Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Recommended Posts

Yes, I was recently accused of being a "claim jumper". :25r30wi:  I was dealing with non participating co-claimants who, btw, had only been to the claim once, in one case twice, in the last six years. Having not participated in the maintenance, upkeep and improvements, so by due process defined by the mining laws I had them removed. :reading:Yet, I'm being called a "claim jumper" and I stole the Gold by not sharing in the finds. Really? Who invested in equipment and did the work? I swear, the nerve of some people. :2mo5pow:  That's twice I've had to take these steps, once on each of two different claims, but never again. No third time! :nono:

The prospects of even the possibility of finding Gold makes people weird. :snapoutofit:

So, they are ALL mine now, and NO, I won't be partnering up with any one again. boorb

I may just drop one claim this next year, it doesn't really produce, and besides, I can only work one hole at a time. :brows:

Soooo,....sue me. :rolleyes:

BTW,  refer to Federal Register volume 68, no. 206, Part 3837---Acquiring a delinquent co-claimant's Interests in a mining claim or site.

It ain't always cheap, but it is effective. :yesss:

Edited by Steel Pan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I blame you for feeling that way, as long as you were the only one who did due diligence and that you (at least) made attempts contact them about paying their share of the cost for maintaining the claim when the bill was due. For them to not offer to pay and to call you a claim jumper is just, plain rude and totally wrong, regardless. I would be pissed off, too! There are NO free rides or "free lunches". Partnerships only work if everyone participates and does their fair share, to the best of their ability and by mutual agreement. Plain & simple. :old:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a great claim on the merced up from Briceburg and my partner(&^%$#) sold the claim and I found out 6 months later . The fella who got took was doing MUCH work with in trouble youth so I gave him my half,via quitclaim and refile was required because of phoney sale. It all turned out ok for the kids and that's what matters. Claim partners nope I just do their paperwork and get to use at times . Lost a couple long time friends as laziness and the fever took their toll. I LOVE mine ALL MINE...John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's the "entitlement" mentality. Just because they may have even paid their share of the property taxes, they feel "entitled" to all that is produced. They sit at home and expect you or I to do all the work and hand over their perceived share. It's not like owning stock where y'all share the risk, it's personal reward for personal work done. Last year my wife and I removed 19 trees that had fallen, blocking the access road. Time and money put out was born by my wife and I. Yet, "they" didn't even offer to help with the cost, and STILL think I'm the bad guy. So much for a partnership of friends helping friends. Greedy little bass turds. :barnie:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise, surprise, surprise, ....one of the EX co-claimants just brought my snow blower back that he has had for the last three years .:WOW:

Said he didn't want to be a thief like me. I'd given up on getting it back a year ago. :kap:It was loaned for a month or so due to a series of snowfalls that had him stuck in his driveway. I generally don't loan out my tools, but it was to a "friend", you know the drill. Glad I pissed him off now.:25r30wi:

Must have been stuck pretty bad.   :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steel Pan said:

Surprise, surprise, surprise, ....one of the EX co-claimants just brought my snow blower back that he has had for the last three years .:WOW:

Said he didn't want to be a thief like me. I'd given up on getting it back a year ago. :kap:It was loaned for a month or so due to a series of snowfalls that had him stuck in his driveway. I generally don't loan out my tools, but it was to a "friend", you know the drill. Glad I pissed him off now.:25r30wi:

Must have been stuck pretty bad.   :rolleyes:

 

WOW Steelpan, thanks for posting this now I know how to get back all the stuff I've loaned out over the years!!!:yesss:

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Au Seeker said:

WOW Steelpan, thanks for posting this now I know how to get back all the stuff I've loaned out over the years!!!:yesss:

Couldn't hurt, eh? :25r30wi:

Gee, ya think there was a little personal guilt, on their part, at play here? :89:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hoser John said:

Bummer-no more partners to pzzzzzzzz off so all my missing loaned items gone gone gone by the 100s.....:200: John

Prob is, I can't get pzzzzed off 'cause I don't have anything to return. :89:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I knew Bass and NEVER no way Jose. This was upstream from Briceburg where the only spit of land with trees/shade/ungodly road ledge along the river road to Yosemite. Chuck still has them and most of my improvements still maintained. Had a Boy Scout jamboree there so bulldozed highbar,set in portas,camping areas and Snoopy Dog trail cemented in to the river. John  PS. Dirty dog Mad Mike ended up in a florida nuthouse......deservedly

Edited by Hoser John
Link to post
Share on other sites

John -- when you say river road are you talking about Rt 140 or are there jeep trails / an unpaved parallel road tucked in along the other side of the Merced..? It's been a really really long time since I've been out that way and all I remember about across the river along that stretch is rough & tumble.. Tnx..

Swamp

EDIT: Think I answered my own question.. You said shade / trees, and 140 is pretty barren while the other side is forested.. Still, just checking for sure.. SA

Edited by Swampstomper Al
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dredged with Jack Bass up in Briceberg off and on for a number of years and yes, he had his share of shady dealings, 

but he was always honest and up front with me and let me dredge on his claims with no restrictions.

I would also add that many of the people he had weird dealings with were themselves crooks.

Like him or not he was about as colorful a personality as I have ever met. I bet even Hoser would agree.

Just want to make sure there is a balance of opinion on someone who has passed on

and cannot stand up for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, clay said:

How are you going to deal with the one locator per 20 acre rule Steel Pan? Will you reduce your acreage or do you have proof of discovery in hand?

Claim is one 20 acre parcel now. Two co-claimants, my wife and I. Actually abandoned original claim and refiled as a new claim.

Size reduction became an issue with BLM. :kap: (not Black Lives Matter) :rolleyes:   I couldn't work the whole 20 acres in several lifetimes. :th: 

I'll never bring in mechanized equipment like hoes and such, my dredge works just fine. :brows:

Everything has been worth the peace of mind I now have. :zzzzz:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:05 PM, Steel Pan said:

Yes, I was recently accused of being a "claim jumper". :25r30wi:  I was dealing with non participating co-claimants who, btw, had only been to the claim once, in one case twice, in the last six years. Having not participated in the maintenance, upkeep and improvements, so by due process defined by the mining laws I had them removed. :reading:

I did not know you could legally remove a delinquent co-claimant.  I had always thought you would need to let the claim close by not paying fees, and then refiling one or more claims over it depending on co-claimants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chrisski said:

I did not know you could legally remove a delinquent co-claimant.  I had always thought you would need to let the claim close by not paying fees, and then refiling one or more claims over it depending on co-claimants.

 

It's in Section 5 of the 1872 General Mining Act Chris:

Quote

Upon the failure of any one of several co-owners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required by this act, the co-owners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent co-owner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim, for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion to comply with this act his interest in the claim shall become the property of his co-owners who have made the required expenditures.

 

In Arizona it's spelled out in the Location laws Mining Rights in Land:

Quote

27-221. Notice to delinquent co-owner to contribute share of annual labor expense
A. When a co-owner gives a delinquent co-owner notice in writing or notice by publication to contribute his proportion of the expense of annual labor as provided by the laws of the United States, an affidavit of the person giving the notice, stating the time, place, manner of service and by whom and upon whom the service was made, shall be attached to a true copy of the notice, and the notice and affidavit shall be recorded ninety days after giving the notice, or if the notice is given by publication in a newspaper, there shall be attached to a printed copy of the notice an affidavit of the editor or publisher of the paper, stating the date of each insertion of the notice therein, and when and where the newspaper was published during that time, and the affidavit and notice shall be recorded one hundred and eighty days after the first publication.
B. A true copy of the original notice and affidavit of service, or the records thereof, shall be prima facie evidence that the delinquent co-owner has failed or refused to contribute his proportion of the expenditure, and shall be prima facie evidence of service or publication of the notice, unless the writing or affidavit provided for in section 27-222 is of record.

 

In California:
 

Quote

 

3917.  Whenever a coowner or coowners of a mining claim give to a
delinquent coowner or coowners the notice in writing or notice by
publication provided for in Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States, an affidavit of the person giving the notice,
stating the time, place, manner of service, and by whom and upon whom
service was made, shall be attached to a true copy of the notice.
   The notice and affidavit shall be recorded in the office of the
county recorder, in books kept for that purpose, in the county in
which the claim is situated, within 90 days, after the giving of the
notice. For recording the notice and affidavit, the recorder shall
receive the same fees as are allowed by law for recording deeds.
   If the notice is given by publication in a newspaper, there shall
be attached to a printed copy of the notice an affidavit of the
printer or his or her foreman, or principal clerk of the newspaper,
stating the date of the first, last, and each insertion of the notice
therein, and where the newspaper was published during that time, and
the name of the newspaper. The affidavit and notice shall be
recorded within 180 days after the first publication thereof.

 

3918.  The original of the notice and affidavit, or a duly certified
copy of the record thereof, shall be prima facie evidence that the
delinquent mentioned in Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States has failed or refused to contribute his or her
proportion of the expenditure required by that section, and of the
service of publication of the notice, unless the writing or affidavit
specified in Section 3919 is of record.

 

3919.  If the delinquent, within the 90 days required by Section
2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, contributes to his
or her coowner or coowners his or her proportion of the expenditures
and also all costs of service of the notice required by Section
3917, whether incurred for publication charges or otherwise, the
coowner or coowners shall sign and deliver to the delinquent or
delinquents a writing, stating that the delinquent or delinquents by
name has, within the time required by that Section 2324, contributed
his or her share for the year ____, upon the ____ mine, and further
stating therein the district, county, and state wherein the claim is
situated, and the book and page where the location notice is
recorded, if the claim was located under this chapter. The writing
shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county,
for which he or she shall receive the same fees as are allowed by
law for recording deeds.

 

3920.  If the coowner fails to sign and deliver the writing to the
delinquent within 20 days after the contribution, the coowner so
failing is liable to the delinquent for a penalty of one hundred
dollars ($100) to be recovered by the delinquent in any court of
competent jurisdiction. If the coowner fails to deliver the writing
within 20 days after the contribution, the delinquent, with two
disinterested persons having personal knowledge of the contribution,
may make an affidavit setting forth in what manner, the amount of, to
whom, and upon what claim, the contribution was made. The affidavit,
or a record thereof in the office of the county recorder of the
county in which the claim is situated, is prima facie evidence of the
contribution.

 

 

Edited by clay
Add California
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...