Home › Forums › 16 to 1 Mine › CDAA Conduct
- AuthorPosts
A superior court arraignment last Friday (Z00M-ed by Sierra County on YouTube) surfaced troubling history for this venerable gold operation in Northern California. Scoop knows the history. So should the plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This action is for you.This action likely plays out in other states but here in California it is repeated over and over and over.
California prosecutors need events to make a living and a group calls itself “California District Attorneys Association or CDAA for short. Take the time to read the history beginning just below Scoop. Once again an organization of lawyers moved into a California county, unleashing its power, taking control over the elected District Attorney, swearing it’s for the benefit of PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Scoop wants you to become aware. Historical recognition, understanding its impacts and getting involved protects more than the present. Remember? Scoop knows that long time followers of this FORUM know. Read the LA Times topic as well. Wake up America and act.
Check the website heading “NEWS” for a recent front page article about CDAA. The criminal actions of Gayle Filter and his followers continue to draw front page attention. What happened to the Sixteen to One came close to breaking the Company. A mixture of some great ethical lawyers put time into our defense. Until our important and vital members of the judicial branch of the three divisions established in the federal constitution and defined in each state constitution, rules, statutes and laws wake up, the crimes perpetrated by a few lawyers and judges will continue to hold Americans hostage.
Interestingly attempts to draw attention to this serious problem never rest. Case No. S219052 in the Supreme Court of the State of California is about a case similar to the CDAA prosecution of us. We were contacted to join California Aware to file Amicus Curiae Brief in support of respondent, the City of Montebello. The Court of Appeal Case No. is B245959. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. is BC488767, The Honorable Rolf Treu.
Considering the story below, the CDAA should be locked up, all of them.
Editor’s note: Catch the Latest Happenings with Kitco Video News!
In numbers: Life-threatening work all over the world: Mining’s death toll
Guardian (UK)
By John Vidal
Thursday May 15, 2014 12:00 AM
Mining is one of the most hazardous jobs. There are few reliable figures but unions estimate that about 10 million people dig for a living and 12,000 may die every year from roof falls, explosions, fires, flooding and other underground and surface accidents.There is even less reliable data on the injuries incurred by miners but tens of thousands of people have their health damaged every year from conditions such as pneumoconiosis, hearing loss and the effects of vibration, says the Geneva -based global union IndustriALL, which represents 50 million workers in 140 countries in the mining and energy sectors.
Most fatal mining accidents now occur in the “informal” sector, where poor people, mainly in developing countries, dig for gold or other minerals with few resources. Their deaths and injuries are seldom recorded, says the UN’s International Labour Organisation .
“Worldwide, there are fewer accidents now in the formal sector than there were 10 years ago, but some countries still do not systematically record and report their performance. At the same time, the informal mining sector is still rife with accidents and health hazards,” said Martin Hahn , ILO mining specialist.
China , which mines one-third of the world’s coal and employs nearly half the world’s miners, has the worst record for accidents. According to the central government, 1,049 Chinese died in mine accidents in 2013, a 24% decrease on 2012 and a fraction of the 7,000 or more who died in 2003. However, human rights groups caution that the latest figures may be significantly higher due to under-reporting by unregulated mining companies.
Most of the major accidents in recent years have been in private as opposed to state mines. At least 104 people died in 2009 in an accident in Heilongjiang .
Turkey is renowned for its coal mining accidents, says IndustriALL. “In 73 years more than 3,000 miners have been killed in Turkey . Every death in a mine is avoidable,” said IndustriAll. In 1992, 270 men died in an accident in Zonguldak province.
But research from China , India and Europe suggests that mining is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year.
A 2011 study by a US air pollution expert suggested that emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for 250,000 deaths in 2011. A similar study of 111 major Indian coal plants by a former head of the World Bank’s pollution division, calculated that coal power plants were responsible for 80,000-120,000 premature deaths and 20m new asthma cases in India . Both studies were commissioned by Greenpeace .
“Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and millions of asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospitalisations, lost workdays and associated costs to society could be avoided, with the use of cleaner fuels, [and] stricter emission standards and the installation and use of the technologies required to achieve substantial reductions in these pollutants,” said the report.
A third study from Stuttgart university in Germany in 2013 estimated that air pollution from Europe’s 300 largest coal power stations caused 22,300 premature deaths a year and cost governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days.
10 million
The estimated number of people in the world who mine for a living, of whom 12,000 die in accidents every year
1,049
The number of Chinese miners killed in 2013, according to the government, compared with 7,000 dead in 2003
3,000
The number of Turkish miners killed in accidents in the past 73 years, including 270 in an accident in 1992
250,000
The number of premature deaths in China attributed to emissions from coal plants, according to a study
(c) 2014 Guardian Newspapers Limited.
A while ago I wrote the following and placed it somewhere on the web site. If public pressure could change the ethics displayed the past thirty years in our judicial profession, it would have happened. Remember all the lawyer jokes? Heard no more yet the ethical failures still are occurring. California State Bar has an abundance of members yet universities and colleges continue to graduate more young idealists or predators and give them a license to practice. Improvement won’t come until the lawyers themselves clean up their industry. It is no different from banking or mining industries.
IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO MISLEAD A GRAND JURY OR A JUDGE
The July 2005 issue of “California’s Lawyer” features a story written by Eric Berkowitz headlined, “Why I Stopped Litigating After 20 Years”. Upon receiving the magazine and after reading the letters to the editor, I went right for this story. It is about a lawyer who discontinued his practice of civil litigation and participation in the Judicial Branch of California’s government. The lawyer decided to retain his shingle but entered University of Southern California to study journalism.
He writes, “Instead of indulging in introspection, I worked harder. There were still times when what happened in the court (both good and bad) seemed random, and lawyers and parties routinely lied, but I learned to accept those frustrations as part of the Real World over which I was gaining mastery.” Here are statements from someone who does not know the Sixteen to One mine or me. He clearly writes that lawyers lie in the Superior Courts of California. I knew it to be true in Sierra County, and I suspected it was true in other counties as well. Think about his statement. Lawyers are routinely lying to the judge! Could Mister Berkowitz qualify in a civil trial as an expert witness to testify that the California District Attorney Association pack is courtroom liars? Could his opinion reach the jurors? Of course.
A lie is intended to shield the truth or mislead the Court. If its effect will mislead the Court, it is an unlawful act. It breaks a California law regarding those members of the California State Bar, who appear in the courtroom. “Lawyers and parties routinely lied” is an indictment of perjury. Mister Berkowitz continues, “Rather than hiding harmful information from a court or jury, I will focus on showing all sides of an issue”. Wow. Couple this admission of his past behavior as a lawyer as hiding exculpatory evidence (harmful information to his client) and his witnessing routinely lying lawyers in the courtroom. He or other lawyers may pass the “smell test” lawfully, ethically and professionally. In Miller v Filter as the case develops, testimony will be given that the behaviors of the defendants fit the indictment of Mister Berkowitz. They will not pass the “smell test”. Maybe lawyers should be unchallenged in lying to each other over the phones or anywhere, anywhere that is except the courtroom. Maybe their clients expect and demand that of them. But in Sierra County the client of the five defendants is the people. The people expect the truth. The harmful evidences with held both from the grand jury and the courtroom were exculpatory or a lie. The notion of harm was to themselves not their client (the people). The people suffered revenue and other social benefits because of the behavior of attorney Gale Filter, Kyle Hedum, Anthony Patchett and Denise Mejlszenkier.
This magazine is supposed to reach many of the 200,000 California’s lawyers. The Original Sixteen to One Mine web site probably is read by only a couple of dozen. More of California lawyers should evaluate the “smell test” in their profession and even take a position: suborn perjury or cleanse the courtroom. A by-product of great social benefit from our lawsuit will be ‘collateral good’. The more lawyers who see the illegal, unethical and unprofessional behavior of the five defendants, the more hastened the rebuilding of trust between the public and those who enter our courtrooms to argue civil or criminal disputes. When lawyers either see that California will disbar or suspend lawyers for failures within Rules of the Court and for violations of the Penal Code, they may rise to the occasion and change their ways about perjury in a courtroom or misleading the judge. If they are not presented with the opportunity, the public will never know. Help spread the challenge.
Jail is not a correctional or rehabilitation facility, it is just pure mental torture. Martin Armstrong reports that there are many innocently convicted people now serving time, he should know as the Supreme Court ruled a few years back that the federal government had no basis for keeping Mr. Armstrong incarcerated. Federal prosecutors and a judge exceeded their authority in putting Mr. Armstrong in jail. What the Supreme Court in a nutshell said to the government was, what do you think you are doing?
Mr. Armstrong reports from his time in the Federal pen that suicides routinely go unreported by the media for lifers. How many innocent people have committed suicide for being handed life sentence by over zealous prosecutors???
Hopefully, the day will come when there is a public review board handling complaints in the judiciary for prosecutors attempting to raise their conviction rate at the expense of innocent folks being put in jail and thus breaking up families and small companies.
Conviction rates by federal prosecutors in this country stands at 99%. If that isn’t a real monopoly of injustice, what is? Even Hitler’s prosecutors could only muster up a 97% conviction rate.
I personally know a past prosecutor and he is a crafty SOB who will take anything illegally if he can get away with it without a conscience.
Please forgive me as the previous information was gleened from “Mining Engineering” Magazine. Where a full evaluation of this event is documented.
It seems that your mine is not the only one in the state being persecuted by the State government goon squad. The Big Cut Mine South of Placerville has recieved a 11 million dollars of fines from the State of California for opperational non compliance to their dictates. The mine owners have been ignoring the fines, and the charges.
First Prosecutor Jailed for Deliberately Convicting Innocent Man
TRUTHER NOVEMBER 27, 2013The New American
For the first time ever, according to legal experts focused on the subject, a prosecutor who deliberately sent an innocent man to prison by withholding evidence is himself going to be jailed. The case surrounds Michael Morton, a Texas man convicted in 1987 of murdering his wife, and former prosecutor Ken Anderson (shown), the state official responsible for Morton spending 25 years in prison. Anderson withheld crucial evidence in the case as district attorney that could have clearedAn interested party sent me the above news release. It wasn’t very long ago that Gale Filter and his California funded California District Attorney Association (CDAA) launched a program to criminalize accidents. Original Sixteen to One, the mine manager and I were arrested and prosecuted for murder, manslaughter. The charges said our actions were willful. This is a serious charge and was completely without a factual basis. Their evidence was made up and they withheld exculpatory evidence to the court and to the defendants.
After careful considerations, we filed a lawsuit, naming Gale Filter and his fellow lawyers. Monetary damages played a part but a driving force was to expose their criminal behavior, stop the publically funded operation and closed this witch hunt down so no one else would be parties to a horrible life changing event.
Gale Filter was a Deputy Director for CDAA until the operation was suspended. Instead of losing his right to practice law in California, he was offer another publically funded job. While his lawsuit was eventually tossed out of court, his actions of breaking the law were never addressed. He should become another prosecutor spending some time behind the bars were he so aggressively worked to place innocent people.
Gale Filter broke the law; therefore he is a criminal who so far as avoided punishment.
A shareholder called about a recent TV show on 60 Minutes about a man incarcerated for years for a crime he did not commit. He went to jail for beating his wife to death. Reasons exist suggesting the prosecutor committed wrongdoing by concealing evidence of the man’s innocence from the defense. It is an outrage because this is not an isolated case. In this case the real criminal got great publicity plus later wining an election for judge (where he now sits).
This shareholder knows what happened to his gold mining company when a private lawyer named Gale Filter promoted a campaign to charge others as criminals in accidental deaths in California. He knows the terrible impacts to many because of the criminal behavior of a member of the California State Bar. He knows that a strong case was presented in the courts to punish Gale Filter, strong enough to withstand a monstrous attack by Filter’s attorney to get a pass from his criminal act.
This shareholder asked me to post this reminder: California now employs an attorney in a high position who others alleged is a criminal; whose judgment influences every person in the State; whose decisions affect the majority of businesses operating in California. This shareholder cannot understand the mentality within the judicial system and other government operations that would allow Gale Filter to avoid accountability and move into a powerful position where his behavior affects us all. Will he hold back evidence to assuage something that contradicts his personal feelings?
So here is the comment I made on line to MEDILL, Northwestern University, Innocence Project, whose goal is: IN PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH. Topic is 60 Minutes: Life After Prison, Morton Reunited With Family.
“What can I do to stop a California former district attorney who willfully and knowingly presented false evidence to a county grand jury as well as withheld exculpatory evidence to get a grand jury criminal indictment? He was not censured but now is employed in a powerful state government job where he can continue his unlawful practice. The grand jury transcript proves these allegations. California has a criminal code section that makes the withholding of exculpatory evidence a felony. Where can I see other comments?”
If you think our life’s values are lost and beyond finding, think again. Help find a way to make Gale Filter, a member of the California State Bar, an employee of the State of California and a violator of the law accountable. It’s time to do this. Prevention of judicial abuses is much more important than correcting their outcomes. Readers here and people throughout our great nation know of many problems facing social America today. Think solutions! This is a problem we can dispose of which should prevent future behavioral problems as well as instilling other in the courts to behave lawfully. Ideas welcomed.
Oh, where did Gale go to work after getting busted from the California District Attorney Association? Hired by California Environmental Protection Agency, as Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement and Emergency. What are his duties? “Overseeing the four primary elements of the enforcement program: statewide compliance, task force support, criminal investigation, support staff”. Gale Filter serves as “the principal enforcement advisor to senior management on policy and program issues.” He should be serving some time in jail.
Mike
You’ve done an excellent piece of writing in calling a spade a spade in addressing these out of control bullies and the damage they inflict to retain their obsessive power thirst at our expense.
It’s critical to read the below previous message, entered below this one….the one below should remain on the top of this forum page and every social net-work outlet.
Rae, can you list Mike’s below writings on the mine’s FB page? I’d send it around like wildfire, as it should be.
Gale Filter is not only a criminal, but a protected one. For those of us who sat through the Circus-court-of-appeals that day and listened to the railroad ramrod (quite as arrogant and despicable as the CRWQCB hearing) were shocked, and need to be reminded how justice has not been served.
Not only has justice not been served to Gale Filter and the CDAA, it continues to elude the California AG, ultimately responsible. They are all in a communal stink-bed of corruption.
If you have read this far into this forum entry, pleae take my initial advice and read the entry below.
Mark my words, and Mike Miller’s words: the justice to these criminals will be served. Swift, when it comes.
BLUEJAY, thanks for reminding me and other readers about the prosecutions we experienced at the hands of CDAA’s top prosecuting staff. Its memory does fade and yes, the “perps” of bureaucratic misuse of public’s trust know that we tend to forget. Societies move on. I reread my entry below (7/24/2009): forgot the arrogance of many members of judicial branches of state and federal governments and non-government lawyers.
PART 0NE:
CDAA’s top prosecutor, Gale Filter, was team leader for three other CDAA lawyers. Filter is a criminal. He broke a California law. He escaped arrest for an offense punishable by law. Was he punished? No. He got away with his felonious behavior. Scofflaw is the term he called me in the L.A. Times article (see NEWS top of page 3 on 11/11/2002).What is Filter’s crime? He failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the Sierra County Grand Jury, which resulted in felony indictments of our company, its mine manager and president. California legislated a law for this failure in order to protect its people from questionable prosecution. Evidence supporting his serious misconduct is contained in the Sierra County Grand Jury transcript and his crime is irrefutable. Why is he still a practicing attorney in California?
Filter not only retains his membership in the State Bar, but also after his pet project to privatize prosecution and criminalize accidents was discontinued, was chosen to fill a new position as a result of reorganization that took place in 2006. Filter is Director of Enforcement and Emergency Response with duties and responsibilities overseeing statewide environmental compliance. Do the two environmental lawsuit filed against Sixteen to One smell of a Filter participation? Most people familiar with the facts have answered, “Yes”.
The Grand Jury transcript records Filter’s words and desire “to put that mine in jail”. Well, he fabricated a case against us, excluded exculpatory evidence I submitted and twisted the testimony of witnesses in order to paint an ugly picture of defendants. It worked! He got the Grand Jury to arrest us.
PART TWO:
“The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” American Bar Association
The majority of California prosecutors successfully discharge the obligations requisite in advocacy and as ministers of justice. Some prosecutors have let their advocacy role prevail to the extent of using deceptive and unfair tactics to secure convictions. In October 2010 the Veritas Initiative released Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009. Its watchdog effort is devoted to “advancing the integrity of our justice system through research and data-driven reform, using the work of our preeminent experts in the field”.
The examination revealed 707 cases in which courts explicitly found that prosecutors committed misconduct. Of these 707 cases the Misconduct Study found 548 were harmless. (Misconduct occurred but defendants received fair trials.) The remaining 159 cases the courts found that the misconduct was harmful. Gale Filter’s prosecution fell into the harmful category. Some prosecutors committed misconduct repeatedly. Filter qualified for this special label, but his other cases against people in Yolo and Butt Counties were not discovered.
The Misconduct Study shows that those empowered to address the problem-California and federal courts, prosecutors and the California State Bar- repeatedly fail to take meaningful action. Of the 4,741 public disciplinary actions reported in the California State Bar Journal from January 1997 to September 2009, only 10 involved prosecutors. The failure of judges, prosecutors and the California State Bar to live up to their responsibilities to report, monitor and discipline prosecutorial misconduct fosters misconduct, undercuts public trust and casts a cloud over those prosecutors who do their jobs properly. The Misconduct Survey says, “The problem is critical. Prosecutorial misconduct fundamentally perverts the course of justice. It undermines our trust in the reliability of the justice system and subverts the notion that we are a fair society.”
How is prosecutorial misconduct defined and did Mr. Gale Filter practice it? The California Supreme Court explained that it “implies a deceptive or reprehensible method of persuading the court or jury”. More broadly, the term has been used to describe any “behavior that deliberately seeks an unfair advantage over the accused or a third person, or otherwise seeks to prejudice these persons’ rights.” The well recognized Blacks’ Law Dictionary provides specific examples, defining prosecutorial misconduct as “a prosecutor’s improper or illegal act (or failure to act), esp. involving an attempt to avoid required disclosures or persuade the jury to wrongly convict a defendant.”
What could be clearer with those definitions and the repeated behavior of CDAA’a prosecutor, Mr. Gale Filter and his lead protégé Denise Mejszenkier, regarding prosecutorial misconduct? The highly competent participants of The Northern California Innocence Project agreed. On page 101 in Appendix A under Sierra County lists “Miller, L.A. Times 2/15/2003 as one of the harmful cases by jurisdiction. Superior Court Judge Young dismissed the criminal charges because of prosecutorial misconduct.
PART THREE
“Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law…it breeds anarchy.” Olmstead v. United States Supreme Court 1928; Justice Brandeis, dissenting,
The devastating effects of prosecutorial misconduct cannot be overestimated. The costs are financial, emotional, psychological and societal. I know. Prior to a year (statute of limitation for filing) after Mr. Gale Filer’s prosecution was set aside by Judge Young, we returned to the Superior Court in Sierra County as plaintiffs against Filter, his employer and partners. The very important Prosecutorial Misconduct in California Report validates our decision…the system fails its duty to the public regarding prosecutorial conduct. The rest of us (excluding the lawyers) call this “the good ole boy ploy”.
For you unfamiliar with the results of our lawsuit, we won every motion for dismissal motions thrown at us, thanks to a special attorney named George Gilmour. George found that these CDAA lawyers failed to be legally sworn in to practice law in Sierra County. He broke the Absolute Immunity defense. It took a very sick judicial interpretation of the complex Anti-SLAPP legislation by Sacramento’s Third Appellate Court to thwart accountability, responsibility and justice we sought in our lawsuit. The good ole boy approach to law won another round and is alive and working in our State. George Gilmour paid the ultimate price for his effort to seek justice, right the wrong, punish the bad guys and help the justice system he so admired (in principle more than practice).The Northern California Innocence Project, its report, Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009 is worth sharing with others throughout America. California is not alone in prosecuting innocent using willful misconduct by those we trust. Our case brought these issues to my attention; however in contrast to others identified and convicted under criminal behavior of prosecutors who spent years in prison or death, ours pales. How Gale Filter got away with his behavior only to land a job in California government, as an enforcer is a testimonial to the corrupt or misguided judicial branch of our great government. Or perhaps it is just due to ignorance. If the latter is the case, spread the word.
The politicians depend on our forgetting about their irresponsible acts with the passing of time.
The scumbags that initiated charges of manslaughter against the mine should be brought to justice when the legislative house gets cleaned out following California’a impending bankruptcy.
The truth about the CDAA assault has been in place all along. It has always been about smearing.
Political points scored, especially with a corrupt court system and an AG with no spine. Votes purchased, when the ballot box is open.
“Conjur up a vision of steaming pools of toxic waste polluting drinking water and commiting children to cancer.”
Evil! Public is not informed and swallows the bait.
Dave, simple answer:
Gold is real wealth without any debt attached to it. Having the public accept paper along with its debt enables them to continue to steal our life saving
I was thinking today, what is the real reason behind the unprecedented attack against a gold company by the CDAA?
I don’t think it was for credits to Governor Pete, it had its roots in something far more sinister.
Mike was bringing to the attention of the local area TV viewers by inviting news crews up to the mine the idea of gold. There are certain people in this country and around the world that do not want the public to ever know about gold, period.
This is for a very good reason, gold has always competed against fiat currencies when management of those currencies becomes suspect in the loss of continuing purchasing power to the people. Mike just kept fostering through his persistence the idea of gold and our mine.
Mike kept gold in front of the public’s eye which some had wished he hadn’t. So, an attempt was made to cripple the company and put him into jail thus silencing him. People like Mike, Jim Sinclair and others who bring gold to the attention of the public is our handlers worst nightmare.
These certain people only know control for their benefit. If anything gets in the way of their pursuit it gets eliminated, or at least an attempt to do so is made.
Martin Armstrong who they put into jail is still fighting back from his cell in informing the public what their game is all about.
What these people fear the most is the general acceptance of the truth.
Long live the advocates of gold and the truth.
Hi, The question is, why is there a prejudice by the socialist type of our society against gold mining?
California State Parks has historical mines within its property control, At least 7 maybe more. Due to the low price and restricted free trade of gold, these old mines lost there profitability. These mines still have resources that could be mined. Same thing as your mine. I fail to understand why the State of California has not reopened these historical mines to seek the wealth that would solve the state budget short fall?Yesterday in Sacramento a prominent lawyer said to me, “You and the Sixteen to One mine got screwed in that CDAA case.” He said that the case has been characterized as simply an immunity issue in some printed articles. He knew enough about the facts and law and said, “What a farce!” I agreed. We then talked about the legal antics and behavior of those in the profession (which really is no longer a profession). I asked what will he do about the situation and he said nothing, it has been corrupt a long time and I’m wasting my time trying to straighten out the lack of integrity, pride and responsibilities that go with being a member of the California State Bar. He went on to say that the problems are even worse with those with a Bar number higher than his (which means even though he has practiced law a long time, the new lawyers display less professional behavior that the old guys). Hum.
Maybe the few of us with knowledge about how unlawful the California Third Appellate Court and the California Supreme Court adjudicated our suit against Gale Filter and his pack of lawbreakers (pretending they were public servant prosecutors) have looked for change from the wrong people. Maybe we should try telling the young or new and fresh lawyers that they inherited an existing corrupt political judicial system and THEY are the ones to step up and demand change. After all change is the direction we seek. Let’s give it a try.
Another senior lawyer I have known for many years and admire also knew about our case. He knew we were screwed by the behavior of Gale Filter (who now is an enforcer for the California EPA) and the Third Appellate Court in Sacramento. He deferred publicly denouncing their behavior (the position stated for tossing out the Superior Court trial judge’s decisions) as unlawful (unsupported by legislation laws, regulations and intent). He said, “Mike, I would be cooked in the courtroom if I publicly spoke out against the Third Appellate justices who rendered such a preposterous decision.”
So, here California sits. Our population has law breaking de facto prosecutors operating in our courts, appellate judges who create decisions that have no legislative or judicial backing and twist a regulation passed by our Legislature to insure that the public could speak out against oppression in California. They also financially penalized those who do speak out for redress.
Are there writers with the time, ability and desire to educate the many Californians unaware of the lack of honesty, candor, integrity, justice, fairness and lawfulness left in our third and very important branch of the political process (Judicial)? If so, find some and get them writing and published.
Another lawyer joined us about this time and said, “You know one reason the California Supreme Court turn down your appeal was the lack of letters from watch dog non profits, other businesses and regular people about how wrong the Third Appellate Court judged by either supporting your case or pointing out the abuses in interpreting the law. You needed press and more awareness of the reckless and unlawful behavior by others.”
I agreed.
We are living our days in the midst of corruption, it’s all over. It’s even in my own family being orchestrated by an attorney member. It’s all over.
One only has to read the following linked article to understand how wide spread it really is and how deep it really goes.
The day is coming after many folks have lost everything that those injured will take action with nothing to lose. That is when real change will come. It has happened many times before throughout world history and it will happen again.
Dear Michael Miller,
I have read your disappointment for the lack of equal justice
Under the law, thus giving special privileges to the prosecutor over the constitutional rights of the accused, thus allowing persecution of your corporation for their debt by making you pay for their failure to convict you on erroneous cause. They, in fact, should be paying you, for your need to defend your self and taking time to go to court and suffer the stress of their persecution, and the damages to your credit record for their failed claims.
This being a constitutional issue of government persecution of your rights, I think that it warrants a complaint to the United States Justice Department and a charge against the California Supreme Court and the Attorney General of California with Contempt of the United States Constitution for failure to honor your right of equal protection under the law. That such a failure by the California Supreme Court, if left to stand will cause unprecedented damages to you and to the rights of the citizens of California. It even represent an act of treason to the bias of a police state over a free state.Thank you
David J. IngrahamSTILL OF IMPORTANCE
Article One in the constitution of the State of California contains some relevant directives worthy of notice today. Section Seven (a) says, “A person may not be denied equal protection of the law”. My favorite language that the CDAA foursome abused, ignored and acted out is in (b), which says, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
Lawyers practicing in California must become accepted into the State Bar Association, which creates a special class of citizens. California goes farther than most governmental agencies since its legislature put into law Standards of Behavior for members of the State Bar.If I had a rocket launcher
I would retaliate.
Why do I hesitate!
I have a rocket launcher.
Most men kill by the pen, ink on paper.
Soldiers kill with explosives.
Warriors kill any way they can
Any way they will
Any way they must.
Soldiers retaliate with explosives
Warriors retaliate with words.I knew all along, as did George, that our battle would reach the Supreme Count. Sadly, my California Court failed to recognize the importance of the law. Well, recognize the importance of the law. Well, three of the eleven failed as did one of seven.
In Hoc Sig No Vinces
June 1, 1876ANOTHER FIGHTING WARRIOR WITH THE MINE IS GONE
He called me one day during the height of the criminal proceeding spawned by the notorious Gale Filter and his fellow California District Attorneys Association against the mine and its two top employees. I was cautious and curious from the start of our conversation. “My name is Tom Crary. I’m a lawyer and was an assistant district attorney in San Francisco. I also like gold mining and read about your case on your web site.” We talked, he invited me to his place in Colfax and I went.
Tom had built a small office in his park-like yard. He gave me a tour of his property and led me down a path, where we sat down to talk. I immediately liked him but stayed guarded (what I said was truthful but I didn’t reveal all the details of our situation). I wondered what he wanted.
Here was a prominent San Francisco lawyer, who twice tried and failed to beat Willie Brown for a state Assembly seat. He showed me his office. Newspaper articles, photos and lots of American paraphernalia added to the books, papers and stuff he treasured in that tiny room. I decided he could be trusted, and we dove into the case. He offered his help at a time when the Superior Court Judge pressed his request for the mine (a corporation that required representation by a lawyer) into a demand. Tom would become its spokesman.
Tom was 64 when he died on January 12. He was born in Palo Alto, schooled at Menlo School for Boys, Colgate University and graduated from Menlo College School of Business with a bachelor’s degree in Business. He served as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco for ten years. Tom went into private practice in 1981. He played rugby for the Olympic Club for 20 years and was a member of the Bohemian Club.
Tom knew the Company was strapped for money, so he offered his services without a fee. His sister said that he always liked to work on cases with a cause. Our case particularly rankled him because of the CDAA prosecutors. He had been one of them and was noticeable angered that the prosecutors who invaded Sierra County lacked all sense of ethics, morality and professional conduct. He also pointed out that they were the criminals in this case, not the defendants. He pointed out how a prosecutor can skirt the rules or laws almost at will and never are called for accountability. He was outraged at Gale Filter’s conduct and that of his assistant, Denise Mejlszenkier. “He should be disbarred and she should be censured,” he said.
Tom was in front of Judge Young with our petition to toss this abusive case out of the Superior Court of Sierra County was presented. We succeeded. Also in the courtroom was another attorney with even a greater sense of justice and injustice. That was George Gilmour, who could not contain his disgust at the machinations of Gale Filter, Denise Mejlszenkier and the other two CDAA lawyers in setting this case before a Sierra County Grand Jury.
Tom had a swagger that fits a competent man of law. It includes respect and humility. It was refreshing. He also had a brief case that could bring a contemptuous glace from his opposition, a hearty laugh from the spectators or relief from a defendant who was innocent of the prosecutors’ allegations. Tom got all three that day.
Scotch on the rocks, maybe a splash of water. Tom and George are together. Hey guys, I won’t abandon your cause, a cause of pride in California’s justice system and accountability for the bad guys. It is just on a necessary temporary hold.
Re: Miller, et al. v. Filter, et al., Sierra County Case No. 6293;
Judgment for Attorneys’ FeesOn January 8, 2008, the Court mailed its Notice of Entry of Judgment ordering Original Sixteen-To-One Mine, Inc. (“Mine”) and Michael Miller to pay attorneys’ fees and costs to CDAA. Pursuant to California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 8.104, there are 60 days from January 8, 2008 to file a Notice of Appeal (March 10, 2008).
The Court of Appeal’s decision granting CDAA’s anti-SLAPP motion creates a basis to appeal the constitutionality of the attorney fee award. In essence, the Court of Appeal held that CDAA was entitled to prevail on its anti-SLAPP motion because CDAA employees were uncompensated employees of Sierra County and “de facto” government officials and were therefore entitled to claim governmental immunity. By deeming the CDAA employees to be government representatives entitled to government immunity, the Court of Appeal effectively converted the Mine’s lawsuit into a claim against the government, instead of a claim for damages against private actors.The award of attorneys’ fees against the Mine creates several potential grounds for appeal. First, the award of attorneys’ fees against the Mine and Miller for an unsuccessful challenge to an abuse of government power creates a dangerous precedent that allows the government to collect attorneys’ fees from private citizens whenever a citizen files an unsuccessful challenge to government action.
The Court of Appeal did not and could not define the Mine’s suit as frivolous, because both CDAA and the Court conceded that there was no California law on point – which is why the Court of Appeal ordered its decision to be published. The Sierra County Superior Court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees against the Mine and Miller based on the mandatory attorney fee provision in the anti-SLAPP statute makes that statute unconstitutional as applied, because it impermissibly burdens a citizen’s first amendment right to petition the government for redress, and to challenge an apparent abuse of government power. The previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions allowed an award of attorneys’ fees only if a Court found that an exercise of first amendment rights was frivolous. A statute or precedent that allows the government to routinely recover attorneys’ fees from a citizen who unsuccessfully challenges government actions constitutes an impermissible burden on a citizen’s first amendment rights, and chills the exercise of those rights. As argued to the Sierra County Superior Court, if this precedent is upheld and followed, only the richest citizens or organizations could afford to challenge an apparent abuse of power by the government.
Secondly, the Superior Court’s ruling that CRC Rule 3.1702(c) does not apply to CDAA’s motion for attorneys’ fees effectively reads that section out of existence. The Superior Court noted at the hearing that CDAA’s interpretation of the statute made subdivision (c) meaningless, but the Superior Court decided to adopt CDAA’s interpretation based on Carpenter v. Jack In The Box (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 454. The Superior Court’s interpretation of CRC Rule 3.1702 raises a second potential issue for appeal.
Third, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees against Miller, because CDAA’s anti-SLAPP motion was filed against him while CDAA was in default on his complaint. For the reasons set forth in greater detail in Miller’s Opposition to the motion for attorneys’ fees, the Court of Appeal’s decision only (and improperly) found an absence of argument on the point, and therefore held that it would dismiss your complaint against CDAA as well. The Court of Appeal’s over-eagerness to dismiss Miller’s complaint against CDAA does not create jurisdiction when CDAA was clearly in default at the time it filed its anti-SLAPP motion against him.
The Third District Court of Appeal has shown absolutely no sympathy or understanding for the Mine’s position: therefore challenges should expect a hostile audience in the Court of Appeal in any future appeals. A successful appeal may require filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court and the U. S. Supreme Court, and the probability of obtaining review by either court is uncertain.
I will be writing to our current State Attorney General who should be the one to prosecute law-breakers that escape through the cracks.
I expect fireworks if, or when no action is taken, especially with a looming California Governor seat vacancy. It will be fun to watch.
Everyone reading this should do the same. Imagine the seat of our state’s judicial law aware of this fraud, and then trying to hide it when he’s running for governor.
What appears to be required for
victory is a court that will
strictly interpet the pro-
secutorial immunity law, ie
observe the “letter”. I don’t
think the 9th circuit would
be the place to go. There are
liberal jurists there.
Besides, I think that the CDAA
is also a lobbying body with
their hooks (tainted) into the
legislature and the justice
dept. Any such future issues
to be passed by our govt.
will certainly FAVOR attorneys
for the state courts and both
and counsel for the opposite side of an issue as well.The Feedback option on our web site is used frequently. Please continue and know that we read every Feedback received. Following is my letter to the Feedback writer, his answer to me and his initial letter.
Dear XXX,
Thank you for the well expressed and greatly appreciated letter. I agree and the consequences for future challenges of both government and non-government lawlessness are huge. Since this is a published case, it becomes a reference for “case law” justification. It has been difficult to explain the effects of this decision by the Third Appellate Court. The future results are very disturbing. The answer to your question may to be with the US court; however an appeal for relief from paying for these criminals’ defense may have recourse back to the appeals court.
What were buried are the facts that these private lawyers broke several laws
in disclosure to the Sierra County Grand Jury in order to get an indictment as well as broke the laws for appointment. The absolute immunity claim was their creative defense to turn the law upside down. Those three judges took the law away from the superior court decisions frivolously.Anyway may I put your letter without your name on the Forum? You truly
raised some points that needed to be raised.Sincerely,
MichaelANSWER
Absolutely. It would be great to see it included. Enjoy the new year.
XXXINITIAL LETTER
I have read once again about the legal tragedy regarding the CDAA
(Mountain Messenger article), and I have once again been confused why no-one
properly addresses the real problem the court ruling caused…interpretive
laws. It amazes me that after months of legal dispute the most basic aspect
of the immunity law, the law protecting the CDAA, has been entirely
overridden by…well…intent. Does not the law stipulate completion of
actions prior to such protection, hasn’t the court heard official,
undisputed testimony that paperwork was not successfully filed? How, then,
can a court of law find that the lawyers THOUGHT that they were protected
and therefore should not be held responsible for their actions? One would
think that, if anyone were to make completely sure that every necessary step
was taken, it may possibly be those representing the State government. And
one might think that if they aren’t careful they might not get rewarded for
their ineptitude.
Strangely they are given immunity to their own hast and carelessness.
Men and a company have been painfully victimized by…who? The county? The
State? The CDAA? Or is it that it doesn’t matter? The protective law was
created to shield prosecutors from cavalier groups who opt to sidestep the
system and create personal damage to innocent messengers of the law. Now it
is being used to block any accountability for vigilantes. Were they asked
to come? No. Where they wanted? No. Did anyone care that they were
there? No. When the very sheriff’s office they are assisting (note: they
are intended as assistants to the county, right?) can’t even verify that
each member of the deputy legal council was sworn in, there cannot be a
strong argument that the CDAA was merely following along. Instead they were
in the driver’s seat throughout. In all that I’ve read about the case I
don’t remember hearing that they answered a call for help. How can they be
a victim. Until they identify utter subservience to another person/group,
who could be considered a sort of shield, they are in every way in charge of
the enactment of their protection. And if it is not enacted then it is on
their hands.
The court informed California, and the entire nation, that if the law
states that protection comes following the completion of two actions then
really you only need to get close on one of them. We have land-grabs,
corporate takeovers, contract annulments, etc. based entirely on hairline
gaps in the law. This law stated (again, from what I’ve read) that
protection comes after the clerk files the paperwork away, not when legal
council turns it in. The law makes no statement implying that prosecutors
can consider themselves protected when they are not. Look at the amount of
definitive paperwork built up over this case, and it came down to a judgment
call over best intentions. I’ve seen some big loopholes over the years, but
this one is astronomical. Now the law is not confined to the letter, but
instead to area between the lines. How can you know a law when you can
merely get close. OK, how close? What laws? What kinds of laws? To whom
does this apply? Can the 16 to 1 follow the same route by maintaining that
they THOUGHT the law had been broken and shouldn’t be penalized financially
for attempting to carry-out the law? Unfortunately in the wrong hands this
ruling could make Roe vs. Wade look like a traffic ticket dispute. Unless I
am horribly wrong in my reading of this case I really hope that somebody
forces clarification on this ruling so that we know exactly when a law is
officiated, and if “assuming” protection is sufficient grounds for full
legal protection. In order for that to work the issue of what percent of a
law must be carried out for the result must be pushed. At the end of the
day that is the question, what percent of a law must be completed for it to
apply. The answer is not a variance, but a definitive number (and I have a
feeling that the number has three digits).Just consider utilizing some
citizenry “power”. I don’t
want to be anymore specific
than that.SOMETHING’S WRONG !! (and something’s right, of course.)
It’s been more than a few days and no boots have been on my doorstep, no rap on the door with hooded cloaks offering membership into the oblivion of the politically correct position. Hmmmm. What’s this called: a waiting period?
Actually, I didn’t expect it, not like the days when they deployed such frauds like ‘Goldmaster’ to do the dirty work. I relish the purity of my position on all this CDAA stuff: I have only the truth to remember.
Based on the return emails to my own forwords, there is a groundswell building, albeit, late to the party. It harkens upon the theory that when idiots (in this case the CDAA) wants to speak, stand back and watch them make fools of themselves…or to make an even more familiar truth evident: that when you vote yourself power you will lose it because your head is planted firmly in the ‘dark’…or even better yet, never put yourself in the position of an indefensible lie.
There is a positive wind blowing tonight.
I don’t think it would be a good idea for ANYONE from the
CDAA to poke his or her nose inside the county line of
Sierra Co. EVER!!. They just might be dealt with like a
certain BLM functionary in another state could have been dealt with.There is a foul wind blowing in this State & Rick is right it stinks bad. The people who run the Sixteen love to mine gold “that is what they do” and i would like to see them open all their mines & put California back on the map as a gold producing State. Their are only two ways to produce wealth & that is farming and mining everything else is derived from these two activites everything from computers to cars & houses everthing, but the State of California seems to go after farmers & miners instead of helping them it’s like they want to be in contol of everthing & people working hard to get gold from the earth is something they can’t control so they send their lawyers in to disrupt them. I will be writing to my representatives & Arnold about this and will tell everyone that will listen. The Goverment is here to protect us but i think it’s us that need to be protected from them.
I would like to thank the people who run the 16 to 1 for giving me a chance to invest in a Gold Mine in my home State it is what made this State in the first place & if people would wake up to the fact that there is alot of gold left & let people mine it California could be a great State again instead of the laughing stock we are now.Read the message below to understand why I refer to the term “terrorist” lest I get sued by an illegal entity like the CDAA or get indicted for something that never happened.
Below, our friend writes of how the award is excessive and that we should make a deal through negotiation.
First, it’s not an award, it’s an abomination of justice. Second, negotiating with terrorists is not acceptable. Leave there no question about it, this is the description of the very the entity that just circumnavigated the in situ justices in the 3rd court.
I know you justices will read this, but I don’t care, because you deserve to read how outraged we are, and also how exposed you are to the ruling you just made. It stinks and everyone knows it. YOU KNOW IT. Especially you. You guys are as fraudulent as the CDAA.
What should happen: the CDAA was criminal in their omission of exculpatory evidence in their fraudulent Grand Jury indictment that promptly got tossed away. The CDAA should be prosecuted, PROSECUTED!! for lying to the Grand Jury, just like everyone else. Does North Carolina’s case, or Barry Bonds’ case make this any smaller an infraction of civil liberties?
Yet, who will??? There are just Chikens out ther. I challenge the California AG, Jerry Brown, to take action on this, before knowledge of it muddies any attempt to run for Governor of California again. I hope these words get Googled and searched over and over so that his very office is aware of how we are aware of this fraud. I’m right here. Come find me.
WHERE ARE YOU GUYS WHO ARE AS OUTRAGED AS ME????????????
This whole thing stinks. The Original Sixteen to One Mine did nothing to force them into a position to “make a deal, or negotiate”….it could be any of us. WAKE UP!!!!
This entry should be copied and blogged onto every discussion group on the planet. I’m starting it.
I can summarize the ciminal act with this:
“An accident happened, and ruled an accident by everyone in legal government. Vigilante crooks highjack a Grand Jury, lied to it to obtain essentially a “Murder” charge against an innocent private sector green-gold-mine operation, to gain political point as payback for their win of a non-competitive bid from the Labor Relations Board.
The charge gets promptly thrown out of court by the (thank God sober judge)when challenged, and the criminals say “Oh well, sure, we lied, we cheated and guess what? We’re immune from any damages. Try us, you’ll see” Mike Miller and the Original Sixteen to One Mine challenges this assumption and gets railroaded by the 3rd Court, who cites the criminals as being immune. Then the criminals (CDAA) sues for court costs, and wins a judgment, the only appeal is back to the very court which upheld their immunity.
THIS STINKS !!!!!!
The only other option is a citizens arrest, and believe me, it should happen. Who would prosecute?
I am going to fight this injustice, despite the mine. Despite the fact I’m a mere spect of dust out here, but I’m not going to sit silent. I have nothing to lose, except my life if fraudulently messed with like the CDAA did with Mike Miller’s and his friend, John. I don’t care, I’m fighting, not negotiating. Especially not with the likes of the CDAA.
Copy and paste and wake up. If this gets me in trouble, then it should It’s the truth. One thing my dad taught me: never lie, never cheat, because you never have to remember anything but the truth.
Excessive award. Negotiate,ie
Make a deal.Free speech in California is no longer a constitutional right according to three California appellate judges. A privileged class of Californians (not government employees) can say and do whatever they want without recourse to the law AND YOU WILL PAY FOR THEIR LAWYERS FEES FOR SEEKING FINANCIAL REDRESS FROM THEIR ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR TOWARDS YOU. THEY WORK UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH AND ARE CALLED LAWYERS.
Assigned Superior Court Judge R. Michael Smith awarded the five CDAA defendants in our civil case $115,000 to be paid by Original Sixteen to One Mine…$100,000 and Michael Miller…$15,000.
Calif. codes say that a prevailing party in an action is entitled to court costs, etc. On the other hand since we have heard of people going to jail for “Lying” to a court albeit a federal one, all attys. involved in the 16-1 case from the CDAA should be subject to and duly confined for “lying” to a state court and a county grand jury. Moreover those same attys. should be subject to removal from the practice of law.
Printed in the Mountain Messenger, Downieville, CA on October 18, 2007
Dear Editor,
You played an important role in informing our county residents and your subscribers about the lawlessness of the non-profit CDAA Corporation and its attempt to take over prosecution control of Sierra County. In the process Gale Filter and his anointed shadow, Denise Mejlszenkier, lied to and misled our grand jury, withheld exculpatory evidence and knowingly brought criminal charges against our county’s oldest public corporation and largest non-government employer, its president and mine manager. It was a crippling experience.
People continue to ask about the episode. You and I know that prudence made us stop with the press news. Superior Court Judge Stanley Young cautioned against too much public chatter because the defendants were trying to move the trial from Sierra County. Their motion was denied; in fact they lost every motion in Superior Court to quash the lawsuit. Well, the Sacramento Court of Appeals eventually made a ruling that boggles the mind, has no lawful foundation and helped their friends out of a troubling situation by tossing the case. I would appreciate a future opportunity to educate your readers just how foul smelling judicial practice has become in California but another issue is upon us.
On Thursday October 25 at 9:00 am the Sixteen to One and I will be in Superior Court again. A lot is on the line and, frankly, my confidence in judicial justice is at a low point. I ask our friends and anyone else sympathetic to justice to come and fill the courtroom. Once the Sacramento Court created new law and dismissed our case, it opened the door for a claim by the lawbreaking defendants to make us pay for their court costs. The bad guys lawyer has reached beyond the statutes and seeks over $250,000. It would be humorous if it were not so serious.
A new judge will be making the decision. I still believe that American law is not totally corrupt and the good guys will step forward to preserve its ethical foundation; but my spirit has been considerably dampened. The CDAA and its crowd of supporters pulled a fast one that is far more serious than the one Prosecutor Nyfong pulled in North Carolina on the Duke students. Nyfong was disbarred and now his victims are suing for damages. Where has California gone wrong?
Oh, Mr. Editor, please don’t bring up that tilting windmill Quixote line. Most people know the lawyer jokes but few people really get into the struggles of the law. Even fewer people ever get indicted by a grand jury or face serious murder charges for a tragic accident. Because we now face an over powering threat to our very existence to pay for the defense of these lawbreaking, unethical and unscrupulous carpetbaggers, we could sure use some local support on October 25 at 9am in the Downieville courtroom.
Sincerely,
Michael Miller,
President Original Sixteen to One MineHey Mr. Knox.
Have you ever considered the possibility of a class-action lawsuit brought against your practices by those of us you claim to represent in your representation of the CDAA?
Think about it and laugh, giggle, whatever you do. And if you back-track me and my motives, you will discover that this is not a threat, just a simple reality check for you crooks.
August 31, 2007
Thomas S Knox
Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, LLP
One Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814-3229Re: Proposed order to collect attorney fees in Miller, et al. v Filter, et al
Dear Mr. Knox,
I object to the language in your proposed order to recover attorney fees resulting from the bewildering decisions of California’s 3rd Appellate Court and the subsequent lack of interest of California’s Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals opinion remanded this case to Sierra County Superior Court to “consider defendants’ entitlement to attorney fees.” Whether you or one of your associates wrote the order stating the “Defendants will recover attorney fees” was intentional or just plain sloppiness remains to be determined. It certainly fits your pattern of misleading the court, a ploy you have used throughout this case. Perhaps you should be reminded that there are rules, doctrines and regulations that make a lawyer vulnerable for purposely misleading the Court. I welcome your explanation of how a member of the California State Bar could confuse the Court of Appeals decision so blatantly if it were not intentional.
I incorporate by reference the letter from Klaus Kolb (August 29, 2007) to you, which details his objections to the language of your proposed order as my objections and instructions to your misleading order pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1312.
You also wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Kolb and Mr. Miller dated August 21, 2007. It left me speechless. I shall consider reporting your conduct to the California State Bar ethics committee for investigation. Need I, a mere California businessman without any formal legal training, remind you, a graduate of law school having passed the California State Bar exam, that it is illegal to insert threats of criminal prosecution in a civil matter to gain an advantage? Even though I am not restricted to the ethical conduct (not a member of the Bar), I chose to take the high road in the case against Gayle Filter and his fellow lawbreakers. I did not bring his illegal activities to the attention of the California State Bar or the Attorney General during our civil lawsuit proceedings. Your defendants broke three or more laws. For you to suggest that either the Original Sixteen to One or I would break the law as you imply with Penal Code section 154 or Penal Code section 531 clearly uses a threat of criminal prosecution to gain an advantage. You also imply a threat with Civil Code section 3439.05. What arrogance! I consider your style of lawyering deplorable.
Mr. Kolb, on behalf of himself and his client, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc, said it more succinctly than I: “Your letter continues the practice of making false and offensive accusations against my client. The Original Sixteen to One Mine reserves all rights to take appropriate legal action in response to your letter and any further false accusations made against it.” Michael Meister Miller now says the same to you.
Have you forgotten that it is your clients who broke the laws? Your clients prosecuted without probable cause. Your clients willfully misled the Sierra County Grand Jury. Congratulations that your presentation to the Three Blind Justices got your clients off the hook for their behavior. If I were mean spirited I would now write, birds of a feather flock together. I’m not mean spirited or even aggressive; however one must respond to incessant attacks against one’s character.
I recently visited Mc George Law School and read the following, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to fill the world with fools. “ Herbert Spencer quoted in the halls of Mc George Law School, Sacramento. In the situation and case you chose to defend, the lawbreakers were successfully shielded from accountability, responsibility and damages.
Sincerely, Michael Meister Miller
Cc: Klaus J. Kolb
We’re all preaching to the choir at this point. The CDAA is celebrating their money, but their tail is between their legs since they know they “f”-ed up and got away with it. The courts are saying “ahem,” and ducking behind their robes. We’re sitting here saying woulda coulda shoulda and pissed about how they all screwed us. Being on a defensive position at this point won’t attrack a fly. This is why I’m starting a new topic. My guess is very few will even read this entry.
Pure political raunch, not
ranch but RAUNCH!The most National issue I can think of is the simple statement “The petitions for review are denied” – Filed Aug-8 2007 (signed by George, Chief Justice of Calif. Supreme Court)- as announced by Mike Miller on 8/13/07. This doesn’t just “suck” it is the epitome of the “System” ignoring the constitutional rights of the “little guy” who does not have the necessary greed factor or money to participate in the system. I, and many others are behind you 100%, Mike. The money and drive required to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, coupled with the same potential for a turn down (it was 95% against you in Cal.)renders it very difficult at best and virtually insurmountable at worst but I will certainly offer any moral, immoral, or even a little gold to help the cause should you choose to take this step.
Wishing you the best, Mike,
Don (and Dorothy) Jones- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.