Home › Forums › 16 to 1 Mine › Ideal Time for Facts
- AuthorPosts
Good commentary, Bluejay.
One key phase that you wrote, “Doesn’t the government know…?” is unfortunately answered in truth:
My commentary, “Yes, with the super-majority, the government does know what it’s doing…”
And that is: a Statist agenda.
This is all happening not by chance, but by the purpose of destroying the free market.
Rick
My Congressperson knows exactly what I feel which is no different, I’m sure, with the way you are feeling. I’ve told her that I’m extremely unhappy with the way the bank lobbyists are running our Representatives to legislate against us while they were placed there by the voters not the bankers.
I have told her that it wouldn’t surprise me if none of the current Congressional Representatives were returned to office once the people have their next turn. I have told her that a seriously backed third party will emerge to vote them all out with new people who are more inclined to represent the will of the voters and not the highly paid banking lobbyists with money paid to them probably from our TARP funding that was ordered by King Paulson.
We need real reform in this country and I am directly referring to how the current government operates and especially, the judiciary.
The biggest problem from where I view it is the current ability of judges to play god with people’s lives on cooked up charges from Federal prosecutors who are just interested in their convictions rate to put on their resumes for a better paying jobs.
In our country the conviction rate for Federal prosecutors is in the range from 98% to 98.5%. This is a higher rate that existed during the times of Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition.
I’m not the only one that feels this way. In Martin Armstrong’s letter of April 15, 2009, available at http://www.scribd.com, entitled “Financial Panics = Political Change” he gets into the topic of judicial reform with examples of past abuses by judges.
The major problem with judges is there in no public tribunal of accountability and even the Senate or Congress doesn’t possess the current will to rake them over the coals when events dictate it.
Aside from the judges, the SEC and Commodities Futures Trading Commission are no better. The big fish seldom gets hooked. When was the last time the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used to catch a big fish?
Doesn’t the government know what the banks have done to all of us on interest rates and fees on their charge cards? I call this a cartel effort to suck blood from us when all the way back to the Roman Empire usuary laws protected its citizens with a cap of just under 10%. The reason why the economy is sick and getting worse is because we are paying a great deal of our income for interest to the banks and it is being withheld from going directly into the economy. It is a moral crime to allow the banking institutions to act as a loan shark business when lower rates would create jobs and put some people back to work.
If anyone is inclined to get a little more educated, I suggest that they access Martin Armstrong’s mentioned essay under the sub-topic of “Judicial Reform Is Vital To Our Economy” in his April 15, 2009 letter.
I almost wrote under the topic “Another US Citizen goes Foreign” but I haven’t left yet….because I still have some fight in me.
Our slanderous whipping by the unconstitutional rulings by the Statist judicial crap concerning the CDAA’s railroad construction planted over Constitutional civility was on;y a precursor to what is unravelling in front odf all of us….what is happening in Washington, both from the executive and congressional branches? Tyranny! It is the very nightmare our Founders rebelled against….
Yet…I sit here and witness ignorance, passivity, capitulation, dilution of principal, to name a few symptoms of our otherwise former fighting sovereign nation of freedom fighters and defenders of the Constitution.
IS EVERYONE ASLEEP????
Where and when can we mount a Constitutional challenge to this aggregious mess?
George would be the first to knock down the door. Both of them.
Gold Sector problems existing within six of the large or well-known gold mining companies are obscure to disclosure. One problem exists for all but one of the companies listed below, which seems to have no significant problems. Some of the companies have multiple issues. Here are the companies discussed (alphabetical order):
AngloGoldAshanti Ltd, Barrick Gold Corp,
GoldCorp Inc, Kinross Gold,
Newmont Mining Corp, Teck CorpHere are the problems in no particular order:
1. Too few miners in senior management (accountants, lawyer types).
2. Poor or declining property.
3. Big challenges due to quality of assets.
4. Trouble in financing acquisitions.
5. Poor decisions on engineering and execution of engineered plans.
6. Non mining, political interferences.These six companies share the bulk of volume (share trading) in the marketplace with about 2.5 trillion shares outstanding.
Another story about the serious problems of counterfeit coins (see 12/02/08 entry below) was released by the American Numismatic Association in Colorado Springs, Co. Full story found at its web site, http://www.money.org.
Excerpt: “New counterfeit operations have sprung up across the world, particularly in China, where relaxed laws protect these operations from liability. The counterfeiters use clever production methods and cutting-edge die-making technology, creating forgeries that are difficult for most collectors to detect. A wide variety of counterfeit objects are being produced, including U.S. and world coins, paper money, errors, and even slabs. With the assistance of unprincipled dealers and investors, this new material is flooding the market at an astonishing rate, compromising the investments of collectors and the integrity of honest dealers. “
BUYERS BEWARE !11The shareholders of the Sixteen to One along with the company, like others in the country, are being subjected to cash flow problems as income slows down for a myriad of reasons, not to mention the shrinking value of our money as a result of the continuing trials of expanding inflation.
The day is coming when debt, if not eliminated or reduced to manageable levels, will control our destiny. If debt continues then it will only become magnified as our purchasing power shrinks to levels where we may not be able to service it in the future which is coming sooner that most believe.
Its really quite ironic that the banks get so much help. Rothschild of western Europe is worth $500 trillion which is half the world’s wealth and their right hand in the U.S., being represented by the privately owned Fed and J.P. Morgan a large recipient of bailout funds. The Fed and J.P. Morgan should be asking Rothchild for money, not us. Can you imagine one thing that $500 trillion couldn’t buy(government reprsentatives?).
Our debt that people owe the banks was never their money, they were allowed to print it based on consumer deposits and collected interest from us based on someone else’s money. This is the reason that gold is manipulated, so the public is turned off by it thus leaving their savings in the bank for them to profit by.
Rothschild over their long history have made their money off the people like us along by using their influence to hand pick presidents, crashed stock markets(gold and silver shares?), bankrupted nations, orchestrated wars and have impoverished millions.
As shareholders we are owners of gold in the ground as opposed to the Rothschld’s massive gold holdings in their underground vaults. We still have a chip in the big game with some other rich owners of gold but we must eliminate any risk of losing it by kicking out our debt responsibilities before they get out of hand.
I remember Boomtown just across I80 in Nevada has display cases of memorabilia including Silver. Why not ask them or other casino/hotels in Reno if they would be interested in any of our specimens for lobby displays? Why not contact large owners of gold companies in the western U.S. to see if they might have an interest?
If we can’t sell our specimens or statues, the next step may be to saw them down for jewelry. I understand that this market is in short supply.
It appears that the board needs to make some immediate decisions concerning the elimination of our debt exposure.
During this same time period the board should be contacting mining or exploration gold companies to do a private placement with them for the cash we require to go on.
Three months ago I reported on the growing awareness that coin collectors were buying fake rare or high dollar gold coins. Many in the numismatic crowd feel secure with the coins in their possession and many felt that way because “professionals” gave them assurances that the coins were genuine. Even after a serious collector purposely purchased a fake coin in China, got it certified by an expert and told his story, collectors did not wish to believe the evidence.
Beth Deisher, editor of Coin World in the 12/15/08 edition, writes, “It’s up to collectors, dealers and grading services to fight the scourge of counterfeit coins from China, not the federal government with its limited resources.” I agree.
When I decided to seek out and add gold to my assets (1974), I studied all the ways to accomplish that desire. Owning an interest in a producing gold mine rose to the top of the list.
Coins are worthy because you can hold them, look at them and know that no matter what they are yours (assuming you take possession). Paying a huge premium above spot goes with the trade. I don’t like that. Now with the full-blown awareness that counterfeit coins are in the market place, I wonder how the coin business will deal with this serious problem. As an aside, the gold mining industry was alerted that counterfeit Krugerrands were in the market place, bought, sold and stored by unsuspecting gold bugs thirty years ago. It hardly made a ripple in their interest. This coin issue may be different.
What a dunce I can be.
The following three people are public servants working in Sacramento as lawyers. Tom Green’s title is “Chief Assistant Attorney General”. Under his supervision is Mary E. Hackenbracht. Her title is Senior Assistant Attorney General. I have no idea if the adjective “Senior” implies she is at the top of the hierarchy, just below Tom Green. Are their “Junior Assistant Attorney Generals”? Finally William N. Brienger signs on as a “Deputy Attorney General”. Are all three participants involved in the decision to launch an Amicus Brief against the parties damaged by lawlessness. After all, the top name on the list is Bill Lockyer, who signs on as “Attorney General of the State of California”. Did William write it, investigate its merits or initiate the action? Did Tom and Bill read prove and sign off before submitting the document to the appeals court?
Here is why I raise the above questions. The document says its position supports the lawless defendants. It recognizes that a law was broken. Then quickly words jump into a general assertion that the reason for filing the brief is “to assist district attorneys”. The writers want “to underscore the importance of prosecutorial immunity in fostering unflinching and impartial law enforcement”. I have no problem nor does our case bump against those goals. Immunity, however, is qualified that it must be “unflinching and impartial law enforcement”. The brief does not say unflinching or impartial. It says unflinching and impartial. The actions of the defendants broke laws. The actions of Gale Filter, et al., proved not to be impartial upon reviewing the grand jury transcript. Also documents in the Superior Court filings in Sierra County provide evidence that their impartiality was more wide spread than merely withholding exculpatory evidence.
It is a big leap to believe that Tom and Bill failed to stop the misguided position of their co-signed brief. But, what about Mary? As Senior Assistant, does she report to Tom? Does her position require a review over a Deputy Attorney General? Can a Deputy Attorney General file a brief in the Appellate Court on his own without a final review?
If you want to read the full amicus of the attorney general, it follows below . If anyone out there can help with the answers to these questions about the chain of accountability and responsibility, please educate me.
Now to the question of money, which was asked in the entry before this. The amicus brief comments that a lot of money is at issue. In the Statement of the Case it tells the appellate court that our suit seeks over $51 million. Yes, a recovery of that or a lesser amount can fund the mine’s development. I cannot recall determining this amount but certainly support its legitimacy. What if the suit sought $200 million or $1.00? Does the amount affect “unflinching and impartial law enforcement”? With so much written about case before the appellate judges, why did William fill his limited space with $51 million in damages?
Okay, I admit that this is a hard entry to read; however, remember the above named people are your public servants, who earn their salary by working for your best interests. Remember also, its all for the right to mine, the mine and its shareholders. So, get informed. Cut down some ignorance and help me learn. If you do not want to respond on the FORUM, do it with a feedback click.
Just curious if settlement offers seem like a possibility, for all the usual reasons (and to provide an influx of some cash soon).
The abuse of the law and constituents, manipulation of
Grand Juries and out and out
lying are tactics of the legal
profession that are as old and
as standard operating procedure
as the “world’s oldest profession”.Mining never stopped.
Adding real social benefits from a successful outcome of plaintiffs’ suit does not hinder or compromise our mining effort to daylight gold from the Sixteen to One vein. The pursuit of compensation, justice and accountability from some evil legal/political machinations is a positive undertaking, similar to that which was successfully undertaken against MSHA. Success will benefit shareholders’ equity, value and potential to exploit their exceptional mineral deposit. The effort is worth the reward or the reward is worth the effort.
The crew sacked high-grade last Tuesday, gold in two places showing, two slab rounds but, like most of our mining, the continuation and value of the pocket will not be known until after it is mined. Kind of reminds one of some of the problems associated with the study of geology; however, you will never know unless you go.
get over it and get back to mining.
Most every adult in California and the United States of America know and have expressed their discontent with lawyers in modern times. It was not always this way. In fact sixty years ago people believed that lawyers were right up there with doctors in trust and social stature. What happened? Most importantly, what can be done about the sorry state of affairs regarding our lives, as lawyers continue to stink up the environment?
Is it true that the lawyers who form sentences with colorful words and metaphors will be the ones to subjugate the rules of society? Will they be the winners over the evidence and the law? A number of new TV shows seem to have this theme. Lawyers certainly do not add to America’s gross national product with many of their antics. An example of such drivel just passed into my hands in the form of Mr. Tom Knox’s reply brief to the august California Court of Appeals, 3rd District in Sacramento.
For those of you following the self serving, law breaking (misleading a grand jury), antics of the California District Attorneys Association and four of their non government employees, you know that I have the greatest respect for our legal system and hold many practicing lawyers in the highest esteem. Four of my former attorneys are Superior Court judges.
I write about this case with the hope that honorable men and women of law will seize this case with the passion they once held for lawyering. Remember years ago when every comedian, analyst and the average Joe or Joanne bantered lawyer joke after lawyer joke. The trade must have recognized the pit they were in. Jokes subsided but the root causes of America’s feelings about lawyers did not change. Today people have moved on to other target of scorn or sadly came to the conclusion that improvement would not materialize. No, no, no. Improvement is nearby. Improvement is vital for our society to keep pace with the microeconomics of a global economy. The bleeding of money into nonproductive work must stop. All that separates our American society from slavery are guns and the judges seated in our courtrooms. My bet goes with the courtroom.
So, what is the improvement to clean the scene lurking nearby? Fortunately, in California there is a State Bar with rules of conduct legislated into law by our elected representatives. There are consequences for misbehavior: disbarment and criminal prosecution if probable cause exists. Lawyers are like doctors in that they hate to testify let alone prosecute one of their own. Why is beyond me. This is how we survive as a free and independent country. I know that the code was broken for doctors two decades ago. I had such an experience with a doctor who was knowledgeable about the death of my seven-year-old son at the University of California at Davis hospital in Sacramento and not afraid or too busy to speak out. Because of him and because of what I did about his disclosure, changes were made that may have saved seriously injured children in an emergency room.
So today another opportunity exists to improve the American or at least the Californian judicial system. You should be outraged at Mr. Tom Knox’s assertions along with his arrogant style of presentation to the 3rd Appellate Court.. You will be, but that may not be enough. The CDAA gang worked to infiltrate a small rural public office; they solicited business through its non profit corporation of taxpayers money, they played politics with the law; they violated the trust of Californians and sought to privatize prosecution and criminalize accidents; they indicted without probable cause, knowingly, I might add. Now they want to get a pass on the theory that they are not responsible for their behavior, are immune from accountability and free to continue to screw up people’s lives and businesses.
You should be outraged. You should also recognize that opportunities to correct the long-standing decline in professional behavior of lawyers are before the Court. Lloyds of London is paying for Mr. Knox. We do not have that luxury. What we do have is the law and the truth of the sinister lawyering performed by Gale Filter, who led an inexperienced subordinate and two others to conspire in Sierra County. Help me change the course of unacceptable behavior.
This brief is 39 pages. I’m not sure how to get it broadly distributed. I will make copies and mail to anyone asking until we find another way. Here is the thrust and tone of Mr. Tom Knox’s fictional prose. It is in his conclusion. “The conduct of Appellants that forms the gravamen of Respondent’s case – the prosecution – falls within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute. Appellants’ conduct as prosecutors was not illegal…… As to the second prong of the anti-SLAPP test, Appellants are entitled to the benefit of prosecutorial immunity and the litigation privilege.” If in the minds of the defendants they are “entitled to the benefit” they hold themselves out to be a privileged class of Californians, something the constitution speaks directly to.
So, why did the Attorney General step into this case? Here is one answer that few know. CDAA recently admitted that several counties in California failed to properly swear deputy DA’s as required by law. When a new DA is elected, his or her deputies must be appointed in writing under strict rules. Think about how disruptive this could be for convicted inmates when they learn that the man or woman prosecuting them was not authorized to do so. Oh, my goodness! What a mess! What a potentially costly mess! Fortunately for California, the issues of our case will not set a precedent for others to barter a new trial. Why? (CDAA likely did not tell the AG’s office as they lobbied to get it to write an amicus brief in support of their unlawful activities in Sierra County) Why? In other counties the other deputy DA’s are government employees. The CDAA gang is non-government employees, a big difference.
When I learned about the admissions by a CDAA employee about the plight of real deputy DA’s, I too became concerned. It is my intentions to improve the law not find a reason for others to circumvent real crime. I telephoned my old attorney, who represented me in Santa Barbara in 1969. He is a Superior Court judge now. I explained the situation (he knew about the criminal indictment filed against me and the mine). He said, “Mike, that is not your problem or concern. Do what you need to do. Let the legal ramifications fall where they will.” It was free advice and good advice. What are the next steps to take?
The Amicus Brief is a great title for a new best selling fiction novel. (For the record, consider the title now declared copywritten by me.)
All that aside, I am struck by the complete ambiguity of how the brief filed by the sworn AG of our State of California et al assumes that the CDAA in this case believes that as defendant it is a representative of the people, aka District Attorneys, elected with jurisdiction to represent.
“We the people” look at it this way. We don’t consider that un-sworn appointments trump representation in any case. Why would we?
The prosicurtorial immunity for representational office is respected from us, the private sector, because we understand the functional role it plays. We want our representation to be true to form.
Non-representational definition of a public official is not right, and should never be immune from a punitive position. Stated above, it is in direct conflict with intent. The AG in this brief assumes we believe such appointment of the defendant CDAA to be a legal representation. Clearly, it is not.
Isn’t this designation the entire argument?
Yes, it is.
This speaks to the direct issue of representation under Constitutional authority.
To all of you lawyers out there, this is what we the people are most concerned about: The Intent Of The Law.
Here is the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF from the Attorney General Mike was referring to:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Third Appellate
No. C051696MILLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
FILTER, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.On Appeal From
Sierra County Superior Court Case No. 6293
The Honorable Stanley C. Young, JudgeAMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTSBILL LOCKYER
Attorney General of the State of California
TOM GREENE
Chief Assistant Attorney General
MARY E. HACKENBRACHT
Senior Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM N. BRIENGER
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 121346
1300 I Street
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 324-2512
Fax: (916) 327-2319Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF INTEREST 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
ARGUMENT 3
I. PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT TO IMPARTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 3
II. PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY IS BROADLY INERPRETED. 5
A. What conduct is immunized? 5
B. Who is Entitled to Immunity? 6
C. What Claims Are Barred? 7
III. IN THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTORS WERE PERFORMING FUNCTIONS THAT ENTITLE THEM TO IMMUNITY. 7
IV. THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS POWER TO CORRECT THE TRIAL COURT’S ERROR REGARDING IMMUNITY. 9
CONCLUSION 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
State Cases:
American Arbitration Assn. V. Superior Court(1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1131 2
Amylou R. v. County of Riverside(1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1205 6, 7
Baughman v. State of California(1995) 38 Cal.App. 4th 182 6
Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d. 175 6
Buford v. State of California
(1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811 9
Citizens Capital Corp. v. Spohn (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 887 6
County of Ventura v. Barry
(1929) 207 Cal. 189 8
Greene v. Zank (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 497 3, 8
Hardy v. Vial (1957) 48 Cal.2d 577 4
Howard v. Drapkin(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843 5, 6
Ingram v. Flippo(1998) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280 4
Jager v. County of Alameda
(1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 294 7
Jenkins v. County of Orange
(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 278 7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
State Cases: Page
Johnson v. City of Pacifica
(1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 82 2
Kayfetz v. State of California(1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 491 6
Kemmerer v. County of Fresno
(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 passim
Pearson v. Reed (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 277 1, 4
People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court(1985) 39 Cal.3d 740 3
People v. Kempley(1928) 205 Cal. 441 8
Thiele v. RML Realty Partners
(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1526 6
Tur v. City of Los Angeles(1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 897 7
Federal Cases:
Ashelman v. Pope(9th Cir. 1986) 793 F.2d 1072 5, 6
Butz v. Economou(1978) 438 U.S. 478 8
Coverdell v. Department of Health and Social Services
(9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 758 3, 7
Forrester v. White(1988) 484 U.S. 219 5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases: Page
Gregoire v. Biddle(2d Cir. 1949) 177 F.2d 579 4
Horwitz v. Bd. of Medical Examiners(10th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 1508 6, 8
Imbler v. Pachtman(1976) 424 U.S. 409 3
Pierson v. Ray(1967) 386 U.S. 547 3
Stewart v. Minnick(9th Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 826 6, 7
Rules of Court:
California Rules of Court,
rule 13 (c)(6) 1
Statutes:
Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 2
Government Code
§ 820.2 4
§ 821.6 passim
§ 24102 sub. (a) 2
Other Authorities:
California Constitution
art. V, § 13 1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MILLER, et al.,
Third Appellate
Plaintiffs and Respondents, No. C051696
v.
FILTER, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
The Attorney General files this brief in support of Appellants pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 13 (c)(6). The California Constitution gives the Attorney General “direct supervision over every district attorney,” and further charges the Attorney General to assist any district attorney when required by the public interest. (Cal. Const. art V, § 13.) To assist district attorneys, the Attorney General files this brief to underscore the importance of prosecutorial immunity in fostering unflinching and impartial law enforcement.
The office of public prosecutor is one which must be administered with courage and independence. Yet how can this be if the prosecutor is made subject to suit by those whom he accuses and fails to convict?
(Pearson v. Reed (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 277, 287.) Although California courts have consistently applied prosecutorial immunity in a broad fashion, focusing on the functions being performed rather than procedural niceties, the trial court in this case denied immunity, focusing on technical details regarding the prosecutors’ appointments as deputies, and ignoring the prosecutorial function they performed. In the interest of firm and fair law enforcement, the Attorney General respectfully asks this Court to correct that error.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The elected district attorney of Sierra County appointed four deputies in 2001 and 2002; each signed an oath of office and took an oral oath administered by the Superior Court. [2 CT 422-423, 436-437, 442-443; 3 CT 450.] Despite a requirement in section 24102, subdivision (a) of the Government Code, no written documents appointing the four prosecutors were filed with the county clerk.
The four prosecutors [Appellants] played various roles investigating and prosecuting plaintiffs [Respondents] following the death of a mineworker whom plaintiffs employed. The investigation culminated in a grand jury indictment charging manslaughter. The Superior Court dismissed the indictment [CT 88], and a newly elected district attorney chose not to refile any charges. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking over $51 million for malicious prosecution and other torts from the prosecutors who worked on the case. [1 CT 1375.] 1/
Based in part on the prosecutorial immunity set forth in Government Code section 821.6, the prosecutors filed demurrers and a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16; those attempts at a quick resolution failed. Insofar as the demurrers were based on claims of immunity, they were overruled. [CT 19, 28, 118, 130.] In denying the motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16, the court below again concluded that the
1. This brief focuses on four individual prosecutors. Any liability of the fifth defendant, the California District Attorneys Association, would be derivative liability based on the actions of its four employees. If an employee is immune under Government Code section 821.6, so to is the employer. (Kemmerer v. County of Fresno (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426, 1435; Johnson v. City of Pacifica (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 82 [demurrer without leave to amend]. Cf. American Arbitration Assn. v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1134 [“Not extending immunity for these act to the AAA, an entity as indispensable to the arbitrator’s job of arbitrating as are the courts to the judge’s job of judging, would frustrate the purpose and effectiveness of arbitral immunity.”].)
prosecutorial privilege did not apply. [CT 2779-2780] This appeal followed.
ARGUMENT
The purpose of providing immunity for prosecutors and judges is to provide a prompt procedural escape hatch, so that public servants are not exposed to time-consuming personal attacks based on their public service. Lawsuits against prosecutors or judges have the potential to chill the exercise of discretion meant to be exercised on the public’s behalf.
In this instance, the record is sufficiently well developed to allow a court to conclude that the four individual defendants [Appellants] are entitled to a dismissal of the action based on their immunity from civil suit. This Court has discretion to make that order or to remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with a declaration regarding the scope of prosecutorial immunity. In light of the time since this action was first filed, we encourage this Court to enter an order of dismissal.
I. PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT TO
IMPARTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Our judicial system demands prosecutorial neutrality. (People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740.) That neutrality must be shielded from any concern that a particular defendant is too rich, too powerful, too popular, or simply too litigious to call to account. Prosecutorial immunity has long been recognized at common law. It is based on the same considerations that underlie common-law immunities of judges and grand jurors (Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) 424 U.S. 409, 422-423), namely to prevent intimidation and foster “principled and fearless decision-making.” (Pierson v. Ray (1967) 386 U.S. 547, 554; see also Greene v. Zank (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 497, 507.) Such immunity is absolute, rather than merely qualified. (Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, at 422; Coverdell v. Department of Health and Social Services (9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 758, 762.)
California courts have recognized immunity for prosecutors as quasi-judicial officers. (See, e.g, Pearson v. Reed, supra, 6 Cal.App.2d 277.) Explaining the policy underlying the doctrine of absolute immunity, the California Supreme Court borrowed from Judge Learned Hand’s ruling that a federal prosecutor’s immunity “is absolute and is grounded on principles of public policy.” (Gregoire v. Biddle (2d Cir. 1949) 177 F.2d 579, 580.)
‘It does indeed go without saying that an official, who is in fact guilty of using his powers to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good, should not escape liability for the injuries he may so cause; and, if it were possible in practice to confine such complaints to the guilty, it would be monstrous to deny recovery. The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. Again and again the public interest calls for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake, in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. … In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.’
(Hardy v. Vial (1957) 48 Cal.2d 577, 582-583, quoting Gregoire v. Biddle, supra, 177 F.2d at 581.)
Since the enactment of a more specific prosecutorial immunity in 1963, most cases have centered on Government Code section 821.6.2/
2. In the absence of any meaningful distinction between the policies and operation of the immunities for judicial, prosecutorial, and discretionary functions, we do not separately analyze this case under alternative bases of immunity. We note that the more general “discretionary function” immunity provided by Government Code section 820.2 also applies in circumstances where section 821.6 applies. (Ingram v. Flippo (1998) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1292-1293.) Moreover, as quasi-judicial officers, prosecutors also share in judicial immunity. (Pearson v. Reed, supra, 6 Cal.App.2d 277, 282-287.)
Government Code section 821.6, commonly referred to as the “Prosecutor’s Immunity,” provides:
A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.
The public is best served when public servants are free from fear. As the Court of Appeal has noted, exposure to civil litigation would result in timidity that would be hard to detect. (Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 852 [discussing quasi-judicial immunity of a court-appointed psychologist].) That rationale applies with equal force in the case of prosecutors. In fact, prosecutorial timidity would be even harder to detect, because many prosecutorial decisions are made in private. In any event, someone wrongly accused by a criminal prosecutor is protected by a trial judge, a jury, and the appellate courts.
II. PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY IS BROADLY
INTERPRETED.
The strong underlying policies “favor a liberal application of immunity.” Achelman v. Pope (9th Cir. 1986) 793 F.2d 1072, 1078. The cases discussed below reflect the immunity’s breadth.
A. What conduct is immunized?
Immunity attaches to certain functions — investigating, accusing, prosecuting, and judging — regardless of a person’s title. To determine whether an action was in an arena sheltered by absolute immunity, courts look at “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” (Forrester v. White (1988) 484 U.S. 219, 229.)
Moreover, section 821.6 comprehensively immunizes conduct incidental to all stages of the adjudicative process. (Citizens Capital Corp. v. Spohn (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 887, 889 [publicizing wrongdoing]; Kemmerer v. County of Fresno (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426, 1436-1437 [initial investigation]; Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 175,178 [investigation]; Baughman v. State of California (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182, 191-192 [search]; Amylou R. v. County of Riverside (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209-1211 [acts “incidental to the investigation”]; Kayfetz v. State of California (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 491, 494 [publication of disciplinary action].)
Judicial immunity is similarly broad, barring “civil actions against judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions and it applies to all judicial determinations, including those rendered in excess of the judge’s jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous or even malicious or corrupt they may be.” (Howard v. Drapkin, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 851. See, e.g., Ashelman v. Pope, supra, 793 F.2d at 1078 [conspiracy between a judge and prosecutor to predetermine outcome did not vitiate immunity]. See also Thiele v. RML Realty Partners (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1526 [arbitral immunity broadly interpreted].)
B. Who Is Entitled to Immunity?
Prosecutorial immunity has been applied to a wide range of persons whose roles are “functionally comparable” to that of an investigator or prosecutor. It is the process which triggers the immunity; those involved in the process are immunized. See, e.g., Horwitz v. Bd. Of Medical Examiners (10th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 1508, 1515 [doctors serving on professional discipline board]. “The immunity conferred by section 821.6 is not limited to peace officers and prosecutors but has been extended to public schools officials . . ., heads of administrative departments . . ., social workers . . ., county coroners . . ., and
members of county boards of supervisors . . . .” (Tur v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 897, 901 [internal citations omitted]. See also Coverdell v. Department of Health and Social Services, supra, 834 F.2d 758 [child services worker]; Kemmerer v. County of Fresno, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at 1436 [immunity under section 821.6 not limited to legally trained personnel]. In similar sweeping fashion, judicial immunity also applies to court clerks and court reporters. (See Stewart v. Minnick (9th Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 826.)
C. What claims Are Barred?
Although prosecutorial immunity has primarily been applied to defeat suits for malicious prosecution, it is not limited to such suits. The courts have held it also applicable to actions for libel, slander, negligence, and inflictions of emotional distress, among others. (Kemmerer, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at 1436; Jenkins v. County of Orange (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 278.) The immunity provided by section 821.6 is not even limited to claims brought by targets of prosecution. (See, e.g., Amylou R. v. County of Riverside, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at 1211-1213 [crime victim]; Jager v. County of Alameda (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 294 [mother dissatisfied with district attorney’s child support collection from father].)
III. IN THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTORS WERE
PERFORMING FUNCTIONS THAT ENTITLE
THEM TO IMMUNITY.
Appellants simply acted as prosecutors – presenting evidence to a grand jury and taking other steps to initiate the prosecution of the Respondents – and deserve the immunity that applies broadly to all who participate in the investigation and prosecution of suspected crime. The trial court’s focus on the details of the prosecutor’s technical standing ignored the core of immunity analysis: examining the function being performed rather than the status of the defendants. As the Court of Appeal stated in a judicial immunity case, “[i]n analyzing the immunity
issue in the instant case, we must first characterize the governmental activity involved, because the immunity granted depends not on the status of the defendant, but rather, on the specific work or function being performed.” (Greene v. Zank supra 158 Cal.App.3d at 508, citing Butz v. Economou (1978) 438 U.S. 478, 511-512.)
Respondents likewise ignores the Appellants’ role; Respondents’ position appears entirely based on a clerical oversight by the District Attorney’s office. The record – – that formal appointing papers were not filed – – does not support Respondent’s colorful descriptions of Appellants “impersonating” deputy district attorneys and “tak[ing] over the Sierra County District Attorney’s Office.”
The Attorney General is not aware of any case depriving a public servant of immunity on such hypertechnical grounds, and any such result would be surprising given the breadth and scope of circumstances in which courts have previously found immunity. To the contrary, at least one prior case has applied immunity despite a technicality similar to the one presented by this case. In Horwitz v. Bd. Of Medical Examiners, supra, 822 F.2d 1508, the Court of Appeals held that doctors serving on a board empowered to discipline physicians were entitled to absolute immunity. The fact that all but one of the defendant doctors had failed to sign a required oath of office was deemed insignificant, as the defendants were deemed at least de facto officers. (Id. at 1516.) California also recognizes the de facto officer doctrine. (County of Ventura v. Barry (1929) 207 Cal. 189, 190 [a line on tax assessor’s oath was left blank]; People v. Kempley (1928) 205 Cal. 441, 445-446 [special counsel appointed by Attorney General did not take the oath of office].)
IV. THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS POWER TO
CORRECT THE TRIAL COURT’S ERROR
REGARDING IMMUNITY.
The immunity provided by Government Code section 821.6 is jurisdictional and can be raised for the first time on appeal. (See Kemmerer v. County of Fresno, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at 1435; Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811, 826 [governmental immunity is jurisdictional].) In Buford, the court additionally noted that judicial economy favored expeditious resolution of the immunity question by the Court of Appeal, rather than remanding for a subsequent summary judgment. (Buford, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 826 n.9.)
CONCLUSION
The purpose of shielding prosecutors from civil suits arising from their work requires a prompt determination in this case that Appellants enjoy immunity. Any shortcoming in the prosecutors’ appointments as deputy district attorneys can best be characterized as a technicality that must yield to the robust public policy favoring prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors must be free to fearlessly enforce the law on the public’s behalf.
Dated: October 11, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General of the State of California
TOM GREENE
Chief Assistant Attorney General
MARY E. HACKENBRACHT
Senior Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM N. BRIEGER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants and AppellantsI just looked at the amicus curiae brief filed by our public servants in the offices of the California attorney General. I agree with the conclusion. Fortunately the law and the facts of this case do not support consideration of the conclusion. I always believed that the highest lawyers in the California scene looked after Californians. This argument does not meet that threshold. So, can we now ask, “For whom does Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Hackenbracht, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and William N. Brieger, Deputy Attorney General work for and receive taxpayer money to represent?” Interestingly, the signature page also says, “Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants”. Please explain, someone.
If memory serves me right, Bill Lockyer was a writer of the Slapp stuff when he was a legislature. He above all other lawyers should recognize that the appeal before the California Appellate Court is for the mine and me taking away the constitutional rights of the bad guys. The amicus brief is not consistent with the intent of California LAW. If I am reading this friendly brief right, the signers support lawbreakers. Please explain, someone.
We will try to get this brief on our FORUM on Monday. There are glaring differences in the cases cited and ours. If the public lets this go, I would be shocked. Now is the time to expose the bunch for what they really are or what they really stand for. If they were standing in the street of law, they would barely reach the gutter. Californians expect more for the judicial branch of our free society. Please explain, someone
A puzzling communication was sent to Klaus (Sixteen to One attorney), who forwarded it to me yesterday. Maybe someone out there can shed some light of the following. Klaus questioned the actual form or process the author of the filing used. I am questioning several other points.
AMICUS BRIEFMr. William Brieger, Deputy Attorney General (bar # 121346) filed an Application For Extension Of Time To File Brief with the California Court of Appeal, Third District. He requests additional time to file an Amicus Brief, which he typed on the form, stating it was due on September 8,2006 and wants an extension to October 11, 2006. He did not receive a rule 17 notice and has not received a previous extension. His reason for not filing a stipulation, (which requires specificity), is: “Could not reach party in pro per”. The reason he cites why he needs additional time is, “The length of the record, and unusual issue (regarding prosecutorial immunity) requires more than fourteen days to adequately address in a meaningful fashion.”
Mr. Brieger’s first statement is disingenuous and misleading. You know how much I hate lawyers to misrepresent a position to the court. They can stretch truth or lie to each other, but everyone must protest when they mislead the court. Mr. Brieger likely has a good reason why he wrote that he could not find me. Maybe Brenda Wong, Kathleen Lewis or Rhonda (support staff for Mr. Brieger) were assigned the duty but did not try very hard. None were working today, but all three left a message on their answer machines at the AG’s office: none were in the office or plan to be in the office for a while. I was unable to find out why Mr. Brieger said he could not reach me. I am very easy to find, by the way.
An Amicus Brief results from a third party, unrelated to the case, with a serious interest in supporting one side against the other addressing the court. I tried to get some of the big mining companies to write an Amicus Brief to present to the US Court of Appeals in our appeal with the US Secretary of Labor and MSHA. None seemed interested, even though the issue of a lead miner defined as management would throw the entire domestic mining industry into a tizzy. Fortunately, the Court upheld our position and overturned the Secretary of Labor and those nasty little minds at MSHA without the support of big mining companies.
What do we have here? What is going on? How did Mr. Brieger discover this case? Do you think he is an advocate of the mine or CDAA? Is there a connection between Mr. Brieger, CDAA, Gale Filter or Lloyds of London? I do not know him and neither does anyone associated with the mine, so his interest did not come from me. Now that the AG’s office is aware of the case it could be an invitation to us cite all the laws that were broken by the defendants and others associated with the case. for a review.
Klaus J. Kolb filed our Brief of Respondent Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc for the appeal of Tom Knox and his five customers yesterday. Words to tell you my thoughts are not readily forthcoming. Please spend time with the following brief yourself. I encourage you to print it and read it for its clarity, logical progression and above all how Klaus meets and addresses each and every claim raised in Tom Knox’s appeal to the Court. You will get the flavor of how Tom Knox presented his case to the appellate judges from how Klaus framed his argument.
It is an honor to be associated with a member of the California State Bar who has the background, education and personal ethics and integrity to practice law in our great state. Klaus was such a delight at the US Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If there are oral arguments in Sacramento for this anti-SLAPP motion, I will announce it.
With over 200,000 members of California’s State Bar, you and I know that the majority of these lawyers lack the professional characteristics we Californian should be demanding of them when they go before one of our Courts. Lawyers can lie to or mislead each other but, when they enter the courtroom, our statutes (those passed by the legislative branch) demand that they DO NOT MISLEAD THE COURT. I, along with you, anxiously wait for the day when we see some of these bar members brought before the Court and tried as lawbreakers. We may not have to wait much longer.
Please Access NEWS on this web site for another attorney’s view and position on CDAA and Gale Filter. While his client’s situation is different from ours, he raises some thought provoking issues. Many lawyers have lost faith in the integrity of their profession just as most Americans. One on one I am hearing more complaints by lawyers that fit the CDAA style of courtroom procedures. Next the person pauses and says, “It has been going on for a long time. How can it be stopped?” The option to clean up the courtroom is before all 200,000 members of the California State Bar Association with our lawsuit in Superior Court. Get involved. Spread the word about this Sierra County case. Where is the LA Times? Misleading a grand jury, misleading a judge, preempting the administrative process to prosecute Americans without evidential probable cause, private (non-government) lawyers wanting to be immune form illegal acts, lawyers infiltrating duly elected prosecutors as well as constitutional abuses (SLAPP), should be more interesting to LA Times readers than the deceiving front page article on the mine that was features a few years ago.
Please plough through the motion. Take some action. We need the public and the non-threatened lawyers to step up to the forefront of this battle.
If you need a refresher on this topic or any other. I recommend you go back to the first entry and read from first to last in order. Better yet, new lawyer lovers and lawyer haters, read the whole factual and proceedural entries dealing with the CDAA affair.
1.
Scenario entitled “Enforcement of Criminal Law Based Upon the Crime of an Officer of the Court Misleading a Judge”. It is a crime in California. Its enforcement and prosecution approach nil. Why?
2.
Misleading a sitting judge (court in session) is something more than a breach in the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics. What and which code covers this crime? Do ethics have a place in law anymore?
3.
The bad guys lawyer, Tom Knox, wrote and signed an appeal to the third court of appeals in Sacramento that fails the smell test for legal credibility. The Company’s brief is due on July 11, 2006. It is difficult to read because of its nonsense.
I am not a lawyer and do not approve of a professional code that abuses Californians’ trust in the sanctity of lawyer’s behavior. They are State Officers of the Court. It is our third branch of gonvernment and just as important to our freedom as the Executive and Legislative branches. Lawyers who commit perjury before a magistrate, lawyers who knowingly mislead a judge and lawyers who do not approve of these behaviors should speak out. They need to know that the stage is set to continue the game of words. This was how George described it, “Remember, it is a game of words”. We are expanding. I remember.
On January 18, 2005 the company received a Notice of Appeal, dated January 12, 2005. The defendants are requesting that the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Third Appellate District, toss out Judge Young’s denial of their Motion to Strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. It seems like a specious attempt to drag out time. Why would the defendants want to drag time? Why would Lloyds of London (insurer) want to drag time? Why would defendants’ lawyer want to drag time? It was not unexpected.
Tom Knox must prepare a brief for the Court of Appeals in which he must offer the reasons why Judge Young was mistaken. If the reasons are found to lack judicial substance, monetary consequences are possible. The abuses by everyone connected with defendants are under review with a high-powered microscope. I offer an opinion that this latest attempt to foil justice will meet the same ending as all the defendants’ prior maneuvers. It will be denied.
The company also received the defendants’ Verified Answer to Verified Third Amended Complaint for Damages. It is a boiler-plated denial of any wrongdoing. I am puzzled that Mr. Knox had each defendant verify that each defendant “was employed by the office of the District Attorney of Sierra County”. Not true and not possible according to CDAA’s contract with the State of California.
Tom Knox listed twelve affirmative defenses. Klaus (Sixteen to One attorney) found nothing unusual, pretty typical of insurance funded answers. I am glad they answered and not concerned with their assertions of denial. Number twelve is a fascinating twist by this group of outlaws (not my opinion). It is an “Indemnity and Contribution” defense, which says, “Should Defendants be found liable, it will be due to the activity, primary, culpable conduct on the part of Sierra County and the District Attorney for Sierra County, and Defendants shall accordingly be entitled to indemnity and contribution from those parties”. Can you see the hilarious dichotomy of this posturing? For months they proclaimed they were acting under the law as public prosecutors with the Carte Blanc protection of the government to protect them from violating the law. So what is this defense all about?
Finally, I must tell you about their sixth affirmative defense. Tom Knox tells the court that, “no relief may be obtained under the complaint by reason of the Doctrine of Unclean Hands”. This is another example of how the lawyers are using the courts to fight amongst themselves at the expense of the American public and a new one for me. According to Law.com, unclean hands is “a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had ‘unclean hands’, the complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment.” I know the factual circumstances of this case better than anyone and am pondering what the bad guys will cite as unethical behavior by plaintiffs.
Hi Michael:
The CDAA should know the Ghost Dance is still alive in Sierra County. Ah Dan
Chief Wovoka EarthwalkerWow, great article, I sure hope it plays out just as written. Any chance the Mine stock will go pubilc again? Wouldn’t that help to generate some capital?
An interesting report and forecast on the price of gold. Go to: http://www.kitco.com/ind/vaughn/jan052006.html
Since the Forum does not automatically create weblinks in the text when typed, highlight the web address (URL) above by holding down your left mouse button and drag the cursor across the web address. When the highlighting is complete, use your right mouse button and click on the highlighted area. A menu will appear. Using your left mouse button, select “Copy.” Move the cursor up to the “URL Bar” (web address bar) in your browser and with your right mouse button right click the current web address. A menu will appear. Select “Paste.” The new web address is inserted into the URL Bar. Hit the “Enter” button on your keyboard and there you are!
I’m sure that a lot of you already know how to do this however, I recently had a conversation with a forum user who did not know how to do this and was manualy typing the web address in. Remember, the right mouse button is your friend.Hi Mike:
You say you are refraining from calling the CDAA defendants carpetbaggers and bottom suckers etc. Does this mean that all us blokes have to do the same? These audacious scum bags come to Alleghany Days and brag to themselves in front of others that they are “going to get Miller”. After you take all of their money, I hope you have them thrown in jail.Jon,
Nice to learn where you are. If any of the lookers, who talked with us had bought into our plans at the Houston oil show, we all would be rolling in gold and profits from the increase in out share value. It seemed like a natural for oilmen to venture into the speculations of gold. The Middle East oil producers sure understand the relationship of gold and black gold. See if you can find some interest in Texas. It seems like a great time for some of those cowboys to become miners.
It appears that the 16 to 1 had anticipated what is currently happening in the energy and currency markets. Houston
ignored the now obvious…
There still may be time…Jon E. La Freniere
Your recent contributions on the Forum, by phone and by E-mail regarding our lawsuit are important. Your appreciations are appreciated. But equally important are your comments about how you see this activity. More and more readers are coming to the web site each week for the first time. Few will spend the time to go back and learn how the CDAA gang conducted the whole issue of the criminal prosecution and how we reacted to their obvious misuse of the law.
For a long time I was on the defense. This took a terrible toll on the company, its operation and me, both as President and as an individual. It consumed my time and thoughts every waking moment until February 13, 2003, when the case was tossed out of court. At that point the defense game ended. At that point there was no requirement to continue the game. After thinking about the damages both our company and I suffered, I chose for both of us to go on the offense, which we did by filing a cause of action, naming five defendants. Lloyds of London insures the bad guys for malpractice and bought a lawyer who chose to act as if his clients remained on the offense. It did not work. They lost every motion to get the case tossed. There will be a trial some day to determine two remaining issues, one being just how great were the damages to the owners of Original Sixteen to One Mine and Michael M. Miller.
We control the game. We can call it over any time. The bad guys cannot.
Now, specifically to the recent remarks on the FORUM. The case is not consuming my time at the expense of the Sixteen to One mine. I am able to research the law, plan strategies and play offense while keeping the mine operation to find gold alive. Law and the judicial branch of our government have been a life long hobby. I gave up golf. I no longer body surf in the Pacific Ocean. I avoid fishing and hunting. Unfortunately, my Harley and dulcimer are gathering dust. I do not have a television. I have the time and desire to play the game Mr. Tom Knox (the bad guys’ Sacramento mouth piece) and his defendants have chosen to play: bury the enemy in paper.
Our operation in Alleghany has suffered and continues to operate well below its potential. Pursuing a just outcome from the unjust behavior of a gang of lawyers who should have known better is not the reason we are under achieving right now. I believe that the facts surrounding our imprisonment must be adjudicated and will not cease moving this case to trial. Our gold operation is suffering because the person(s) with money and intent have not stepped forward to join what will be the greatest success story in the 21st century gold rush now underway.
I have been the “recipient” of awards as membet of a “class” in three class action suits. Two were against Providian; I did not realize that I’d been harmed….but the two checks, one for thirty seven cents and the other for two cents made me feel much better. The last was more recent. It seems that NetFlix had harmed me to the point that they had to offer me a free month of 5 movies at a time rather that just my usual three. I feel so vindicated. I am PROUD to be a shareholder, no matter how small, in a company run by people with principal and balls that Mike and his minions have shown.
Reading about our frustration from the lack of tangible production up in Allegany, I’ll agree, it sucks. Yeah frustrating as hell on wheels.
With the miles and miles and miles of drift, why isn’t it a no-brainer to foster a dedicated crew to go locate the next million-dollar pocket? Why is the president of this historically productive icon of hard-rock gold-quartz mining so involved in a court-room, instead of involved in sending a crew underground where all the gold is? Why, as some may ask, is he wasting time? Why, again from the same ones who ask the legitiment question, is he dallying in a bunch of legal crap, instead of rallying a crew, enticing an invesor base, putting forth a plan to extract the ultimate pocket? Why is Mike Miller, the president of our company, director of operations, spending his time in court, with endless motions and appeals and then more and more and then even more motions, instead of hiring more of a crew for Ian, the most competent hard-rock miner in all of the Allegany Disrict?Because it’s the right thing to do.
And, defeating the ones who would love nothing more than to take away the prospect, no-one could possibly propose the contrary. What would we have to look forward to, when there would be no mine?
Court cases, lawsuits and all that crap sucks. Remember, Mike Miller and the Original Sixteen to On Mine didn’t fire the first shot; in fact, instead, has done something that so many of our culture under assault by the massive public sector (or psuedo-public sector, aka CDAA) rarely has the balls to do….fight back.
Always fight back when its the right thing to do. You know when its the right thing to do when its the truth. This, of course, takes patience.
Mike,
Thanks so much for your trip to Elko and your wonderful presentation you gave to us in Elko at our WUMA meeting. It was great for me personally to see who all turned out. As for me, who works at Queenstake Resources here, almost all of our geologists and engineers showed up! I also saw many people who I have not seen in such a long time. The Sixteen to One I know holds a facination for a lot of people here. For many different reasons. I wish you the best of luck and you are welcome any time here! I hope to see you at the Mine Expo this June. With gold prices the way they are, I would expect it to be a record year. Please contact me for more information. Thanks again!
Samantha Dutton
Vice President
Western Underground Mining Association.Hey Mr. Yuma,
You are right about Ian. He was seated when I stopped by the mine shop. He was upstairs in the new office working on some maps. Think it had to do with a second exit map to go to MSHA. Later his small crew decided on their best shot for high grade, which is where they are working right now. Can you think of any place except the Sixteen to One mine where a small crew have the potential to mine $500,000 to $1 million in a single shift? What an opportunity for someone who is not in the gold game to hit the jackpot.
IMPORTANT NEWS FLASH
“Victory for Truth”The State of California’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board issued the following order on December 1, 2005:
On November 10, 2005, the Division and Employer submitted to the Appeals Board a written motion entitled “Stipulation of Parties and Motion to Board to Approve Same,” which, by mutual agreement of the Division and Employer, disposes of all the contested issues on appeal. The written motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Appeals Board hereby grants the written motion of the parties, thereby disposing of the instant appeal as set forth in the motion. Because no other issues remain on appeal, this proceeding is hereby closed.
Candice A. Traeger, Chairwoman
Marcy V. Saunders, MemberThe contested citations were issued after the tragic accident that took the life of miner Mark Fussell on November 6, 2000. One citation alleges that, “the 1 ½ ton Mancha battery operated locomotive had a defective speed controller and was not removed from service.” One citation alleges that, “no warning device was installed on an overhead chute that restricted clearance.” Both allegations were considered as accident related, especially the later, which was considered as “Serious Accident Related.”
The first citation is withdrawn by the Division on the ground there is insufficient evidence to sustain the Division’s burden of proof that the speed controller on the locomotive was defective prior to the accident or whether the defect was caused by the accident. The second citation is reclassified to “Serious Non Accident” related. “The Employer Appellant has provided new evidence to the Division indicating that the cause of the accident was not the failure to have the chute marked but was the fact that the victim was distracted by another miner and by personal problems that caused him to be inattentive just prior to the incident. The Employer contends that the incident would have occurred regardless of whether or not the chute was marked or if warning devices were in place since the employee was not looking at the chute or in its vicinity just prior to the accident and consequently would not have seen markings on the chute or other possible warnings of the restricted area caused by the chute.”
There you have it. All the information was available to CDAA prior to its ill-conceived assault on the mine and its employees. The administration process in California was preempted by the private lawyers now defendants in a civil action for damages.
I can tell you, since I was there yesterday. Nothing is going on. Ian, who we all know and respect, is sitting on his ass waiting for someone to show up for work so he can chase a target on the 800 level south of the Tightner shaft.
You are correct. The time for serious gold mining programs is at hand. The rapid rise in the commodity price or the price of storing ones wealth surprised me. Lee Erdahl, a retired director, used to respond to the question of gold’s price situation was, “ It could go up some more or it could go down.” His fundamental position (he was a director of Freeport Gold and a past President of a great small gold corporation) was to leave the market speculation to others. The possibilities to make money or lose money in gold should be with us for more than a couple of years.
You are correct. The operation has little cash to expand its operation into the area it has determined is the most lucrative. Obtaining the working capital with an eye to the long range interests of the Company is my focus. We have assets to liquidate for no short term downside; however they will have far greater value to our Company in the long run than they would sell for now. During our managements recent discussions about the financial dilemma we face, a proposal floated to the top. It will please current shareholders and it provides significant gold returns to newcomers. If you are a shareholder and want a copy of the proposal e-mailed or regular mailed to you, e-mail corp @origsix.com.
This recent surge in mining interests deserves a topic heading!
(I realize right now there is a small crew…and that money’s super tight…)
We’re starved for even a hint of news, such as how walking in the 1621 adit makes the heart skip because of prospect, not necessarily results!
The S.F. Gold Conference on Sunday and Monday was a mob scene of people wanting to invest in gold exploration and mining companies, all with a wish and a hope. With gold over $500/oz it is time to cash up
Looking for some gold on 800 level south of Tightner Shaft and rain. How was the gold show in San Francisco? Are the exploration guys spinning their tales?
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.