Mary Clough Mines Nevada-History, Geological Investigation & Economic Assessment

[chlsbrns]

not true at all.

your just not getting why BLM has a disclaimer about how it's on you if you buy a claim that is deemed invalid.

title insurance for an unpatented mining claim....lol... I don't think you understand what the policy is they are offering.

My homeowners insurance also covers my gear on my claim.... but it doesn't and Alliance do not provide validty proof for an unpatented mining claim or recovery of funds if you buy an invalid one.

all kinds of things can happen and be paid for on a mining claim without it ever getting a mineral survey by BLM.

A claimant only has possesory interest in the mineral deposit. The U.S. Government has Paramount Title...you can't get an insurance policy on a title that isn't yours.......


And a title insurance company is not a mineral examiner.

I won't waste my time looking for a BLM disclaimer but would love for you to post a link to it! In the mean time you should read the Federal Code. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/part-3833/subpart-C

It's the law on transferring mining claims. It's what must be done to transfer a "Claim" Keep in mind that for a mining claim to be valid there must be a "Discovery" The expedition place that sold this invalid claim states on their website that they "Believe" the claims have value. In other words they have not made a discovery so they do not have a claim to sell they are selling invalid claims. The law is for transferring claims. They do not have a valid claim to sell. Its not a claim until its valid.

I understand what the escrow company is selling! The site says they provide escrow service for unpatented mining claims. ...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[motel6.5]

Since this is buyer beware,and their was no 2 party contract to protect the buyer in place,I see no reason the buyer cannot sue based on what I see as outright fraud by the sellers,as they have sold the claim to others as well. Take your pick,Civil court or small claims.The legal system is fickle,crooked,dishonest, etc. The case just might fly.
The Bundys in Nevada got freed, over land issues.Gd luck.

 

[Tnmountains]

I do not mean to ask a dumb question here but when you buy a claim do you not receive a deed or mineral rights of sorts and before purchasing is not a title/deed search done by a company of the mines history of previous owners?
I have bought lots of land and have a title search done to make sure there is not a cloud on title and make sure mineral rights are clear plus I get the info on previous owners back to the original onion skin land grant sometimes.

 

[chlsbrns]

When you buy or hold a valid claim you have exclusive rights to the minerals. If you have not discovered or there are not valuable minerals in profitable quantities then you have an invalid claim. In other words no exclusive rights to anything. An invalid mining claim is not a mining claim its nothing!

 

[Tnmountains]

When you buy or hold a valid claim you have exclusive rights to the minerals. If you have not discovered or there are not valuable minerals in profitable quantities then you have an invalid claim. In other words no exclusive rights to anything. An invalid mining claim is not a mining claim its nothing!

My question is their a history of the individuals that have purchased exclusive rights for that particular mine/tract.

 

[chlsbrns]

Yes if it was purchased or previously claimed there would be a record. It is also possible that it was never prevoiously claimed.

Most people do not buy mining claims. They stake a claim that becomes a valid claim when they make a significant profitable discovery of valuable minerals.

 

[Tnmountains]

Thank you for replying. I was just wondering why people would not research the history of previous claim owners before placing a claim. Seems if a claim was purchased many times it would not be worth the time.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I do not mean to ask a dumb question here but when you buy a claim do you not receive a deed or mineral rights of sorts and before purchasing is not a title/deed search done by a company of the mines history of previous owners?
I have bought lots of land and have a title search done to make sure there is not a cloud on title and make sure mineral rights are clear plus I get the info on previous owners back to the original onion skin land grant sometimes.

Not a dumb question at all.

The transfer of all or part of a mineral claim is accomplished with a simple quit claim. A quit claim is not a true deed because it contains no warranties of title at all. The seller is only selling their interest in a mining claim.

In point of fact if the seller (Grantor) has no interest in the mining claim the quit claim is not a fraud because there is no implication that the buyer (Grantee) is being sold a specific right or interest. With quit claims the old law of buyer beware applies X 4.

The holder of a quitclaim deed receives only the interest owned by the person conveying the deed. If the grantee of a quitclaim deed learns after accepting the deed that the grantor did not own the property, the grantee may lose the property to the true owner. If it turns out that the grantor had only a partial interest in the property, the quitclaim deedholder holds only that partial interest.

The quitclaim mostly protects the seller. A quitclaim deed relieves the seller of liability regarding the ownership of the property. They have sold you their interest in the claim but beware their interest may only amount to liabilities. You could be purchasing another persons problems.

Here's the quitclaim form most commonly used in Arizona:

____________________________________________________________________________
QUIT CLAIM DEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
_______________________________________ does hereby forever quit
claim all his right, title and interest in
the unpatented mining claims described on the supplemental attachment
, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, to ______________________________

Some signature,

Notary Stamp

____________________________________________________________________________

Mining claim buyers need to do full due diligence on just exactly what they are getting with their quit claim. There are no laws to back you up if you fail in your personal legal duty to CYA (Cover Your Assets) before plunking down money on a mining claim. Buying any property strictly on the word of the seller is always a bad idea but when it comes to mining claims you could actually find yourself paying for the privilege of owning the next superfund site.

Due Diligence

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

The anti mining crowd would like you to believe you have no rights to your mining claim. Wishful thinking at best. The courts have made it clear in hundreds of cases that the right of possession of a mining claim without a proven discovery is solid against other prospectors. The first mining law based claim ownership strictly on the law of possession. Discovery or perfection of claims wasn't even mentioned in the law until 10 years later. That first mining law is still in full effect to this day.

Ninth Circuit. - 329 F.2d 840
March 13, 1964

A common practice in the western states among prospectors who intend more than a casual exploration of an area thought to contain mineral is first to locate, mark and record the boundaries of the claim, and then to expend time, labor, money and energy on the prospect.

Such occupation and working of the claim, even before discovery, gives the locator a limited defendable right of possession and a right which is, in some respects, alienable. The right of pedis possessio is one which may be transferred by transfer of possession because it rests on actual possession, accompanied by deed, lease or assignment of the color of title represented by the local location and recording of the claim. Miller v. Chrisman (1903), 140 Cal. 440, 73 P. 1083, 74 P. 444; United Western Minerals Company v. Hannsen (1961), 147 Colo. 272, 363 P.2d 677; Weed v. Snook (1904), 144 Cal. 439, 77 P. 1023; Jose v. Utley (1921), 185 Cal. 656, 199 P. 1037.

'In advance of discovery an explorer in actual occupation and diligently searching for mineral is treated as a licensee or tenant at will, and no right can be initiated or acquired through a forcible, fraudulent or clandestine intrusion upon his possession. But if his occupancy be relaxed, or be merely incidental to something other than a diligent search for mineral, and another enters peaceably, and not fraudulently or clandestinely, and makes a mineral discovery and location, the location so made is valid and must be respected accordingly.' Cole v. Ralph (1920), 252 U.S. 286, 294, 40 S.Ct. 321, 325, 64 L.Ed. 567.

But some will say that is just a Circuit Court. Of course those are quotes from Supreme Court cases so here's the real thing:

Supreme Court 196 U.S. 337
Creede and Cripple Creek Mining Company v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Company
Decided January 1905

As between the government and the locator, it is not a vital fact that there was a discovery of mineral in a lode claim before the commencement of any of the steps required to perfect a location, and by accepting the entry, and confirming it by a patent, the government does not determine as to the order of proceedings prior to the entry, but only that all required by law have been taken.

Supreme Court 1919
Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337

For the purpose of exploring for mineral, a qualified person who has entered peaceably upon vacant public land is treated as a licensee or tenant at will of the United States and allowed, as of necessity, a right of possession, the extent of which, i.e., whether confined to pedis possessio or coterminous with the boundaries of his inchoate location.

The right of possession before discovery may be maintained only by continued actual occupancy by a qualified locator or his representatives engaged in persistent and diligent prosecution of work looking to the discovery of mineral. P. 249 U. S. 348.

Discovery may follow the marking and recording of a mining claim, and perfect the location as of the time of discovery, provided no rights of third parties have intervened. P. 249 U. S. 347.

Don't let the greenies, no matter how well disguised as "miners", lead you off track. The law is well established. Your progressive rights to the minerals found on your mining claim are legally secure against anyone foolish enough to think they can unilaterally declare your mining claim invalid. The name in this industry for someone who believes they can destroy another man's right to their mineral claim is "Claim Jumper". The Courts and the States have developed some interesting educational tools to deal with claim jumpers.

In my opinion all of this is just the usual off topic distraction that is brought to virtually every serious discussion about mining. The subject here is one man's experience with buying a mining claim. It's been clearly and well written with the intention of educating others. Let's try to honor Jack's hard work and good intent in informing us by keeping this discussion to the subject of the post.

Heavy Pans

 

[chlsbrns]

The anti mining crowd would like you to believe you have no rights to your mining claim. Wishful thinking at best. The courts have made it clear in hundreds of cases that the right of possession of a mining claim without a proven discovery is solid against other prospectors. The first mining law based claim ownership strictly on the law of possession. Discovery or perfection of claims wasn't even mentioned in the law until 10 years later. That first mining law is still in full effect to this day.

Ninth Circuit. - 329 F.2d 840
March 13, 1964



But some will say that is just a Circuit Court. Of course those are quotes from Supreme Court cases so here's the real thing:

Supreme Court 196 U.S. 337
Creede and Cripple Creek Mining Company v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Company
Decided January 1905



Supreme Court 1919
Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337



Don't let the greenies, no matter how well disguised as "miners", lead you off track. The law is well established. Your progressive rights to the minerals found on your mining claim are legally secure against anyone foolish enough to think they can unilaterally declare your mining claim invalid. The name in this industry for someone who believes they can destroy another man's right to their mineral claim is "Claim Jumper". The Courts and the States have developed some interesting educational tools to deal with claim jumpers.

In my opinion all of this is just the usual off topic distraction that is brought to virtually every serious discussion about mining. The subject here is one man's experience with buying a mining claim. It's been clearly and well written with the intention of educating others. Let's try to honor Jack's hard work and good intent in informing us by keeping this discussion to the subject of the post.

Heavy Pans

This says enough...

"The right of possession before discovery may be maintained only by continued actual occupancy by a qualified locator or his representatives engaged in persistent and diligent prosecution of work looking to the discovery of mineral. P. 249 U. S. 348."

The sellers of the invalid claim state that they "believe" that their properties contain valuable minerals. They do not actively engage in looking for a discovery therefore their claim is invalid and had no right of posession.

Let's face it you are not claiming rights to land you are claiming rights to minerals on a chunk of land. Without minerals there is nothing to claim. Therefore there is no claim only a right of posession but in this case they were not engaged in persistent and diligent prosecution of work looking to discovery of minerals so they had no right of posession.

I seriously doubt that anyone would pay $30k plus for the right to look for a discovery of valuable minerals. The guys site shows claims for sale and there is no claim ownership until a discovery is made.

No time for this madness today I'm going fishing!

 

[chlsbrns]

In conclusion I would suggest bringing the matter to Civil Court and to the County and/or State Prosecutors office.

After filtering out the usual distractions by those who constantly post incorrect information it is clear that the seller of the invalid claim had no right of possession due to the fact that they had not even tried to discover.

They sold a so called claim that they did not own due to the fact that there was no discovery to an unsuspecting buyer for $30k plus A buyer who had a right of possession but never actually owned the claim even though he paid $30k plus due to a lack of discovery.

I would at least present the facts to a prosecutor but they have been known to not prosecute even with substantial proof and evidence of fraud and/or file in Civil Court to try and get some if not all of the funds that he was defrauded.

 

[chlsbrns]

...

 

[chlsbrns]

The site that sold this scam claim to the person who posted here sold it again for $350k. USGS records indicate small amounts of gold and silver. You have a seriously great fraud case against these morons!

https://goldrushexpeditions.com/mining-claims-for-sale/mary-clough-gold-mine/

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10008803

https://www.ebay.com/itm/GRE-Inc-Hi...ucca-NV-Gold-1211-drifts-/191771699440?_ul=SV

 

[Gambrinus]

Did you bother to read this?


https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/...63/4549-1.html

 

[Gambrinus]

chlsbrns, Why did you delete this link https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/...63/4549-1.html from post #33.
Is it because you didn't bother to read it first?

 

[chlsbrns]

Actually yes! I skimmed thru it without reading it all. I got less than 4 hours sleep the night before, got up early, fished all day and was falling asleep. Is that ok with you? Unlike others who post easily verifiable incorrect info regularly and leave the info in their posts I will remove something if I find it is incorrect.

 

[Clay Diggins]

chlsbrns, Why did you delete this link https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/...63/4549-1.html from post #33.
Is it because you didn't bother to read it first?

I think your link is broken. Did you mean to link to the Schoff v. Clough Nevada Supreme Court case about the Mary L. Clough claim sale?

Heavy Pans

 

[Gambrinus]

I think your link is broken. Did you mean to link to the Schoff v. Clough Nevada Supreme Court case about the Mary L. Clough claim sale?

Heavy Pans

Yes Clay, Thank you, that is the link that chlsbrns posted and then deleted after I asked if he had read it.

Why anyone would post a link that has nothing to do about the subject is beyond me. Just a quick scan of the link was enough to tell me
that it was immaterial to his claims in post #33 and I was plumb wore out from actually working when I read it.

I don't remember all the words but it reminds me of this quote.

[a post that contains inaccurate info they are not only showing their own lack of knowledge they are doing a disservice to those searching for facts!]

 

[chlsbrns]

Yes Clay, Thank you, that is the link that chlsbrns posted and then deleted after I asked if he had read it.

Why anyone would post a link that has nothing to do about the subject is beyond me. Just a quick scan of the link was enough to tell me
that it was immaterial to his claims in post #33 and I was plumb wore out from actually working when I read it.

Its not so hard to figure out. I assumed that the suit was about the Mary Clough mine but it was about the Black Hawk mine. Had it been about the Clough mine it would have been relevant. Understand?

Maybe you will show your expertise and post and ask about the numerous incorrect posts by others in this thread and numerous incorrect posts by the same in numerous other threads?

 

[JM2855]

All,

Again, thank you for all the replies and information. It does seem that if there are more topics around claim validity and law type things, perhaps a new thread that is specifically on topic would be more easily searched and found for others on the forum. As 'Clay Diggins' mentions, my intention on my post was to share my mistakes and experience with others on this forum and the public in general. I do not mind standing up and saying I made an educational mistake. So long as it benefits others to understand what I did, and to NOT do so themselves. A man who hasn't made mistakes, likely has not pushed the boundaries to go very far in life.

I do not need to justify things however to clarify, I am a very busy more than full time business executive who loves the outdoors. The later part there being the love of the outdoors, like most all on this forum. I find my peace and quiet digging in the dirt and kicking the rocks, and mining has always been an interest. That is a nice hobby, as it is with most, with potential for a profit when done right.

I talked to Gold Rush Expeditions on the phone about the claim, I assumed (there's that word...assumed, lol) that a company specializing in selling high end proven historical mining claims knew their geology and what they were selling. Good lesson there. I purchased the claim on ebay as is noted in my original post, having made a down payment and payment arrangements...giving myself time to DO formal due-diligence and formal exploration, engaging the experts where I needed their expertise. eBay also provides a certain level of buyer protection, and using a Credit Card on the purchase, on eBay, also provides an additional layer of protection for certain fraudulent activity, thus it was a calculated risk purchase.

This secured the claim in that, if there was in fact the massive quantities of gold present and my assays and my geological/geophysical reviews, exploration and reporting proved it, then I could easily pay off the claim and obtain the quit claim deed with full interest. So, this was a smart move not to pay all $34k and go all in. It provided me the time and security to do my 'prospecting', perform due-diligence and engage the experts as I did. Yep, it cost me a bit of money to do the exploration, geological reports, on site visits by myself and geologists, assay testing at multiple labs for quality control and accuracy. That is where the bulk of my money was spent there.

Now- There is a nice showing of Chalcopyrite and pyrite. Some Ag, Pb and Zn. However, not enough to be economic for recovery. As for gold...Having proven that there was nothing there of significant value, I notified GRE that there was not enough minerals present in the claim, that it was VERY low values on my assays, etc, and that I was abandoning it, stopping payments and relinquishing it back to them. At the time I offered them FREE... hundreds and hundreds of 24.2 MP photos and 4k Ultra HD video from the claims, to help them resell it as I was sure they would do. I offered to sell them the other 4 Mary Clough claims I had staked, claimed and paid for over top of the lode during my initial visits (IN CASE there was the vast quantities of gold and silver there). I offered them at a very cheap price to cover my filing fees. The response from GRE was "We do not see any value in purchasing your 4 claims that cover the remainder of the Mary Clough property. As for the pictures and the video's you have, we do not need them. We shoot 24 Mega pixel pictures and 4K ultra HD video so unless they are of that quality, we wouldn't use them."

The arrogance educated me further. They assumed me to be some simple Joe that doesn't know what they are doing, nor had quality gear, pictures or video...that I was offering to them FOR FREE to help them sell the claim to anyone who might be interested in the copper, lead, zinc and low grade silver. Not impressed by their response. And the fact that they were not interested in purchasing my other 4 claims that covered the area, as they "see no value in purchasing your claims", told me that they apparently did not see any value in the entire property...but would resell it anyway.

To shed a bit more light here, in the past 2 years I've had over a half dozen individuals, including at least 1 geologist, 2 BLM employees and 4-5 individuals all discuss with me their issues with Gold Rush Expeditions doing things that were less than honest and skirting fraud and breaking the law. Everyone I spoke to that had issues with GRE said to me, why doesn't someone DO something, yet no one had done anything. Pursuing GRE legally is a private matter and would not be discussed on any forum. It 'may' benefit ME. However, taking actions to educate others and the public about GRE (or any company/individual that sells historic 'proven' mining claims), about the process of evaluation, about performing due diligence and engaging your geologists who are there to help the rest of us, and to educate people about the Mary Clough property's true economic potential based on expert exploration, testing and review, benefits EVERYONE that reads it.

I decided that I would take the time out of my schedule to DO SOMETHING that would benefit everyone and educate the public.

With that note, I would encourage those who know of other forums, other places to share the knowledge, to copy and paste my information that's pertinent and applicable, and share it via those venues. Either in text or by link to this forum or both. Each of us taking action a group accomplishes much more than one of us posting a thread.

Most of us are out there to help one another. Most of us are on here to learn and share to help one another. Let's keep that focus.
Thanks again all- Jack