After two days of negotiations, California Superior Court Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa has ordered the Mandatory Settlement Conference on the statewide ban on section dredge mining to continue in September.  The conference, which was closed to the public, was held June 24-25, 2014 in San Bernardino, California.

Among the plaintiffs and their attorneys on the pro-dredging side were Public Lands for the People, the New 49’ers and the Western Mining Alliance.  Representatives for the anti-dredging faction were the Karuk Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and the State of California.

PLP Vice-President Walt Wegner said that each attorney met with the Judge privately, and then each plaintiff was given time to speak with Judge Ochoa ‘one-on-one,’ but with their attorneys present in a casual setting in his chambers.

“It was very personal.  In my opinion, it was surreal to address the Judge without being in a courtroom. I’m absolutely impressed with this guy.  He’s going above and beyond and he is being fair,” Wegner said. “He listened.  He heard me.”

At the end of the second day, Judge Ochoa listed numerous points of contention between all parties, and ordered the continuance of the Mandatory Settlement Conference to September 4-5, 2014.  In the interim, the parties are to negotiate in an attempt to narrow or eliminate all points of contention between them.

“This is going to be our starting point for negotiating a settlement,” Wegner said.  “We got the impression the Judge wants to see us back in the water through the Mandatory Settlement Conference.”

Public Lands for the People, its President Gerald Hobbs, its officers and directors, and its attorney, David Young, will be working hard in the next two months to present to Judge Ochoa in early September, a means and mechanism for ending the ban on suction dredge mining, and allowing the miners to work their claims in an economical and environmentally sound manner.

On May 1, 2014, David Young, Counsel for Public Lands For The People and other plaintiffs, appeared before Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa in Rancho Cucamonga to argue our Motions for Summary Judgments, and oppose the State’s cross-motions for Summary Judgments.  These Motions regarded the issue of Federal preemption of the State’s prohibition of suction dredge mining in California.  Judge Ochoa was knowledgeable about the pleadings that had been filed, the arguments made, and asked challenging questions regarding the State’s position that there was only a temporary moratorium, and not a prohibition of suction dredge mining in California.  The State could give no assurance to Judge Ochoa as to a date when the so called “moratorium” would end.  At the end of all arguments, Judge Ochoa took the matters under advisement, making no ruling from the bench.

Judge Ochoa then asked all counsel to meet with him in chambers.  He stated that he would like to see the matter settled, if at all possible, before he ruled on the various motions.  We discussed the previous settlement attempts with judge Ochoa which were not successful.  Nevertheless, Judge Ochoa exercised his judicial authority to order a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) beginning June 24, 2014, which may continue for one or two more days.  Judge Ochoa will personally preside at the MSC as the settlement Judge, and is prepared to make a substantial personal commitment of time and effort to see if any settlement can be achieved.  Judge Ochoa will require all parties to the litigation to be either personally present in Court for the MSC, or to be available by telephone.  Those parties who cannot attend personally, should be able to attend by telephone conference at no cost to them.  Judge Ochoa has the authority to sanction any party who does not attend the MSC either in person, or by telephone.

When available, a copy of Judge Ochoa’s written Order regarding the MSC, and the mandatory attendance of all parties will be provided.  Under any circumstances, Jerry Hobbs and David Young will be attending the MSC in person, and all other parties to the litigation are urged to attend in person.  Judge Ochoa further stated that he would want to personally address the parties.  The parties would have an opportunity, either through counsel, or personally to address Judge Ochoa.  Since Judge Ochoa has yet to rule on the Motions now pending before him, the MSC should give everyone a more complete education on the realities of what it takes to actually engage in suction dredge mining in California, and the impact that the State’s prohibition has had on suction dredge miners.

By Teresa Rochester

Visitors do not have to pay a fee to enter national forests in Southern California if they do not use bathrooms, picnic tables or other amenities, a federal judge determined this week.

Four hikers, including two from Ojai, filed a lawsuit in late 2012 challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s right to charge visitor fees at Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland national forests.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. on Monday agreed that the fee, called an Adventure Pass, cannot be levied if people use the forests but not amenities such as campgrounds.

Adventure Passes are $5 for a day or $30 for a year.

“If all a person wants to do is park and have a picnic or go for a hike or camping or backpacking, they do not have to pay a fee,” said Matt Kenna, the hikers’ Colorado-based attorney. “Now if you go and use a developed campground then you will have to pay a fee, as you should.”

John Heil, U.S. Forest Service press officer for the Pacific Southwest Region, said the forest service is reviewing the decision and had nothing further to add at this time.

Alasdair Coyne, conservation director of the Keep Sespe Wild group, said he was pleased with Hatter’s ruling.

The Ojai man was ticketed a couple years ago for parking and hiking in Rose Valley. Instead of fight the ticket, he joined the lawsuit.

“The fee law that was enacted in 2004 very clearly stated that there could not be fees charged for parking (and hiking),” Coyne said. “This is a clear-cut ruling and the message couldn’t be more clear.”

The fee law is formally called the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. It allows for fees in “high-impact” recreation areas that have amenities such as picnic tables, developed parking and security.

The lawsuit that led to Monday’s decision followed several legal challenges to the fees in recent years.

In February 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who sued the Forest Service over fees at Mount Lemmon in Arizona.

The Forest Service went too far in levying those fees on visitors who parked their cars to hike, picnic or camp on land that hadn’t been improved, the Arizona suit alleged.

Fees are used for improvements such as purchasing toilets or picnic tables, officials have said.

Kenna said that while the decision in the Mount Lemon case applied only to that forest, he and others expected the Forest Service to apply the ruling at other sites.

When that didn’t happen, the local lawsuit was filed. Both sides tried to hammer out a deal last year but were unable to reach consensus, Coyne said.

In light of Monday’s decision, which only applies to four Southern California forests, Kenna said he expected the federal agency to eliminate the fee at additional locations.

“If they don’t start following this in other forests, we will just keep suing them,” Kenna said.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2014/apr/29/judge-orders-no-fees-at-socal-national-forests/

Our mining and land use rights are under attack again as the U.S. Forest Service aims to close and even destroy roads in Cleveland National Forest.   These road closures are part of the Forest Service’s “Travel Management Program” which serves to tighten government control over road use and by extension, land access on public lands.

The road closures in San Diego are a small part of the government’s long-term plans.  On June 8, 2006, the Forest Service quietly began implementing it’s schedule for the travel management rule.  Since then, closure plans outlined by local authorities under Forest Service guidance have been in the works.  As these plans are implemented on lands nationwide, access to more and more public lands and mining claims is being restricted.

PLP has filed a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the plan to close the roads in San Diego.  Under the National Environmental Protection Act, the Forest Service is supposed to consult the county before shutting down public rights of way.  We want to find out what procedures were followed and pursue whatever course of action might overturn these intrusions upon our land use rights!

Beyond our own efforts, we need fellow miners and land users to stand up and make their voices heard!  Any prospectors and miners with claims in the Cleveland National Forest should submit their comments before March 19 to jaheys@fs.fed.us.

Further details can be found in the GPAA’s Pick and Shovel Gazette Road Closure Story & Editorial

For more information contact:

Jeff Heys
Forest Planner
Forest Service
Cleveland National Forest
p: 858-674-2959
f:  858-673-6192
jaheys@fs.fed.us
10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 
San Diego, CA 92127
www.fs.fed.us

On August 28, 2013, Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa, of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, denied PLP’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the grounds there was no proof of irreparable harm caused to miners by California’s ban on suction dredge mining. Judge Ochoa appeared to take the position that whatever harm occurred to the miners could eventually be made good by the payment of money damages. Among numerous matters, PLP, in its Motion papers, and at oral argument, vigorously asserted that the fact that the miners face criminal prosecution if they violate an unconstitutional statute, was in and of itself irreparable harm. A criminal record attaching to a miner’s good name is not something that can be made whole by the payment of money damages.

One of the cases that PLP brought to Judge Ochoa’s attention was the criminal conviction of Brandon Rhinehart for suction dredge mining in violation of California’s prohibition on such mining. PLP help retain an attorney for Mr. Rhinehart in defense of his prosecution for violating the ban on suction dredge mining. The conviction of Mr. Rhinehart has been appealed, and PLP has been informed that the California Court of Appeal has accepted Mr. Rhinehart’s case for review.

In addition, PLP’s attorney is appealing to the Court of Appeal Judge Ochoa’s denial of a Preliminary Injunction staying the ban on suction dredge mining. The Rhinehart case will figure as an example of irreparable harm caused to miners should they violate California’s unconstitutional prohibition on suction dredge mining. Both appeals will raise issues not only of irreparable harm, but also of Federal preemption allowing suction dredge mining, making the California prohibition on suction dredge mining unconstitutional.

PLP has previously been successful in the Court of Appeal in having that Court overturn the decision of a Superior Court Judge who prohibited issuing of permits for suction dredge mining, prior to the California statute banning such mining that is now in intensive litigation.

PLP’s appeal, as well as the Rhinehart appeal, does give miners hope for light at the end of the tunnel, and could well bring suction dredge mining back to California before the next dredging season. PLP would like to thank all of the folks who have supported us in the past, and thank those who will continue their support in the future. PLP is fighting for you!

Sincerely,

Jerry Hobbs
President, Public Lands for the People, Inc.

Press Release from Siskiyou County Farm Bureau