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.

加利福尼亞州格拉斯谷--(Newsfile Corp.,2024 年 5 月 13 日)——Rise Gold Corp.(CSE:RISE)(場外交易代碼:RYES)(the”公司“或”崛起的金幣“)報告說,它已向加利福尼亞州內華達縣高等法院(“法院”)提交了命令狀(“令狀”),要求法院迫使內華達縣(“縣”)監事會(“委員會”)遵守適用法律,承認Rise經營愛達荷州-馬里蘭礦山(“礦山”)的既得權利。由於董事會在2023年12月下旬的既得權利聽證會(“聽證會”)上駁回了Rise的既得權利申請(“請願書”),影響了基本財產權,因此加利福尼亞判例法要求法院使用其獨立判決並考慮行政記錄 從頭再來,不尊重該縣的論點和結論。

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的請願書提供了數百頁的證據,證明該礦在1954年該縣首次要求開採許可證時正在運營,從而確立了無需使用許可證即可運營礦山的既得權利。儘管加利福尼亞州的法律只要求占主導地位的證據即可確立既得權利,而且儘管Rise提供了確立既得權利的壓倒性證據,但該縣的立場不正確,即要求Rise以100%的證據標準證明既得權利的創建。

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.

既得權利受到《美國憲法》第五修正案和《加利福尼亞州憲法》的保護。作爲一項憲法權利,既得權利一旦確立,不會像該縣所說的那樣隨着時間的推移而逐漸消失。但是,可以肯定地放棄它。

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."

加利福尼亞州關於既得權利的開創性案例是 漢森兄弟企業公司訴監事會案,這涉及該縣此前試圖拒絕承認採礦運營商的既得權利。在該案中,該縣辯稱,只有運營的連續性才與放棄分析有關,與所有者對其權利的主觀意圖無關。加州最高法院不同意,駁回了該縣的論點,並作出了有利於該礦業公司的裁決,指出 “僅停止使用並不構成放棄”,因爲放棄憲法權利既需要 “(1)放棄的意圖;(2)公開行爲或不採取行動,這意味着所有者不主張或保留不合格使用權的任何權益。”

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確立了自己的既得權利,證明放棄的責任就轉移到了該縣,該縣必須提供明確而有說服力的證據來證明放棄行爲。該縣提供了證據,證明大規模地下作業於1956年停止,這沒有爭議,但根本沒有提供任何事實表明該礦的任何繼任所有者曾經打算放棄礦山的運營權。相反,儘管沒有要求這樣做,但Rise在請願書中包含了數百頁的證據,證明每個所有者都採取了積極措施來保護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.

令狀還向法院指出,聽證會是一項準司法程序,美國憲法保障決策者不偏不倚,主管海蒂·霍爾此前曾作爲董事會成員參加反採礦組織Claim-GV,該組織反對先前在2008年和2009年允許重新開始對該物業本身進行採礦的努力。Claim-GV於2017年正式解散,併入社區環境倡導者組織,該組織積極反對重新開放礦山和既得權利請願書。主管霍爾此前曾發表公開評論,指控既得權利是一個 “漏洞”,不應允許礦業公司使用該漏洞來避免獲得有條件使用許可證。

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首席執行官喬·穆林評論說:“董事會所有五名成員在聽證會上都宣佈他們不是法官,在此基礎上,他們將遵循該縣工作人員報告的建議,Rise的律師已證明該報告充滿了公開的偏見、事實錯誤和對法律的誤解。不幸的是,董事會取消了職責,這導致了公司和縣政府在礦山重新開放方面的延誤和額外開支。儘管如此,事實和法律有力地支持了Rise的既得權利,我們相信法院將宣佈該縣對公司財產權的攻擊無效。”

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.

令狀還要求法院強制該縣對該礦的最終環境影響報告進行認證,該報告是該縣自己編寫的,作爲承認既得權利的替代方案,還迫使該縣向該公司發放礦山運營的使用許可。

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Rise在Cooper & Kirk的訴訟律師的說法,如果令狀失敗,Rise的礦產將損失所有價值,這將使Rise能夠根據美國憲法第五修正案對該縣提起收購行動。違憲收購的補救措施是支付公正的賠償,即所收財產的公允市場價值。根據愛達荷州-馬里蘭礦的可比礦山和歷史產量,保守地估計Rise的礦產價值至少爲4億美元。

About Rise Gold Corp.

關於 Rise Gold Cor

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是一家位於美國內華達州的勘探階段礦業公司。該公司的主要資產是歷史悠久的愛達荷州-馬里蘭金礦,該金礦位於美國加利福尼亞州內華達縣。

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
總裁兼首席執行官
Rise Gold公司

For further information, please contact:

欲了解更多信息,請聯繫:

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

RISE GOLD CORP
600, 345 Crown Point Circle
加利福尼亞州格拉斯谷 95945
T: 530.433.0188
info@risegoldcorp.com

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

CSE 尚未審查、批准或不批准本新聞稿的內容。

Forward-Looking Statements

前瞻性陳述

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.

本新聞稿包含適用證券法所指的某些前瞻性陳述。前瞻性陳述通常以 “計劃”、“期望”、“項目”、“打算”、“相信”、“預期”、“估計” 等詞語以及其他關於某些事件或條件 “可能” 或 “將” 發生的類似詞語或陳述爲特徵。

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.

儘管該公司認爲其前瞻性陳述中反映的預期是合理的,但無法保證此類預期會被證明是正確的。此類前瞻性陳述受與其持續業務運營等相關的風險、不確定性和假設的影響。這些風險與許多因素有關,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、所有權事項、運營風險、金屬價格、政治和經濟因素、競爭因素、總體經濟狀況、與供應商和戰略合作伙伴的關係、政府監管和監督、季節性、技術變革、行業慣例以及可能導致實際結果、業績或發展的一次性事件與前瞻性陳述中包含的內容有重大區別。因此,讀者不應過分依賴本新聞稿中包含的前瞻性陳述和信息。除非法律要求,否則公司沒有義務更新前瞻性陳述或信息。

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