PLP Update

September 2020 by Scott Harn

We have put several documents in the hands of the correct people in Washington, DC, and are now just waiting to schedule conference calls or online meetings to address several issues, such as federal preemption, dredge permitting, access, and more.

In the meantime, I want to highlight some recent court cases won with the assistance of Public Lands for the People (PLP) taken from the PLP newsletter.

_______________

Recapping our recent win:

PLP Member Wins “No Addition” Argument in CA State Court

For the very first time in CA State court, a small miner has won the “no addition” argument—this time against the CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. Gold miner Michael Osterbrink, along with PLP’s expert testimony delivered by PLP’s legal researcher Clark Pearson, fought back a charge by the Sierra County District Attorney Mr. Osterbrink’s mining “had polluted state waters with materials that are deleterious to fish in violation of section 5650 of the CA Fish & Game code.”

Mr. Osterbrink was found not guilty of violating section 5650 of the CA Fish & Game code, which prohibits pollution of state waters with materials that are deleterious to fish and wildlife (count 2). PLP cannot understate the importance of this legal decision in our present battles with the political powers of the regulatory swamp. This is a really big deal!

So-called environmentalists in CA believe that miners are polluters—not true! There are no foreign substances added, a fact PLP has been touting for many years, and the court agreed. The court stated, “…I really think 5650, the intent of the legislature there is to deal with situations where a defendant has deposited something new, a foreign substance. Here, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that this defendant did not add anything new. So I am going to find Mr. Osterbrink not guilty on count 2.”

You may recall back in 2015, PLP member John Godfrey also won the “no addition” argument in count 5 against the Forest Service. (See: www.publiclandsforthepeople.org/accomplishments/)

In the Godfrey case, the Forest Service even had a so-called expert lead engineer from the CA Water Board testify that what Godfrey had done amounted to pollution to no avail to the government. Godfrey won in federal court and now Osterbrink has won in CA state court. PLP had confidence that it was a solid argument that could be won, even in a California state court.

Osterbrink’s decision will go a long way in helping get suction dredging to legally return to California and other states. PLP once again successfully stood by its arguments that are successful when applied properly, even when  others have waivered and compromised.

by Scott Harn

PLP Update

February 2021

I admit I was sitting on pins and needles, waiting to see if President Trump would sign the proposed Executive Order we presented with Public Lands for the People (PLP) prior to the expiration of his term in office.

MMAC & PLP Update

April 2016
The legislators soon came to the realization that Mining Districts and our proposed bill can solve many of the problems they currently face in their home states.

Update on MMAC & PLP

May 2015

I’ve fielded a few questions following several articles we published last month on the creation of the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) and the return to traditional mining districts. Some of those questions have been very good and I’m going to answer them here for the benefit of all our readers.

MMAC & PLP Update

July 2015
On July 4, we are reminded of the sacrifices our Founding Fathers made to establish this great country of ours, and in that spirit, the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) has created a draft Declaration of Miners.And MMAC has been hard at work writing a bill, with the unwavering support of several members of Congress, to reaffirm the rights of miners operating in traditional mining districts.

PLP Update April 2023

April 2023

PLP Update

April 2020

I want to stress that this is just the first step to fixing many of the regulatory issues we identified in discussions with the current administration. There will be plenty more to come.

What's All This Talk About Mining Districts?

April 2015
The main problem with the current scheme is that regulatory agencies often consult with you, then disregard your concerns and do what they want anyway.

Subscription Required:
The Bawl Mill   • Ask The Experts - What is the difference between heavy and light rare earth elements?   • Ask The Experts - What are the tax implications for partners on a claim?   • Ask The Experts - What should my plan be for testing quartz for gold in North Carolina?   • Ask The Experts - Did gold deposits come from space or were they created underground?   • Ask The Experts - Is a shaker table going to work on my flour material?   • Subtle and Not So Subtle Dangers of Hard Rock Mining   • How Should I Work This Prospect?   • Tips and Tricks: Preparing Your Dredge Engine for Storage   • Fluorescent Mineral Prospecting   • More Tips on How to Find Gold with A Detector   • What Do You Need For A Successful Micro-Scale Mine?   • Using Favorable Rock Types to Find More Gold   • Gold Prospecting for Better or Worse: Of Mice and Men   • Discovering New Territory   • Melman on Gold & Silver   • Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices

Free:
Happy Birthday, ICMJ!   • Legislative and Regulatory Update