Will Dredgers ever get back into the water in California?


Recommended Posts

This dredging stuff is crazy. its very hard to understand what's being said and what is truly legal. I think it comes down to state laws verses federal law (old mining rights). and based on whats happening with pot lately the feds are just backing off and letting the states enforce their version of the amended laws within that state. is it legal? I guess it depends on what court your in and who is going to enforce it.
AzNuggetBob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

The reason I'm asking for the most part, is the "language" is so confusing to me. I will read one article on one site about the dredging and it sounds promising, then another article and it sounds like they will never drop a dredge in the water. Not sure how it ever got to this point, but it's a sad situation. ..

Yes, I know there are some rogue dredgers, I would probably be one of them. I don't like how it went down, especially if my income relied on gold dredging.

Fingers crossed that something will change in the future!

Hey Rob,

A lot of the confusion comes from the reporters who don't understand what's actually happening in the courts.

The GPAA article confuses two different rulings.

The judge in the consolidated cases ruled that the injunction request had to be heard in the county where the tickets were written.

Then some of the miners asked the same judge again to bring an injunction on a different legal theory. The judge refused the injunction on the second request because it just dredged up the same arguments he had already ruled on (pun intended).

Two different court decisions are being reported on as if they were the same thing - they aren't. There is still the possibility of a win at the county level if the miners learn from the prior decision. If they make the same losing argument as in the last two rulings they will lose again. I'm sure we will hear that the judges are crooked or somebody paid somebody off if that happens. :blink:

The way the courts work is not what you see on television. If one person sues the State and makes a losing argument it doesn't mean that someone else can't sue the State and win with a different argument.

Making the same losing "takings" or "irreparable harm" arguments over and over again will just lead to more losses and wasted money and time. The press would have you believe that miners are losing when it's just bad legal arguments that are losing.

Miners have a right to mine. Dredgers can't "break" a law that is illegal. Illegal laws have no effect in the United States no matter how much a State would like to believe differently. Banning any particular form of mining on a Federal Mining Claim is illegal. The refusal to issue a permit is the same thing as a ban.

A dredger that ignores an illegal law is not a "rogue" but should be seen as supporting the rule of law. If they stand up for their rights like Brandon did they will eventually win. If they keep bringing losing arguments about takings and private property or just pay the ticket they will lose for themselves and all miners.

Rinehart won his appeal because prior federal cases that support that truth weren't considered by the judge in his first trial. Winning that appeal only means that he get's a "do over" of his original trial with those Federal court decisions included in the evidence. It does not mean that the Appeals court decided the case in Brandon's favor - it just means that he has a right to a new fair trial with all the facts and law available for his defense. I believe he will win that case when he finally gets his fair trial.

This is all confusing because so many different arguments have been thrown at the courts in the consolidated cases. The lawyers in the consolidated cases seem to believe in a shotgun approach to the law - keep throwing sh*t until something sticks. If it doesn't stick throw it again. That leads to a loooong case and big billings for the lawyers but no results for the miners. It has also clearly pis*d off Judge Ochoa. Calling him a crook or a wimp isn't going to change the fact that he's done listening to the same bogus legal theories over and over, he said as much in his last ruling. It certainly isn't going to get him on the dredgers side.

Brandon Rinehart kept it simple - one issue - the State can't set up a dredging permit scheme and then refuse to issue any permits. It's basic law and it was never even brought up by the miner's lawyers in the consolidated cases under Judge Ochoa. It was Judge Ochoa himself that raised the issue with the State when it became clear to him that the miner's lawyers just didn't "get it". So much for the "crooked judge" theory. Ochoa did more for the dredgers cause with that one simple question to the State than all the lawyers the miners hired.

The State's illegal refusal to issue permits for dredging is what will win for the miner's right to dredge. All the rest is just expensive brown stuff sliding down the wall.

Did that simplify things? :)

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.