November _____, 2014
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
Re: People v. Rinehart, Third Appellate District, Case No. C074662
Response to the People’s Request for Depublication
To the Honorable Tani Goree Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California, and to the Honorable Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.1125(b), I write to request that the Court deny the People’s request to depublish the opinion issued in People v. Rinehart, Third Appellate District Case No. C074662, 230 Cal. App.4th 419 (September 23, 2014).
As a suction dredge miner in the State of California, I have been denied my federal statutory right to explore and develop mineral claims on federal land in the State of California since 2009. Ever since the first statute stopping the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s longstanding permit program, the mining community has been engaged in civil litigation to establish that the State may not arbitrarily single out suction dredging for precious metals from all other suction dredging and other dredging activities, and refuse to issue any permits whatsoever. But no judge in any of the multiple civil cases has reached the merits of this claim, despite multiple motions and requests to do so.
Mr. Rinehart, at great personal cost, undertook to get the criminal justice system to demonstrate that the State’s regulatory power does not extend to a blanket prohibition that frustrates mineral development on federal land. The civil lawsuits now remain before the San Bernardino County Superior Court. There are settlement negotiations underway that could lead to the resumption of permit issuance. If the opinion is depublished, it will embolden the opponents of suction dredge mining who seek a permanent ban, and threaten to cause those settlement negotiations into pointless relitigation of the question.
It is worth noting that the State itself, in a joint motion seeking calendar preference before the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that the Rinehart opinion would “provide important guidance to the Superior Court in the coordinated proceedings”. Now that the case has come out confirming the position of the miners, by its request the State seeks to prevent the miners from even citing it to the Superior Court. This is unjust.
The Rinehart opinion meets the standards of publication because even though it addresses a particularly unique misuse of legislative authority to destroy a long-standing permit program, and applied clear federal and state precedents, it clarifies an issue of continuing public interest, and explains longstanding rules of federal supremacy in the mining context so that all parties can fashion a reasonable and workable permit program.
Please deny the State’s request for depublication, and thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
(Name and Address)
__________________________
__________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, __________________________, declare:
I am a resident of the State of _____________________ and am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the above action. My address is ________________________________________________________.
On November ______, 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:
| 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 Murphy & Buchal LLP 3425 SE Yamhill Street,#100 Portland, OR 97214 |
Clerk of the Court Third Appellate District 914 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 |
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November ______, at the following location: _________.
_________________________________ (Signature and Address)
