Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
cowboy444

2nd Appearance in Court

I made my second appearance in court on August 15th. My Lawyer asked for an additional 3 weeks delay so he can file a "Demurrer" with the court. I'll be back in court on Sept. 5th to make my plea. He told the judge that he needed extra time because the laws contradict themselves and he's having a hard time getting a straight direction to follow. Imagine that!! And they expect us to adhere to the letter of the law when a Lawyer gets lost in all their hogwash.

Hopefully we can get a court date and get on with this nonsense.

For those of you who don't know, I was cited X2 by the Oregon State Police for polluting when I dredged in the Rogue River. The second citation was for not having the NPDES 700 PM permit which is a permit to operate a waste disposal plant.

I'll keep you updated as it happens.

cowboy444
beebarjay

Now if I can remember where I have it filed on my other computer there is a recent decision by the 9th that in water movement of material by a dredge is NOT polluting, unless the material being moved is taken from outside the normal water flow. It defines the intake and discharge as "NOT" pollution.

I know Boxy has it handy and I will have to get on my other computer to find it.

bejay
NCrossman

cowboy444.  I understand your position about wanting a court date already.

700 PM permit huh?  Ok... all I gotta say is ah, shit! (sorry couldn't resist)  Seriously though these people don't even know their own permits and what they are issued for?  You are mineral exploring in a river... not a poo pond!!!

Anyway, good luck and keep us posted..
beebarjay

beebarjay wrote:
Now if I can remember where I have it filed on my other computer there is a recent decision by the 9th that in water movement of material by a dredge is NOT polluting, unless the material being moved is taken from outside the normal water flow. It defines the intake and discharge as "NOT" pollution.

I know Boxy has it handy and I will have to get on my other computer to find it.

bejay


It was not the 9th but rather the supreme court.

"The South Florida Water management District v Miccosukee Tribe of Indians"

Is dredge discharcharge into a water system a pollutant thus requiring a DEQ or Clean Water Act special permit?

Justice Sandra Day O'Connors majority courts opionion rendered a position that tends to support that dredge discharge is not a pollutant.

The opinion stated that the discharge turbidity is likened to a pot of soup: "If one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not 'added' anything else to the pot".


This may be of help.  I doubt if it would hurt to bring forth the decision.

bejay
cowboy444

Thanks, Bejay.
I have e-mailed this to my Lawyer. I'll be back in court on Sept 6th to make a plea. I'll post again when I know what's going on.

cowboy444
NCrossman

At least your Lawyer lets you email him. Mine told me I couldn't use his email without his permission.  Lol...

But I have booked marked this so if this comes up in my future, I will have it.

Good luck cowboy444
BigAl

The Soup Pot comes from the second circuit, Trout Unlimited case, it was quoted by the Supreme Court, IN any case, both cases definitely trump the pollution citation. Thanks Beebarjay, and everyone else that is helping us take back our trampled upon rights. Big Al

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home