ANOTHER WIN
September 14, 2007 Hearing on DFG’s motion for summary judgment was held in Eason’s
case against DFG. Judge Connelly not only denied DFG’s motion for
summary judgment but issued a final judgment in the action in favor of
Eason. He declared DFG’s Informational Statements of 2005 and 2006,
where they attempted to delete 14 CCR 228(b)(1), as underground regulations
and void. He ordered DFG to promulgate formal regulations and to
comply with the APA in so doing. He gave them 10 days from Entry of
Final Judgment to do so. Final Judgment has not been entered yet.

Complete information at Equal Access to Justice, Inc. web site in the news articles section dated October 22, 2007.
The links at the bottom of the news article show important information, as well as an explanation of what we think
DFG had planned is in the last link.
We are gearing up for another case that we know is coming up, any donations would be appreciated and are needed GPAA/LDMA
has been our main support but they are also helping in other areas as well as ours and funds are short. Make ck payable to
Equal Access to Justice, this is tax deductable we are a 501 © (3) charitable organization.
Thank You
Walter H. Eason
GPAA/LDMA
Equal Access to Justice, Inc.
39565 Terwilliger Road, #A
Anza, CA 92539

It has come to my attention that there may have been some confusion with the above original post as I was informed through another forum. I will try enhance the explanation below. I will show the questions asked followed by the answers. First I want to thank the people who asked these questions. Thank You!
(1st POST) Walt-
I read the statement on EAJ's website, the Court's ruling and searched for this "new" amendment by DFG (which I couldn't find). What is the basis for the statement "October 22, 2207 Essentially, the affect of DFG’s proposed amendment to 14 CCR 228 is to invalidate all un-patented mining claims in waters of the State" on EAJ's website?
(2nd POST)
A stupid state law cannot rule over federal mining laws. Feds rule over the whole country. Always has, always will, plain, simple and easy.
ANSWERS:
RESPONSE TO POST #5
In response to 49er Mike’s inquiry as to the basis of our statement that DFG’s [PROPOSED] Amendment to 14 CCR 228 will invalidate all un-patented mining claims in waters of the State:
(1) DFG has not, as of this date, actually submitted their LATEST proposed Amendment to 14 CCR 228 to OAL for approval. On October 9, 2007, DFG told Judge Connelly that, after Judge Connelly signs the Final Judgment, they would amend 14 CCR 228 and in 10 days from entry of that Final Judgment. (DFG’s [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT served on October 9, 2007.) That is why I said that DFG is expected to amend 14 CCR 228 and not that they already did amend 14 CCR 228.
(2) As of October 22, 2007, the date of my posting, Judge Connelly had not signed or entered the Final Judgment, as proposed by DFG, in my case.
(3) DFG stated to Judge Connelly that they would propose the same Amendment to 14 CCR 228 that they filed with OAL on May 1, 2007. (DFG’s [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT served on October 9, 2007.) The Amendment to 14 CCR 228 that DFG filed with OAL on May 1, 2007 is attached hereto for your review.
OAL 400 form
(4) As is BRIEFLY and CLEARLY explained in my paper, attached hereto, EXPLANATION the Amendment to 14 CCR 228 that DFG proposed before, which is the same as they are expected to propose within a few days, will invalidate all un-patented mining claims in waters of the State. If you believe otherwise, please address my paper and explain why you believe otherwise.
(5) When DFG proposed their last Amendment to 14 CCR 228, filed on May 1, 2007 with OAL, they did not put it out for public comment; though, they were required to do so by law. This is why we are asking you to comment now; because DFG and OAL are not expected to put out any newly proposed Amendment(s) to 14 CCR 228 for public comment. We do not want to fight the next Amendment to 14 CCR 228 on the back end; after it is enacted. We want to catch DFG with their hand in the cookie jar; fight them right off the get go, when they are doing the illegal act(s).
(6) If you wait for DFG to put their proposed Amendment to 14 CCR 228 out for public comment, before you submit your comments, you will be waiting forever for they will not do it; though, they are required by law to do so. That is like saying; “I’m not going to comment until DFG complies with the law.” Ridiculous! What do you think public comments are for; to give DFG cudos? No! The purpose of public comments is to insure that DFG complies with the law.
Hoser John's POST #6
In response to Hoser John’s inquiry as to whether Federal Law, here, preempts State Law and DFG Regulation, here:
(1) Yes; it does! However, not if no one stands up for it or even attempts to stand up for it.
(2) Unless you do comment, opposing DFG’s secret proposed Amendment to 14 CCR 228, DFG doesn’t have to comply with the law. This is because, after the statute of limitations has passed, (here 6 months after a regulation becomes law), it is presumed that you have waived any objections to it and that the law has been obeyed in the preparation and processing thereof. As the courts have stated, over and over again; “the law only protects those who have not slept on their rights.” Don’t sleep on your rights here; COMMENT and comment NOW! YOU CAN FIND THE ARTICLE LOCATION AT:
ARTICLE
THANK YOU WALTER

well today is the day they vote. i hope everyone has had a chance to email their comments in. this stuff just doesent stop!