November 20, 2017 
 Monday 
 
 

Forum
Topic:
CDAA Conduct

       

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 ]

 By Michael Miller

01/30/2009  4:04PM

ANOTHER 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.
 By Michael Miller

01/28/2008  12:21PM

Re: Miller, et al. v. Filter, et al., Sierra County Case No. 6293;
Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees

On 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.















 By Rick

12/30/2007  8:03PM

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.
 By martin newkom

12/28/2007  9:44PM

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.
 By Michael Miller

12/28/2007  1:59PM

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,
Michael

ANSWER

Absolutely. It would be great to see it included. Enjoy the new year.
XXX

INITIAL 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).
 By martin newkom

12/10/2007  11:21AM

Just consider utilizing some
citizenry "power". I don't
want to be anymore specific
than that.
 By Rick

12/08/2007  8:04PM

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.
 By martin newkom

12/03/2007  12:55PM

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.
 By Rockroby

12/02/2007  12:22PM

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.
 By Rick

12/01/2007  8:41PM

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.
 By martin newkom

12/01/2007  7:30AM

Excessive award. Negotiate,ie
Make a deal.
 By SCOOP

11/30/2007  12:24PM

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.
 By martin newkom

10/21/2007  10:09AM

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.
 By Michael Miller

10/19/2007  2:21PM

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 Mine
 By Rick

09/03/2007  9:15PM

Hey 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.
 By Michael Miller

08/31/2007  4:20PM


August 31, 2007

Thomas S Knox
Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, LLP
One Capitol Mall, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814-3229

Re: 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
 By Rick

08/14/2007  9:42PM

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.
 By Maverick

08/14/2007  4:50PM

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
 By martin newkom

08/14/2007  7:16AM

Pure political raunch, not
ranch but RAUNCH!
 By Michael Miller

08/13/2007  9:54AM

In the Supreme Court of California
En Banc
Michael M. Miller, et al,. Plaintiffs and Respondents
v.
Gale Filter, Defendant and Appellant

The petitions for review are denied
Filed Aug –8 2007
Frederick K. Ohirich Clerk

George
Chief Justice

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 ]

 

  
 
© 2017 Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.
PO Box 909
Alleghany, California 95910
 

Phone:   
Fax:
E-mail:
 
(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455
corp@origsix.com
 

      Gold Sales:  


(530) 287-3540

goldsales@origsix.com
 



Design & development by
L. Kenez