? I wish Brandon whips their buts and makes them pay for his legal bills and runs them out of town forever!!

No, No, NO Russ, That wasn't a dig at you!!!!!! I was just saying if you don't like all of real BS that brought it to be, don't check out the Pebble mine case UP in AK - I think your head just explode as to how it has gotten out of control.

No one should have even heard of Brandon except for his friends


ratled

 

[jere64ca]

russau and ratled, I wish every miner were as informed as you two. This is a fight of agenda, money and power,,,, it really has nothing to do with fish, mercury, or the environment. It is there tactic to get us defending all of these made up environmental issues (the next one is "turbidity") thereby wasting time and getting us to spend all of our limited funds to fight imaginary problems, unfortunately they have been very successful.

I cannot say how much I appreciate Brandon and all he has gone through! He has hung in there from the beginning when he could have bailed out with a slap on the wrist and left the miners without a case to be heard. Every time he is asked what he wants to do in a given circumstance he has replied "what ever is best for the miners",,,,, just sayin,,, Brandon is a stand up guy,,,, support him however you can.

 

[ratled]

Every time he is asked what he wants to do in a given circumstance he has replied "what ever is best for the miners",,,,, just sayin,,, Brandon is a stand up guy,,,,.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!!!!!

ratled

James Buchal
C/O Brandon Rinehart case
3425 S.E. Yamhill, Suite 100,
Portland , OR 97214

 

[russau]

russau and ratled, I wish every miner were as informed as you two. NOT I !!! Im not near as knowledgeable as most of the guys here! ratled , on the other hand , is like Barry ,winners and the list goes on!

 

[Alex Burke]

russau and ratled, I wish every miner were as informed as you two. NOT I !!! Im not near as knowledgeable as most of the guys here! ratled , on the other hand , is like Barry ,winners and the list goes on!

Your too humble russua. I have learned so much reading yours and other members posts over the few years I've been a member of this forum about the ridiculous legal issues and problems facing independent mining. As far as I'm concerned you and a many other members here are heroes for truly caring about other miners and not just yourself.

Before I joined this forum I didn't realize there were groups operating under the guise of environmental groups backed with huge amounts of money and lawyers that are working to put hard working Americans out of work, by closing land or implementing laws against various honorable professions like farming or safe independent mining. The true story that groups are working to stamp out economic development in rural areas that people rely on to feed their families was one I didn't know about before I joined the forum and one I wish the public would actually hear about. Thank you to you and the other members of this forum that post about these subjects. I suspect many people probably don't always want to read about negative legal issues and would rather see pictures of nuggets but I believe if we want to keep seeing those pictures of nuggets these threads are important. Thank you to you and the other members who care about these issues and keep up the good fight.

 

[goldenIrishman]

Well said Alex!

These legal cases and the resulting threads here have done a lot to educate many people over the years. Small scale mining has been under attack by the greenies for years now and they've got some very deep pockets. Small scale miners are becoming wiser and more informed thanks to people in the know talking about cases like Brandons on forums like this one as well as others. (wait.... you mean there are other prospecting forums out there?) T-Net has given all of us a place to learn not only about the "How-To's" of mining but also the legal aspects that go along with it. Without T-Net and the "other" forums, most of us wouldn't have even heard of Brandon and his case since it's not in the news papers or on TV.

There are some very sharp people on this forum and I for one am glad for the chance to learn a LOT of new things from them as well as share some of what I've learned over the years with others.

 

[jere64ca]

Agreed, Alex and GoldenIrishman!

Below is James' reply to inquires as to the Supreme Courts last docket entry,,,, enjoy.

From James Buchal:

Some of you have asked about the significance of the California Supreme Court’s Order of July 15, 2016 (copy attached), which addresses the requests for judicial notice by the parties (also attached). As you may recall, the trial court had not permitted evidence, the State then attempted to present its own evidence to the Supreme Court, and I told the Court that was improper, but if they were going to open the doors, they should take our evidence too.

In general, the Court has taken a restrictive approach, allowing the State to submit the legislative history of the mining law (State Exhibits A-M) and the Karuk Judgment (State Exhibit Q). The Court refused to allow the State’s data about gold prices and gold mining (State Exhibits N-P). The Court also refused to allow the State to submit portions of the FSEIR as evidence (State Exhibits R-X.) This has the effect of excluding the primary information cited by our opponents concerning environmental impacts, which could be seen as a positive sign.

We had attempted, conditionally, to offset the environmental evidence with our own evidence, and the Court allowed none of this evidence either (Our Exhibits D & 1-13 & 15). The Court did allow some federal materials of ours (and SB 637), but did not allow Judge Ochoa’s ruling (Our Exhibit F), probably because it constitutes unpublished authority. The Court also would not take a copy of the brief of the United States in Granite Rock (our Exhibit 14), and some of the filings in the Oregon Bohmker case (Our Exhibits 16-19); the Court did take the Oregon bill (SB 838, our Exhibit 20).

On the whole, the action signifies that the Supreme Court does not intend to allow any party to make its record before the Supreme Court rather than the trial court, which is the right result. It would have been a bad sign, for example, if the Court took all the FSEIR evidence against suction dredge mining and threw out our responses. I cannot say, however, that all these rulings really foreshadow any ultimate outcome on the merits.

I will keep you posted as to further developments.

James L. Buchal

Murphy & Buchal LLP