share_log

Rise Gold Submits a Writ of Mandamus in Defense of Its Vested Rights

Rise Gold Submits a Writ of Mandamus in Defense of Its Vested Rights

Rise Gold 提交命令以捍衛其既得權利
newsfile ·  05/13 20:00

Grass Valley, California--(Newsfile Corp. - May 13, 2024) - Rise Gold Corp. (CSE: RISE) (OTCQX: RYES) (the "Company" or "Rise Gold") reports that it has submitted a Writ of Mandamus (the "Writ") to the Superior Court of California for the County of Nevada (the "Court") asking the Court to compel the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of Nevada County (the "County") to follow applicable law and grant Rise recognition of its vested right to operate the Idaho-Maryland mine (the "Mine"). Because the Board's denial of Rise's vested rights petition (the "Petition") at the vested rights hearing in late December 2023 (the "Hearing") affects a fundamental property right, California case law demands that the Court use its independent judgement and consider the administrative record de novo, without deference to the County's arguments and conclusions.

加利福尼亞州 Grass Valley--(新聞稿公司 - 2024年5月13日) - 黃金上升公司(CSE:RISE)(OTCQX:RYES)(以下"Rise Gold")報告稱,公司已向內華達縣(下稱"County")的內華達市(下稱"Board")提交了一份強制執行令(下稱"Writ of Mandamus")申請強制執行適用法律,並承認其在操作Idaho-Maryland礦山(下稱"礦山")方面具有的既得權。由於Board在2023年12月底的既得權聽證會上否決了Rise的既得權申請,這影響到一項基本財產權利,加利福尼亞州的案例法律要求法院使用獨立判斷,並考慮行政記錄,而不是向County的論點和結論投降。公司計劃議程Rise Gold公司向內華達縣超級法院提出了一項強制令(“Writ”),要求法院強制內華達縣監事會(“Board”)遵循相應的法律,並承認它對操作IdaGold-Maryland礦山(“MIne”)的既得權。 處理這個基本財產權的問題。加利福尼亞案例法要求法院使用自己的獨立判斷,並在考慮行政記錄後決定Rise的呈,請聽員會議影響Rise的既得權利。de novo不應考慮County的論點和結論。

Rise's Petition demonstrated with hundreds of pages of evidence that the Mine was in operation at the time that the County first required a permit to mine in 1954, thereby establishing a vested right to operate the Mine without a use permit. Though California law requires only a preponderance of the evidence to establish a vested right, and though Rise presented overwhelming evidence of its establishment, the County took the incorrect position that Rise was required to prove the creation of the vested right to a 100% standard of proof.

Rise的呈請呈現了成百上千頁證據,證明自1954年County首次需要採礦許可證以來,MIne就已經開始運營,因此建立了不需要使用許可證就能夠操作礦山的既得權。儘管加利福尼亞州只需要第一要素的證據就可以建立既得權,而且Rise提供了大量的證據,但County認爲Rise需要向100%的標準證明既得權的創建,這是一個錯誤的立場。

Vested rights are protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by the California Constitution. As a constitutional right, a vested right once established does not simply fade over time, as the County argued. It may be affirmatively abandoned, however.

既得權受到美國憲法第五修正案和加利福尼亞憲法的保護。 一旦建立了既得權,這項憲法權利就不會簡單地隨時間而逝去,正如County所主張的那樣。 然而,它可以被肯定地放棄。

The seminal case in California concerning vested rights is Hansen Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, which concerned the previous time that the County attempted to withhold recognition of a vested right of a mining operator. In that case, the County argued that only continuity of operations is relevant to the analysis of abandonment, not subjective owner intent with regards to its rights. The California Supreme Court disagreed, overruled the County's arguments, and ruled in favor of the mining company, stating that "cessation of use alone does not constitute abandonment" because abandonment of a constitutional right requires both "(1) An intention to abandon; and (2) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use."

在加利福尼亞州,關於既得權的重要案例是漢森兄弟企業有限公司訴監事會案。漢森兄弟企業有限公司訴監事會案關注了County曾試圖扣留礦山運營商的既得權的先前時間。在那個案子中,County認爲只有運營的連續性與放棄的分析有關,而不是與關於自己權利的所有者意圖有關的主觀意圖。加利福尼亞州最高法院不同意了這種論點,否定了County的主張,並支持了礦業公司的立場,認爲“單純的使用停止並不構成放棄”,因爲主張憲法權利的放棄需要兩個方面的因素:“(1)放棄的意圖;(2)具有暗示所有者不要聲稱或保留對非法用途的權利的明顯行動或不作爲。”

Once Rise established its vested right, the burden to prove abandonment shifted to the County, which was required to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. The County presented evidence that large-scale underground operations ceased in 1956, which was not in dispute, but did not present any facts at all to suggest that any of the owners-in-succession of the Mine ever intended to abandon the right to operate the Mine. On the contrary, even though it was not required to do so, Rise included in the Petition many hundreds of pages of evidence that each of the owners took proactive steps to preserve ownership of and access to the mineral estate so that mining could be recommenced.

一旦Rise建立了既定權,證明丟失的責任轉移到了County,後者需要用確鑿的證據來證明證明丟失。County呈現了大規模的地下作業停止的事實,這是無爭議的,但並沒有提供任何事實來暗示任何所有繼承者中的任何一個打算放棄經營礦山的權利。相反,即使這並非其所必需,Rise在Petition中包括了數百頁的證據,證明每個業主都採取了積極措施,以保留對礦產的所有權和使用權,以便重新開始採礦。

The Writ also pointed out to the Court that the Hearing was a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the U.S. Constitution guarantees unbiased decision-makers and that Supervisor Heidi Hall had previously participated as a board member in an anti-mining group, Claim-GV, which opposed a previous permitting effort to recommence mining on the Property itself in 2008 and 2009. Claim-GV was formally dissolved in 2017 and was folded into the Community Environmental Advocates, which actively opposed reopening the Mine and the vested rights Petition. Supervisor Hall previously delivered public comments charging that vested rights are a "loophole" that mining companies should not be permitted to use to avoid obtaining a conditional use permit.

強制令還向法院指出,Hearing是一個準司法程序,在其中,美國憲法保證公正的決策者,並且監管者海蒂·霍爾此前曾作爲董事會成員參加了反採礦團體Claim-GV,反對了2008年和2009年重新開放Property本身採礦許可證的努力。Claim-GV在2017年正式解散,被併入社區環境倡導者中,後者積極反對重新開放礦山和既得權呈請。海蒂·霍爾曾公開發表評論稱,既得權是一種規避獲取有條件使用許可證的漏洞的礦業公司不應該被允許使用的權利。

Rise's CEO Joe Mullin commented: "All five members of the Board declared at the Hearing that they were not judges and, on that basis, would follow the recommendation of the County's staff report, which the Rise counsel had demonstrated was replete with overt bias, factual errors, and misinterpretations of law. It is unfortunate that Board's abrogation of its responsibilities has caused both the Company and the County delays and additional expense with regards to the reopening of the Mine. Nevertheless, the facts and law strongly support Rise's vested rights, and we are confident that the Court will invalidate the County's attack on the Company's property rights."

Rise的首席執行官喬·穆林評論道:“五名委員會成員在聽證會上宣佈,他們不是法官,在這個基礎上,將聽取County的工作報告建議,而Rise的律師表明該工作報告充滿了公然的偏見、事實錯誤和法律誤解。很遺憾,委員會的摒棄責任已經導致了公司和County在重新開放礦山方面的延誤和額外開支。不過,事實和法律都強烈支持Rise的既得權,我們有信心法院將撤銷County對該公司財產權的攻擊。”

The Writ also asked the Court to compel the County to certify the Final Environment Impact Report on the Mine, which the County itself prepared and, in the alternative to the vested right recognition, compel the County to grant the Company a use permit to operate the Mine.

強制令還要求法院強制該縣認證礦山的最終環境影響報告,該報告是該縣自己編寫的。與承認既得權的觀點相反,強制縣授予公司操作礦山的使用許可證。

According to Rise's litigation attorneys at Cooper & Kirk, should the Writ be unsuccessful, Rise's mineral estate will lose all value, which will allow Rise to bring a takings action against the County under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The remedy for an unconstitutional taking is the payment of just compensation, which is the fair market value of the property taken. Based on comparable mines and historic yield at the Idaho-Maryland Mine, Rise's mineral estate is conservatively estimated to be worth at least $400 million.

根據Cooper&Kirk的Rise訴訟律師,在強制令不成功的情況下,Rise的礦產所有權將失去全部價值,這將使Rise根據美國憲法第五修正案向County提出延期訴訟。 違憲拿取的賠償是公平市場價值的支付,這是所收取的財產。 根據相似礦山和歷史產量對Idaho-Maryland Mine進行保守估計,Rise的礦產所有權價值至少高達4億美元。

About Rise Gold Corp.

關於Rise Gold Corp.

Rise Gold is an exploration-stage mining company incorporated in Nevada, USA. The Company's principal asset is the historic past-producing Idaho-Maryland Gold Mine located in Nevada County, California, USA.

Rise Gold是一家探索階段的採礦公司,註冊於美國內華達州。 該公司的主要資產是位於加利福尼亞州內華達縣的歷史悠久的Idaho-Maryland Gold Mine。

On behalf of the Board of Directors:

代表董事會:

Joseph Mullin
President and CEO
Rise Gold Corp.

約瑟夫穆林
總裁和首席執行官
Rise Gold Corp。

For further information, please contact:

如需更多信息,請聯繫:

RISE GOLD CORP.
Suite 600, 345 Crown Point Circle
Grass Valley, CA 95945
T: 530.433.0188
info@risegoldcorp.com

黃金上升公司
600號套房,Crown Point Circle 345號
加州Grass Valley,郵編95945
電話:530.433.0188
Email:info@risegoldcorp.com

The CSE has not reviewed, approved or disapproved the contents of this news release.

加拿大證券交易所未審查,未批准或不批准此新聞稿的內容。

Forward-Looking Statements

前瞻性聲明

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking statements are frequently characterized by words such as "plan", "expect", "project", "intend", "believe", "anticipate", "estimate" and other similar words or statements that certain events or conditions "may" or "will" occur.

本新聞稿包含某些前瞻性聲明,涉及適用證券法律。前瞻性聲明經常以"計劃","期望","項目","意圖","相信","預計"等類似的單詞或說明爲特徵,表明某些事件或條件"可能"或"將"發生。

Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in its forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions related to, among other things, its ongoing business operations. These risks are related to a number of factors including, without limitation, obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals, meeting expenditure and financing requirements, compliance with environmental regulations, title matters, operating hazards, metal prices, political and economic factors, competitive factors, general economic conditions, relationships with vendors and strategic partners, governmental regulation and supervision, seasonality, technological change, industry practices, and one-time events that may cause actual results, performance or developments to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and information contained in this release. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements or information except as required by law.

雖然本公司相信其前瞻性聲明所反映的期望是合理的,但無法保證此類期望將被證明是準確的。這種前瞻性聲明受到與其持續業務運營有關的風險,不確定性和假設的影響。這些風險涉及諸多因素,包括但不限於,獲得所有必要的監管批准,滿足支出和融資要求,遵守環境法規,標題問題,營運風險,金屬價格,政治和經濟因素,競爭因素,一般經濟條件,與供應商和戰略伙伴的關係,政府監管和監督,季節性,技術變革,行業實踐以及可能導致實際結果,表現或發展與前瞻性聲明中所包含內容不同的一次性事件。因此,讀者不應對本發佈中的前瞻性聲明和信息寄予過高的期望。本公司除法律要求外,不承擔更新前瞻性聲明或信息的義務。

譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。


以上內容僅用作資訊或教育之目的,不構成與富途相關的任何投資建議。富途竭力但無法保證上述全部內容的真實性、準確性和原創性。
    搶先評論