Appeals court listens to miners

By Brad Jones
GPAA Managing Editor

The California Third Court of Appeals has ordered that the opinion of the People v. Rinehart case be published. 

Pro-mining groups, such as Public Lands for the People and the New '49ers, issued statements last week in support of the appellate's decision to overturn Rinehart's earlier conviction of suction dredging without a permit. However, miners were displeased with the appellate court's decision not to publish the opinion.

But, after receiving more than 250 letters from miners  — and dozens more that were rejected because of missing signatures and other errors — the Third Appeals Court ordered that the opinion be published. 

The publication order means that the People v. Rinehart opinion can now be used by attorneys representing suction dredge miners in the consolidated court cases in San Bernardino County, and Judge Gilbert Ochoa will have to follow the published opinion from the Third Court of Appeals.  The opinion from the Third Court of Appeals needed to be published before it could be cited in state courts. State and federal law are different. While unpublished opinions can be used in federal courts, California law still forbids lawyers from citing unpublished opinions in state courts. 

Miners have been fighting since 2009 to end the state imposed dredging "moratorium," which miners contend has become an illegal dredging ban. Since then, Brandon Rinehart, a gold miner, was charged with suction dredging without a permit on his own federal mining claim. Rinehart had earlier been convicted and sentenced to pay a $600 fine and three years probation.

The judge who convicted Rinehart in the original case would not allow him to argue that federal mining laws preempt state mining laws under the Supremacy Clause, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution which states that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." On those grounds, the appellate court ruled that the trial court erred because the federal preemption argument is relevant in this case and must be allowed. 

The case was remanded back to the lower court for trial. If the case goes to trial, Rinehart will argue that the state cannot preempt federal mining laws by prohibiting suction dredging, the only economically viable method of mining for gold on his federal mining claim, the same argument put forth by miners in the consolidated cases calling for an end to the statewide dredging ban.
 
Meanwhile, the Mandatory Settlement Conference hearings ordered by Judge Ochoa continue Nov. 14. Ochoa is the mediator of negotiations between the suction gold dredging plaintiffs, mining attorneys, the Department of Fish & Wildlife, and attorneys representing environmental organizations and the State of California.

Mining groups plan to give the judge a copy of the Rinehart opinion when the hearings resume. 

Public Lands for the People has been spearheading the effort to restore mining rights across the country. The Gold Prospectors Association of America and its members have donated tens of thousands of dollars to PLP to support your mining rights and rights of the public to access public lands. You can show your support by joining the GPAA or renewing your membership, and supporting the PLP.

Join the GPAA: goldprospectors.org/Join/GPAA-Membership
Public Lands for the People: www.plp1.org
Join PLP: plp1.org/joindonate.html