November 21, 2017 
 Tuesday 
 
 

Forum
Topic:
CDAA Conduct

       

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

 By bluejay

05/17/2007  3:14PM

To the Board of Directors:

Now that your quest to sue the CDAA has failed, how much will that decision be costing the shareholders?
 By Michael Miller

05/04/2007  11:57AM

We received the Oral Argument in Miller et al v. Filter et al., Case # C051696 at the Court of Appeal Third Appellate District. If you would like to hear the session, contact us by e-mail, phone or letter. All the addresses or numbers are on this web site. There is no cost for this CD.

I just listened to the CD. If you know nothing about the facts of this suit, the concept of absolute immunity, the purpose of the anti-SLAPP legislation or the state of the judicial system in California or the United States, you may be bored, confused, angry, disappointed or reassured in your beliefs about the law and those we have officially allowed to practice it as “Officers of the Court”.

The normal time allowed for oral argument is fifteen minutes. Klaus asked the Court for an additional ten minutes, which was granted. He had a lot of information to provide the Court that had occurred after the written briefs were submitted. It is noteworthy that Klaus was interrupted at least 48 times by the panel of judges. It is even more noteworthy that the judges spoke for about fifteen minutes in presenting either their questions or expressing their opinions.

If you know much about the case as I do as do others, you will arrive at some conclusions about this panel of judges. It is noteworthy that the presiding justice, Arthur G. Scotland said, “we are governed by statute” (between 36:28 and 37:47). I look forward to the written decision.

Your comments are welcomed in the FORUM or sent to me.
 By martin newkom

04/19/2007  9:50AM

Be mindful that the prosecutor
back east (Duke lacross) is
now "on the carpet" with his
state bar because of his conduct. 16-1 had a very fine
trial judge (Young) and will
get a fair shake at Calapp3.
 By Michael Miller

04/18/2007  11:11PM

AN AMERICAN MYTH

At some point in our history the criminal prosecution industry convinced legislators that for prosecutors to perform their duty, they need a cover of protection. This cover of protection evolved into what is now called “absolute immunity”. The rational for this very unusual social protection is grounded in the theory that prosecutors must be completely shielded from accountability for their mistakes, illegal behavior and all other real or alleged behavior during the course of executing their job. All of this is necessary, as advocates proclaimed, in order to serve the public interest. The time has come, no the time is long overdue, to toss this fallacious and cavalier position that law breaking lawyers or even malicious lawyers are shielded from the abuses they cause their victims

Will the three-judge panel continue to perpetuate the myth or will they render a decision that truly is in the public’s best interest? Perhaps we will know soon. Not only will the judges abide illegal behavior with a verdict against Original Sixteen to One Mine, they will emasculate the decision from one of their fellow judges most familiar with the case in Sierra County. No other member of the California State Bar or former members in the courtroom (and there were five) judged the facts, the law or the evidence, as did Superior Court Judge Stanley Young. He made the right decision. He said that the defendants did not meet the threshold necessary to prevail in an anti-SLAPP motion. He denied the motion.

Sacramento: 2pm.
The State appellate Court is on the South side of a circle and west of the State capitol building. The courtroom has low light and plenty of well-preserved wood. It is a friendly courtroom, not the least bit intimidating. It also is somewhat circular. The judges are elevated and the advocates sit at a long table with a podium between them. The public has access to about thirty chairs that are also in a half moon shape. Metal detectors and armed patrolmen are at the entrance. Once court is called into session, an armed guard sits close to the panel. God bless America. What a judicial legacy we are leaving our children!

As I looked around the room I counted twenty-five people: twenty came in support of the mine’s position, one was a newspaper journalist and the rest were participants in the next case or students watching the system at work. We were the first case scheduled, right about 2pm. Klaus Kolb represented Original Sixteen to One Mine and Tom Knox represented the appellant. Mr. Knox went first. After the session I learned that I was not the only one who could not hear or understand his statements. A shareholder sitting on the right front side said he could not hear him and there was a recording device with a volume monitor that barely moved. He offered nothing new beyond the words in his brief. The judges questioned him but most of us later could only comment on his body language not the content of his words.

When Klaus got up to speak, everyone in the room could hear him. That simple conduct helped us and honored our effort to make the trip to Sacramento. Everyone drove a long way to see the system at work. One thing stood out for everyone. Klaus lost a significant amount of his time by lengthy and somewhat unnecessary questions by the judges. Therefore, Klaus spent much of his time responding and was unable to present the new responses he prepared after Mr. Knox slammed the Court with a bunch of cases in his last brief. Few if any of the points of Knox’s last brief were on point with our case. I hope the judges have hired smart and energetic clerks to read the cases.

The people in the room were really interesting to me. I drove down with two directors and the owner/publisher of the Mountain Messenger. George Gilmour’s wife and George’s life long friend and confidant drove up from Richmond and Sonoma. Shareholders and other mine owners were sprinkled around the room. Our great advocate at the hearing in January 2003, Tom Crary drove down from Colfax (See web-site “NEWS” 04/02/2003). He may have been the most experienced lawyer in the courtroom, having been a deputy district attorney in San Francisco at one time in his career. After the session he offered some insight for the hoard of us milling around on the courthouse steps. When parties or interested supporters of a party leave a courtroom hearing, a couple of things take place almost every time. We all stand around and ask, “What happened in there? Who won?’’

Tom pointed out and we all agreed that Klaus was able to get in the record our unanimous position that the anti-SLAPP motion was an improper motion. No one felt completely comfortable in speculating how the decision would go. As a high-grade gold miner I suggested we would prevail because one judge said that the appellate court must follow the law. At least my raw optimism brought a laugh. It is an uncontested fact that there is no written appointment on record in Sierra County. It is required by the State legislature! Defendants were not appointed according the law. My optimism is probably in the minority. Others felt that the judges might opt to keep absolute immunity, unfettered by the individual facts of our case. (You know, for the public good.) Hog wash! Law breaking prosecutors do not serve the public, and if Californians choose to allow this to happen, politicians continue to control the judicial branch of our government. Anyway, and this must always stay at the front of the discussion, IMMUNITY IS NOT THE ISSUE. Mr. Knox is very clever to shift his defense to a broad absolute immunity approach, which is not the issue. My position is this: if Californians know the legal abuses (provable in our case,) that exist in our state in the twenty-first century, they will demand a change. I’m not willing to wager a bet on this decision but I will wager that change is in the wind.
 By Rick

04/18/2007  8:01PM

I guess I'm the initial, not by design, but because all of us are right now sorting things out in our heads. I'll wait a while to pontificate, as it's out of our hands now and into the honor of the courts to figure.

Klaus, you have stepped to the plate, along with truth and honor and intent of the law. Your (our) position never swayed from the intent of the Constitution. Passion is the ally of truth, and you stood up with truth behind you.

Right now, we're all digesting the gravity of the setting. Heavy-duty. Many questions within the boundaries of intent and procedure. Klaus held to the principals of the case, my personal pride: in short, true Constitutional authority and the administration of true Constitutional authority.

Mostly, I was struck by the burden of proof today...it seemed to be placed upon Klaus, rather than the CDAA, the appellants.

Who was appealing today?
 By Michael Miller

04/18/2007  9:31AM

I’ll be leaving Alleghany soon, destination Sacramento and the Court of Appeals. My truck will have a full load with fellow directors and a journalist. A dozen people have plans to attend the oral arguments. Even with nothing to do today, I still have those butterflies of apprehension.

Klaus called last night. He is ready but continues to spend time on the cases Tom Knox lists as evidence supporting his pleadings. Most are not on point. The defendants’ strategy from the beginning has been to bury us in paper. Klaus has the integrity, education and judicial righteousness to go far in his profession. Never have we discussed a tactic or strategy that is unlawful, immoral or beyond the behavior one would expect from officers of the Court.

I brought Klaus up to date on my recent activities. You may as well know too because all aspects of this case must become public for public outrage necessary to change illegal practices of certain lawyers. America has had enough! It costs the country a fortune in every segment of our economy.

The Amicus Brief filed by my Attorney General really irritated me. It supports law-breaking behavior. It defies common sense and is a major breach of legal ethics by our elected leader. Mr. Lockyer. Perhaps he was not aware of the actions by his subordinates. Someone associated with the defendants may have coerced actions. Nevertheless, the AG’s review of the facts was shoddy or at least superficial. Each and every person who signed off on this brief is responsible for its conclusion. With this in mind, I set forth a plan in November 2006 to have the Amicus Brief withdrawn. Jerry Brown would take office in January. He must become aware of this case. The responsibility is now his; however, if he does not know that the amicus brief was filed, his responsibility is diminished. I took steps to inform him and they were successful. I waited and waited to hear from the AG’ office. Nothing. I admire Jerry Brown. He went to Jesuit school with George. Politically, the Amicus Brief is on the wrong side and Jerry Brown knows politics. What’s next?

Monday I set out to contact the highest officials in the AG’s office. I started with Jerry Brown. I talked with his secretary in Oakland, laid out my position and detailed why the AG should get involved. She understood and would respond. During the process of finding the highest people, I talked with Manny Maderar’s secretary. After pouring out the reasons for the AG’s office to pull the Amicus Brief and potential consequences of the highest public officers of the Court sanctioning serious law breaking lawyers claiming its “in the public’s best interest”, I asked her to have Mr. Maderar phone me. Well. a short time later he did just that.

It was a great discussion. We actually discussed the brief and the case. He pulled up our web site and we discussed the language of the brief and other points. Mr Maderar is the State Solicitor General and one of his duties is to approve all Amicus Briefs. I told him that I was sad that my attorney general would side with these defendants. The situation in North Carolina was discussed. He didn’t know what he could do at this time. I said that he could pull the brief and that each and every top executive has the responsibility to take an action immediately upon learning that a prior decision was incorrect. He said, “Well. I guess I have some reading to do.” We will know later today his decision.

The Judges will not rule today. We can expect a decision in thirty days or so.
 By martin newkom

04/16/2007  9:49AM

More than 20 yrs. ago I was a
public member in the State Bar
Court along with two attys. from Auburn. We had a case
brought by the State Bar against a rather well known
shyster lawyer from Grass Valley. After 4 days of hearings we found against the
lawyer on the 12 counts brought.We unaminously voted for disbarment.After at least 5
years of review and discipline
the illustrious officer of the
court DID get disbarred! What
a system!
 By bluejay

04/15/2007  8:11PM

Rick

Excellent input!

These power abusing scum bags need to be brought to justice.

I once heard from a former DA that the reason that some of the DA's lie and deceive is to compete with the criminals who also lie and deceive. When the DA's start acquiring criminal behavior and start applying it to non-criminals they become the criminals themselves and the circle is complete.

If I were in charge I would submit all DA's to periodical psychological review to determine if they were still fit to serve the people.

I have personal experience with a current senior DA who likes to steal from a family trust. He is able to do this only because his 88 year old mother continues to have confidence in him and she is too old to understrand the facts.

Rick, these guys also do senior abuse.

The justice system is not meant to be a good old boy's club for the select few who know how to break the law and get away with it the best.
 By Rick

04/15/2007  10:00AM

As Klaus once again presents the truth this coming Wednesday in the long-overdue exposure of the CDAA's vigilante attempted lynching of law-abiding citizens and their attempt to derail a legitimate business for political advantage, an obvious OUTRAGEOUS fact remains staring us all in the face:

There is no question on either side that the CDAA cheated in court, in the Grand Jury, because their entire appeal is based not on pretending they didn't cheat, but that they were ALLOWED to mislead the Grand Jury because they claim immunity from any resultant attempt to expose them.

WHAT? Let me try that again, paraphrasing as if I were a CDAA lawyer, presenting the ground for appeal:

"Okay, we left out exculpatory evidence in charging the mine and Mike Miller and Johnathon Farrell with manslaughter, and yeah, the case was tossed out as soon as they protested, and yeah, their reputations were tarnished, and okay, yeah, the mine lost millions of dollars while they exposed what we did, and okay, potential investors shied away while all this is sorted out...So what! We thought we could get away with it...didn't, but that's beside the point...and just try to hold us accountable. Here's why....."

The complete audacity is beyond comprehension. We're currently living in a climate in this country where a mere allegation carries clout, not evidence, convicting innocence pre-tial with politics (aka Duke's lacrosse team), and even when exposed these OUTRAGEOUS actions seem to be swept under the rug. Because they were immune?

There is no question that public, legally deputized and elected D.A.s should have the tools they need to prosecute alleged criminals, within the boundaries of law and Constitutional authority. How can criminal CDAA lawyers suggest that they can operate outside the bounds of law and Constitutional authority? Because they pretend to have immunity??? This should be a RED FLAG to all sitting D.A.s and A.G.s...the CDAA's posture undermines this given authority, the very life-line of law enforcement.

Where is the OUTRAGE? I am a citizen and believe that the Original Sixteen to One Mine's decision to expose this illegal vigilante action is not only an action to provide justice and retribution to the mine and Mike Miller, but represents my OUTRAGE AS A CITIZEN and should prevail in the US Court of Appeals.

I plan on being there.
 By martin newkom

04/14/2007  8:40AM

With reference to the pending
case, all attys on the pro-
secution side including the
former DA, all CDAA's, excepting the current Sierra Co. DA deserve some sort of punishment, and if they continue the same mode of
tactic in similar cases, they
deserve to suspension from
law practice.
 By Michael Miller

04/11/2007  3:52PM

The average American rarely experiences the importance of the judicial process in a free society. I am an average American and am relying on the integrity of California’s second highest court in the upcoming appeal of the defendants in our lawsuit. Following will be entries in a new topic on a subject that began in November 2000. Your input is welcomed, or you can sit back and watch the process continue.

Lawyers believe they can use any tactic to benefit their client; however the legislature and the State Bar have placed restrictions on abusing or misleading the Court. What is not happening in America today is punishment for serious breaches in lawyers’ behavior towards the Court. Let’s hope the Appeal scheduled for April 18, 2007 at 2pm in Sacramento will fail as all other motions have failed that were brought before the Court by this unscrupulous group.


April 10, 2007

Dear Klaus,

Following are my comments on the five documents generated by the anti-SLAPP appeal. I read them in order, which is what you suggested. Some of my observations were covered in later filings. I look forward to April 18 as a response to a necessary but non-defendable action by Tom Knox on behalf of his clients. I encourage you to use a moment of your precious time before the Court to seek sanctions and damages for misusing the law. Otherwise, I have nothing new to suggest. My friends agree that this motion insults the integrity of the judicial system. It is seen as ruse to buy time and drive up expenses.
Best wishes, Mike

1. The Introduction in appellants opening brief misstates the case in second paragraph; it describes “this case” as “prosecuting a criminal case openly and publicly”. Not so. Used the public shield of the Grand Jury.

2. Introduction says, “with the express authorization of the elected DA”. Is this an assertion of fact that should be judged in a trial? The only suggested authorization is in a letter by me to O’Sullivan, which I wrote before obtaining a copy of the CDAA contract. She wrote me back on July 18, saying “As you know I am not the prosecutor of record on this case and therefore, I will not be discussing this case with you.” On August 28, 2002 I wrote her after studying the contract. Michael Mason from DPR wrote O’Sullivan that CDAA would be presenting the case to her. Minor stuff but goes to the point that defense is misstating the facts in subtle ways to gain the privilege of immunity. There are no letters signed by DA authorizing the bad guys to prosecute in Sierra County.

Last paragraph on page 1 presents the appellant court with a representation that the “four natural Appellants were experienced prosecutors”. Not so with Denise, as Filter tells Sierra County Grand Jury that she is new and a rising star. She was a new member of the State Bar with no prosecution experience.

These may seem on their face trivial points. Not so because this properly identifies the approach the defense has taken from the very beginning of the case. These are purposeful examples of misleading the court. This is how they decided to defend the case.

Page 2 (1). O’Sullivan’s “acting in response to a report from Cal OSHA” is backwards from the language of contract between DPR and CDAA. She is supposed to ask for help. She never did.

(2). Larry Allen did not agree to dismiss the charges. Judge Young granted the motion to set aside the indictment. Allen decided not to refile. Subtle but important.

Page 3
1. Knox validated the motion before the appeals court saying it “arose out of protected constitutional activity.” Has he ever specifically identified which clause in our constitution? This is something you know better than I; however all readers of this case cannot understand how an anti-SLAPP motion applies. Also, you should ask for sanctions so we can recover the costs of this frivolous motion.


Page 4. Knox relies on two points where Young was wrong: prosecution was illegal by law. Therefore, Knox must provide facts to support that CDAA was legal. I don’t know what they are. Second he must prove that CDAA is entitled to immunity and they established a likelihood of prevailing on their claims.

Page 4. Paragraph starting “Appellant’s”… what is the relevance that motion “was undertaken in furtherance of right of petition”?

Page 6 in Knox’s statement of facts, he says that DA may request assistance. No evidence that O’Sullivan requested help. The facts continue to page 9 where it is presented O’Sullivan appointed etc; however there is no record of an appointment. It’s his clients’ statement. It is odd that Knox supports his “evidence” by saying on Page 11 that O’Sullivan directed and authorized Ms Mejlszenkier. See her letter to me where she (O’Sullivan) said she had nothing to do with this case, corroborated by Don Russell statement.

Klaus, they are making up a defense and the judges need to know how Knox is proceeding with his defense. .

On page 2 of Young’s decision to toss the motion (line 11 to 14) defendants did not prove their first burden. Young further says that even if they passed first test, they failed second test.

Beginning on Page 13, Knox begins a line of attack that somehow Michael Miller by his letters has authorized the CDAA defendants to be DA’s. Ridiculous but an important note is that the July 9, 2002 letter and all correspondence up to August 28 was before I read the contract between CDAA and State of California. More importantly Michael Miller runs a mining company and is not a lawyer. He had no idea that the California legislature passed a set of requirements that private lawyers must perform to act as government prosecutors. Interestingly, CDAA presents itself as great teachers and aids to county district attorneys. They should have been aware of the law. There are no excuses for taking shortcuts on procedures of appointment. Interestingly, they did it the right way in Yolo County and other counties (certified proper appointments are part of the record). Perhaps procedures were not followed in Sierra County because the sitting DA did not appointment them and was never around. Whether it was her incompetence or some other reason, CDAA should have had the knowledge and experience to make sure it was done legally. Judge Young is clear in his December 1, 2005 ruling that: “defendants rely on their own declarations and their own admissions …. Page 3, L 26 on.

Again on Page 18 near top, Knox claims that On Feb 13, 2003 DA Allen agreed to dismiss. This is completely and unequivocally a lie. Allen made two newspaper quotes after that day. The first said he would review the case and Young’s decision. Don Russell talked with him after a number of people exploded. Days later he decided not to refile. Since Knox repeats this twice and it is provable false, it must be a big deal in his appeal.

Page 19. Probably not important to judges but Knox tries to validate Sierra County involvement by citing my claim to county for damages, saying it proves “implicit” position. No way, it was a strategy to keep option open for negotiations. Attorney/client privilege.

The rest of the opening brief is word-crap disguised in poor legal logic. I’m going to your reply now.

I still believe that the notion that an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss is beyond the legislative intent on the law passed by the Assembly and Senate, and is, if not a central issue, an issue of abuse that these judges must consider.

Klaus, I read your reply and cannot find anything to bring up that we have not discussed.

Appellant’s Reply Brief

1. This is a criminal case under discussion, not an Administrative Procedures Act. Comparison fails. (page 14). Criminal cases have a higher standard than administrative law.

2. Page 2-bottom first paragraph. Knox tells court that our case is not grounded in CDAA’s prosecution. On page 24, thrust of claim is unlawful assumption of power. Knox cites your brief, page 35 and wrongly tells court that prosecution is not the issue. You write that they cloaked themselves …to bring unwarranted criminal charges ie. PROSECUTION!!! Just another example of Knox distorting what others say. Must we point these ongoing misstatements to the judges? My take on all this is that Knox probably with his clients input has seized a motion that does not apply with the facts of the case for an appeal. It is a last unethical gasp from a sinking group of lawyers who continue to take the law into their own hands for their own personal benefit. If I were a judge on this case, I would sanction their behavior in my courtroom.

3. Whoever wrote this either has a very poor grasp of the English language or is purposely writing to confuse the reader. Clarity is not present and it is difficult to offer comments. Page 2. When he challenges our position that the anti-SLAPP does not apply, what is he telling the judges with the following: Respondents assert that the anti-SLAPP statue does not apply because any conduct by Appellants otherwise falling within the ambit of the statute is merely incidental to the true basis for Respondents’ complaint. Ambit is a boundary or extent. So what is the relevance or purpose of the writer to tell the judges this opinion? If it has one or the other, maybe it needs to be addressed.

4. Klaus, You asked me to read in order the filings again. I want to puke. Who signed this brief, anyway? Oh, Tom Knox signed it. Page 2. “But Respondents ignore the policy undergirding the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.” He refers the reader to page 30. par IV.A. He says our position “flies in the face of reason and offends common sense.” He says it is okay, to break the law in appointments and that the word employee means anyone an official wants to recognize. He must take points from a case he cites and massages it to fit his contrived theories. From his choice of words, I get the feeling that Knox is writing an English 1A paper instead of a serious argument to some very serious judges in a very serious case. Page 31 has caps and bold print: Prosecutorial Immunity Does Not Depend on Who Signs the Paycheck. The game of law is a game of words just as George would remind me. When words are meaningful, their meanings should not be challenged. “It depends on the definition of is”, comes to mind. Well-established definitions, such as those for “employee” do not need a bunch of court cases to define. I doubt that the Attorney General spent the time required to take any position in his Amicus Brief. His lack of attention is no excuse. He has taken the wrong side for what is best for the California public, which he is entrusted to protect. Knox opines that our case threatens the very basis of immunity. Bunk! He tells the judges that our case “would eviscerate the authority otherwise enjoyed by DA’s to appoint such deputies.” There is no evidence or do we offer a case for this to happen. No evisceration will take place here. Do the judges need to hear this from you?

He cited White v. Towers (1951). The Court said: “the doctrine of immunity is not for the benefit of the few who might otherwise be compelled to respond in damages. It is for the benefit of all to whom it applies, that they may be free to act in the exercise of honest judgment, uninfluenced by fear of consequences personal to themselves. This again is not for their personal advantage or benefit. It is only that they may be enabled to render a better public service.” Key words or meanings: honest judgment, not for personal advantage or benefit, render a better public service. Filter and his fellow carpetbaggers judgment is provably not honest. Reading the Grand Jury transcript is proof.
They needed cases to get more money for a contract extension and none of the defendants’ actions rendered public service to Sierra County residents or Californians.

Fortunately, the Duke lacrosse prosecutor was exposed. Our case, however, is more serious. We are in the position to help the Court system to clean itself from dishonest players or those who break the law by telling lawyers there are consequences. I hope the Court will see that the White v. Towers case as defined by Knox does not apply to our situation. It is too broad an application, but what does a guy do when his hand is in the cookie jar and he has no defense.

Knox tells the judges that his clients met the threshold of “substantial compliance” with the oath and a public record was provided. The appointment is the key because the appointer must be an elected district attorney. This would be the only recourse the public has to terminate dishonest, illegal or harmful prosecutions. It is called the Recall. Public notice is one reason the legislature codified a procedure. Others are accountability and responsibility.

Knox raises the de facto excuse, saying on page 14 that appellants were at least de facto deputies. He lists five reasons why Flatley and Paul for Council do not apply. Number four is “exercising the function of that office lawfully. Well, none were lawfully appointed. Also and most importantly they were not “exercising their functions lawfully and with the acquiescence of the public”. (Page 16). Bunker Hill case. This is what the Supreme Court described as the application of the de facto doctrine. Well, Klaus, they were not functioning lawfully by withholding exculpatory evidence and the public did complain about their behavior. I was not the only one to complain. At bottom of page 16 Knox uses the words, “uncontradicted evidence”. How can the judges believe Knox as to his claim of meeting the requirement of exercising the function of the office? The Sierra County DA, the Sierra County Sheriff. The federal MSHA inspectors and the state CAL/OSHA inspectors functioned as investigators and prosecutors to determine that there were no criminal activities surrounding Mark Fussell’s tragic accident.

I think that somehow the Court should be informed about the purposeful misrepresentations this defense consistently uses. Maybe contemporary lawyers have accepted this behavior, but it certainly is frowned upon by the public and the Courts. If we show the judges how much and often this ploy is used, it may be of value. Let me know and we will set out to find more.

AMICUS BRIEF

In the statement of interest the AG defends this brief by a general suggestion that it is in the public interest. Everything about this brief is so general that I find it insults the office. If there ever was a time to a movement by prosecutors, it is now and with this case, not the anti-SLAPP motion. My biggest question is where does the AG believe that Judge Young went wrong with his decision? Judge Young heard the whole case and he is the one whose job it is to protect the public as well as individuals. He did. This brief mentions “neutrality”. The AG was not neutral. The defendants were not neutral when they lied to a grand jury and also broke the law. These guys were not “principled and fearless decision-makers as the AG cites in Imbler v. Pachtman. I could turn his case evidence to our side. Here is an example.

Page 4. Gregoire v. Biddle (1949). The California Supreme Court position that absolute immunity is absolute and is “grounded on principles of public policy”. The AG picks the following language to make his point. “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.” Wow!!

Gayle Filter, according to an internal memo from co-defendant (Denise) knew that his case had no probable cause. We also know that Filter was lobbying for more money from CDAA papers and needing to prove the value of getting taxpayer money for his personal use. Where is the public benefit from putting a hundred year old company out of business and putting its management in prison?

This gang was not public employees or public servants as the AG states are the reasons for taking their side. When the AG yaps about the general claims of immunity that are applicable, he never says the individuals who break the law are immune. He completely shows his ignorance of the facts of the grand jury proceedings. He says that Judge Young “ignored the core of immunity analysis.” Judge Young dealt with an anti-SLAPP motion and his decision is clear as to why he denied the motion. He makes no stab to enlighten the Court about particular misdeeds by Judge Young. As an aside, I have had occasions to interview many people connected with State government about the work CDAA has offered them. Some and I am sure not all CDAA employees use flattery, their expense account or intimidation at times to get their way. In the AG’s conclusion he writes, “a technicality must yield to the robust public policy favoring prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors must be free to fearlessly enforce the law on the public’s behalf.”

You have my correspondences about the Mr. Lockyer’s office, so nothing more to add.

Last paper to read is your answer to Amicus Brief. Well done. I wish I could add something. We already discussed the input from a former director. Phew! I’m done.
 By martin newkom

04/03/2007  6:29PM

Michael M. Miller should be re-
cognized as not only a top notch mine CEO but also as a
top notch entrepenuer. That's
just what it takes to keep a bit of history going and viable. Cheers!!
 By Michael Miller

01/15/2007  9:10PM

Rick and Bluejay, thanks for your views. My turn now.

I also am in the business world, dealing with a cornucopia of issues and events in the fields of gold production, environment, public-reporting companies in an American market and global economic powers. I possess no illusions about how insignificant the gold mines of Original Sixteen to One Mine are perceived. But, are they? My goals are very simple: find and sell gold in order to issue an in-kind gold dividend or distribute profits in dollars. I want physical gold in my possession and believe a profitable Sixteen to One is the way to go. Along this path, a competing goal may prove to be a better idea: build assets, increase value and support long term capital appreciation.
I won my first lawsuit in my first six months of business (1965). My partner and I were defendants. I won my second lawsuit in 1973. I was a plaintiff suing a stockbroker, who wrote my sell order as a buy ticket for Polaroid options. I only won a little money because the judge ruled that I did not “mitigate” my losses by immediately selling the options. I didn’t know about mitigating and believed I never owned the extra options because of his mistake. I learned an important legal lesson, one that I have incorporated into my practice and certainly documented in the CDAA prosecution.

The Barrick/ Blanchard deal is puzzling. There is more to this settlement than has been released. Barrick’s lawyers may have been more skillful, smarter or unethical. Blanchard may have been foolish to trust its lawyers or ill advised. The point is that none of this collapsed Barrick’s, appeal in the marketplace. If one were to read the 10-Q or 10-K of many reporting companies, he would find under the heading “legal”, many lawsuits. A serious analysis of those in which the companies are defendants is appropriate. The outcome could be negative. When a company is a “plaintiff” a lawsuit could be either modesty relevant or significantly important. If the case has a chance of succeeding and scoring some bucks, it is a positive disclosure. Lloyds of London is the insurer for defendants. We are “plaintiffs”. It is positive.

Is CDAA a powerful association of lawyers? I hope so. The more powerful the more likely its strongest members (elected district attorneys of California’s 58 counties and their deputies) will realize how damaging the performances of Filter, Hedum, Denise, and Patchett were to the lawful practice of law. A greater number of lawyers than what we would like to believe have questionable ethics, little integrity, a lot of arrogance and litle respect for their profession. Americans and and others are really tired of their bull. I know some really good people who are lawyers. As I have written before, four of my personal lawyers went on to become judges. They are not corrupt nor do they break the law. I cannot say the same for the defendants in our case.

When the facts and evidence become fully known, most of the CDAA and the California State Bar (perhaps, jury still out on this one) and the California Attorney General will likely ride the bad guys out of the state. If they do not, Californians will have before them a succinct example of how far the system has decayed.

Now as for the money or business perspective: Our suit is not consuming corporate money or time. When we were defending ourselves as accused criminals, it did. There was no choice. Shareholders and the general public are blessed and fortunate that our front men, George Gilmore and Klaus Kolb, are lawyers of the highest caliber. They are not taking this for strictly money reasons. They love the law and hate injustice. We are also fortunate that a number of lawyers, great men and women, also support this case and help us achieve victory.

There are a lot of points, issues, facts, laws, and strategies that I cannot publicly discuss with you. I wish I could and will think about this possibility for a while. You would crack up at how well we have orchestrated this suit. I’m sure the bad guys think they are really something for stalling the case with the volumes of their legal “gobbeligook”. They are arrogant and full of themselves. We are smarter, more dedicated and have, as Rick would say, “the truth” going for us.

Our plaintiff’s lawsuit is not stopping any serious investor, be it the $100 or $3 million person. I know this to be true.
If I am wrong, I know how to fix the problem.

There is no better deal in gold investments than becoming associated with our company. All we need is exposure to prove it.
 By bluejay

01/13/2007  12:54PM

Hi Rick

You are a true loyalist to the mine and one that deserves respect with your passion to defend her.

I come out of the business world. I am interested in profits. In investing I make my mistakes, I learn from them, I adjust and I go on.

I have spent thousands of dollars dealing with attorneys usually with dismal results.

When you are attacked by attorneys for whatever reason it is just bad luck. It affects your health and it reduces your wealth.

My wife was a juror on a trial that saw a group of local apple farmers from Sebastopol sue the Bank of America for breach of contract in Santa Rosa, California in 1985.

The trial took months and was quite a strain on our family and the farmer's families. In the end the jury awarded the farmers millions of dollars and up to that time it was the largest jury award against a U.S. corporation. Months later a special group of appellate judges reversed the jury's decision and the jury's awards. The sad fact is that the jury only followed the judge's instructions. What else were they suppose to do?

What I'm expounding is that when you are dealing with a powerful company or group of lawyers it's never over until they say it is. Not something our forefathers had in mind for us.

In the past pages on the Forum I have pointed out what happened in a New Orleans court between Blanchard and Company and Barrick Gold some years back. Blanchard actually proved their case against Barrick but a loophole let them off the hook. Barrick said that they were an agent of the central banks and were immune from prosecution.

Blanchard was fighting for holders of gold and the gold mining companies who had suffered from Barrick's suppression of gold's price for years with the sale of borrowed gold.

Yes, the Sixteen to One was damaged by the CDAA.

It is my contention that waging war against powerful people, although totally justified, will prove to be futile while it drains our resources.

Living in the world today is far more complex than it was years ago and so is the legal system.

Unless you have a battery of lawyers and a pocket full of money, it is far better to lose a battle as opposed to engaging a battalion of attorneys along with the possibility of legal uncertainties.

The Board has elected to pursue the CDAA. I respect them for their passion, along with Mike's relentlessness and personal expense, but my life experiences indicate that the percentages are not on their side. As a shareholder, I hope I am wrong and wish them well.

In the meantime, potential investors will keep their distance as litigation continues.
 By Rick

01/12/2007  9:39PM

Bluejay, that's a tough one to contain, hoping to keep the passion inside the bottle. As far as I can figure, passion has gone to the line to see justice and posture.

Usually I'm tagged with writing from an ideal philosophy without regard to reality, but I'm also a pragmatist. If the hooligans run the machine, it should stop...and if they're trying to run the machine, they should be stopped along the way of their attempt.

My gut tells me that the true investor out there, those who need to be involved in the next chapter in Alleghany mining potential, will inevitably be confronted by the de-railers...a.k.a. this time around the CDAA...and need to stand against it with maximum fortitude, and describe its territory and potential realistically (not diluted by crap litigants), even if the current climate suggests that it's a deterent to investment.

I say, those sitting by and watching aren't strong enough. Those potential investors who have the stones to ignor the litigation, (let's not forget it's pro-active) have a true window.

Bluejay, I believe I understand who you speak of, and believe not a stranger to the mine. I speak of those who are yet to be part of this; personally, and we may disagree, but I believe it an asset, showing the fortitute to defend the existing potential; and don't think that attempting to de-rail those who try to de-rail the mine is ill conceived.

In other words, either we bow down or go bold.
 By bluejay

01/11/2007  11:47PM

Empirical evidence suggests that as long as we are involved in litigation our company will continue to be viewed with indifference by prospective investors.

The CDAA is a pack of rattlesnakes. This venomous organization has allowed some of their cohorts to degrade the savings of people who elected to invest in the Company in good faith.

The legal system in this country is basically fixed. To a significant degree, even the short and intermediate term markets are as well.

The trick is knowing this and acting accordingly. We are in a land of declining rights and increasing injustices. Not something our forefathers had in mind for us.
 By Michael Miller

07/01/2006  2:52PM

Dear Friends
I have not opened this forum topic to update its order until now. "Nowhere to Start" was while ago but remains an ever moving thread. The following begins the process of finding criminal behavior.

My case and the Company case is a prosecution driven case whereby massive deception, purposely deceiving a Sierra County Grand Jury to indict. Those who created and drove this Grand Jury presentation are asked to explain. Start with paragraph 939.6 RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE, CA Penal Code. It says, “the grand jury shall not receive any evidence except that which would be admissible over objection at the trial of a criminal action, but the fact that evidence that would have been excluded at trial was received by the grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the indictment was received by the grand jury”.

All of the “evidence” presented by the five defendants was not even available as evidence. The “evidence” disappeared both federally and California: MSHA and CAL-OSHA citations were dismissed by the agency issuing the citation or the US Court of Appeals. No evidence was presented to the local citizen jurors. I feel refrained from returning to the thoughts three years ago that I had while mounting a case to defend and attack. It succeeded: let’s have a trial in a courtroom deserving respect to battle truth against opinion.
 By Michael Miller

09/20/2005  8:25AM

Dear Friends,
As a friend wrote last week, “Nowhere to start." Well, when someone goes beyond the horizon, those left behind tend to tell their stories. Following is the first letter I received after George’s accident.

“Nowhere to start.

So I will. First, how fortunate I was to have met him; there were a few silent times standing around in the corp office, but the biggie was only one real time, the dinner at your house, but I believe George and I really met that night. We connected because we think alike. That night, despite the 50th bottle of wine, he told me that we should talk, that we both stood for the same ideals, that I could write and he and I shook hands.

We were shaking hands with each other. Mirror. (Although I have never been arrested for helping people.)

There is so much on the table, and it is split between life and legal crap. Well, we know priority. After all, this is why George got involved, eh? And why we fight.

I’m not sure in what capacity I can help, with so many prerogatives and necessities. Since I’m not needed in the family arrangement (yet I would be honored if perhaps George’s wife knew these words), I want/need to help carry the torch.”

Last Saturday Betsey (George’s wife) invited friends into their home in Richmond for a gathering. Mid afternoon everyone assembled in the living room , where an eccletic minister spoke and invited us to speak. There were old friends from pre college days, college friends, his first wife (a young folk singer in the 60’s), his daughter, and grieving others. Just like the writer of the above letter, the binding for all of us was the recognition that George had a manner that reached into our souls. Our reasons may differ but the affection shared in the room encompassed all.

I dreaded putting into words my loss and love, but it was not about me. It’s all about George. My time came towards the end. My desire was to be quick for there is great difficulty in relating what we were doing let alone all the whys and how we were doing what we were doing. The room got warmer and warmer as I stood and spoke. I knew it was not the room but my head, as I began relating the experiences for George and me in this friendly and loving setting. Allow me to pause and give you the second letter I read after George’s accident, written a few hours after Scoop posted the sad news.

“Dear Mike,

I want you to know that I am SO very proud of you. I can’t even imagine the pain of the loss you have just suffered. The history you share with George. The power of that history. The power of the convictions you shared with George about right and wrong. I totally hold you in the highest esteem for your “fight”. I pray that George will lend you the strength to continue and win. Other than the loss of a child I can’t imagine anything more crushing than the loss you have suffered. I think I can relate just a little.

I didn’t know George that long, however the time I have known him I have really enjoyed. Thank you for giving me some history about him on the website. I want to tell you that George and I had a joke about MONDAYS. He would call and ask how I could be so “chipper” on a MONDAY! I teased him that FRIDAY must be his day. I explained that Monday lets me know I am still “here” and I still have a job. What more perfect life is there?

I will miss him, as we all will. I just want to tell you that you will still do it. George was under your wings and a very big part of your life and always will be there still, but he knows this is something you can finish alone. I’m still in your corner!”

So, all of this is fresh in my broken mind as I look into the eyes of his wife, his daughter (whom I had yet to meet) and the others as I begin to speak.. …..

“George and I are partners in something beyond what I will be able to convey fully but will try anyway. It has to do with more than any single point: the law, justice, compensation, and social good or even social responsibility. We spent hours in the truck driving somewhere and more hours at the dinner table. The topics were many. George spent hours at his desk downstairs. We knew what we were doing and we loved it! Also we are very good at what we are doing and George, finally and fully admitted it during our last meeting just before his accident. It is important for you to know his activities now because George had turned a corner in his personal healing process in life and business. This is a part of my overwhelming sadness. It has nothing to do with the outcome of our fight. We know the outcome. He does the law and I do the evidence. He taught me how to argue and welcomed it. He knows that the theater housing our play is the courtroom. He knows the game is a game of words and he knows the words better than the other side; but George won’t be on the stage or watching the performance. I am sad because he labored and obsessed over the language of his beloved profession and won’t see the final act.”

I just wanted to crawl away quickly and mourn within myself, but that was not to be. Whatever they knew or felt about George was not the same as the George who died that Monday. It was for Betsey, who saw this composure that morning, his daughter, who had not seen him for several years, his first wife, and the others who knew him before and after his mental collapse or just after. Few probably knew him in the sphere of his passion, the law. My George was more than anyone could know because that was the nature of the pragmatic and ethereal, dynamic and currently active relationship we practiced and enjoyed.

I spoke a long time because there were questions and a sincere desire in the room to hear our story. Later a dozen people told me how much the information helped them understand George, even his mother-in-law told me that she , for the first time, understood his behavior. At one point I asked a woman standing next to a table with the Downieville Mountain Messenger newspaper on it to read the caption under Sourdough Jack Sez… “Ol George’ll be a pretty hard ack to foller. Rural America will probably never learn how much it owes that city boy.”

The night before I had broken into tears when I read what Don Russell, owner, publisher and editor of the paper put on his front page. It dawned on me as I talked Saturday afternoon to a gathering of people who loved George as I loved George that here is something that everyone in the room can do to relieve their grief: remove the words “probably never” so George will be remembered and recognized for the judicial scholar and sensitive soul we knew. “Ol George’ll be a pretty hard ack to foller. Rural America will learn how much it owes that city boy.”

So, will you do the same for George and for our country? Even if you never met George, familiarize yourself with the social issues of the dream we share. It can be your dream as well. For those of you who have written about the substance of our legal history, maybe you can more clearly express the issues and help ignite our country into action. George and I know what to do. So do others. America will learn how much it owes George.

September 19, 2005
 By Katherine A. Gilmour

09/19/2005  10:55PM

To All Who Loved Him,

Thank you all for the love, support, and friendship you've given my father(George) in the past few years. I have only spoken to him on the phone in the past couple of years, due to living so far apart, but I loved him sooo... much and, as all of you, will miss him teribly also.
So Thank you all for loving him and giving him the pride and joy that made him so happy in his work.

God Bless You All,

Katie
 By Rick

07/12/2005  10:37PM

Mike, you and I are cut from the same cloth. Perhpas we're naive to even speak of the inner play at work within the juris fabric, and as purists we are out-raged to discover practices that breach moral fibre, albeit between the banter of courtroom gun-slingers (meaning, those posturing lawyers who breach rules and law for the ultimate victory, the win), yet you've just written and related how it is standard practice.

From my perspective I recognize how "lying within inner court-room dialogue" can be fabricated, or construed as "normal procedure", and eventually to be decided as "proper" (or not) as a subject to the discression of the bench, each case unique, and each case with the eventual explanation in layman's terms.

In other words, "Yeah, that happens all the time; there's just nothing we can do about it."

Let me clarify why I say we're cut from the same cloth:

I'm a purist. I refuse to believe that our system of checks and balances is so corrupt that it will no longer work; I refuse to believe that everyone lies, (even though we witness most often those who do, we cannot condemn those that do not); and I believe that when we witness our judicial system's participants who procede with "lying" as protocol, we need to, as citizens, fight it.

I will always refuse to yield this crucial point, because to yield to the notion that "everyone's corrupt" would undermine the existence of our "representative democrocy" since we need, by definition, to trust our representatives; otherwise, why even have our system? The bigger question, as a derivative, could become, "Why trust anyone, since everyone lies?"

(Do I need to even answer?)

In cases outside the scope of our representative democracy (those issues not defined by the legislative nor executive branches) we have only the courts to interpret the law, as passed. And with legal interpretation, the participants are lawyers.

You and I, Mike, want to kick them the hell out when they stand in the midst of honor and willingly break the honor rules that make our system even feasible, and yet some that have been annointed within the public sector feel immune, and have not only acted that way, don't give a damn about the honor of our representative democracy and the power that lies within honesty.

ARE WE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE WILLING TO FIGHT?

There are those of us out here who are old-fashioned, die-hard purists who belive it the concept that "not everyone lies"... but when they do, we'll fight like hell to show them the rope.

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