Are there drill reports available for the claims?

If one were to buy 2 or claims, what would be the discounted rate? If you were to sell to GPAA/LDMA, what would be the discounted rate?

Regards!

To Brad Lamb: Thanks for your post. Answers are in blue. Your questions are: Are there drill reports available for the claims? We have not done any drilling and the claims have never been mined in the past. Most of them have trees and brush throughout except for the ones up the sides of mountains. On one of our claims there was small scale mining back in the 1930's which is up the side of one of the mountains and other mining activity from that time period occurred up some of the small creeks draining into Porcupine Creek.



 If one were to buy 2 or claims, what would be the discounted rate? We are open to a reasonable offer which we would consider but you would probably want to look at the claims prior to making it, if not, what is your offer?

 If you were to sell to GPAA/LDMA, what would be the discounted rate? I believe the same answer as above would apply. However, I might add, anyone can drive the highway system through Canada to Alaska and 90 more miles, by highway, to the beginning of the right-of-way back to these claims - very convenient access.

 

Not looking to buy, but just curious as to location in relationship to the properties that were on the GoldRsh show in past seasons.  Might be informative to some looking at the area, but not familiar with it.  Thanks.

ARTHUR - thanks for the question. I actually edited the Topic and added an illustration that shows the location. There are 4 Porcupine Creeks in Alaska and this is not the one on the Gold Rush show.

Everyone needs to get involved with Public Lands for the People "PLP" and MMAC. They are fighting for all of us. I am an administrator for Alaska if anyone has a question.

FYI

The MMAC bill covers this problem for miners in their Mining District.

Clark



-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Rachel Thomas
Sent: Dec 31, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Rachel Thomas
Subject: Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps



http://www.wallowa.com/wc...t-to-challenge-corps



Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps

Published: December 29, 2015 3:48PM

The Supreme Court must give landowners the right to challenge deterimination that their property is subject to the Clean Water Act.



The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that will determine whether landowners can challenge in court a regulatory determination that their properties are subject to the Clean Water Act.

The government contends, and is backed by the 9th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, that a regulatory determination by the Corps of Engineers that a property is subject to Clean Water Act restrictions is merely advisory in nature, and is not a final agency decision subject to litigation.

The 8th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion last year, setting up a clear conflict to be settled by the Supreme Court.

For farmers, ranchers and other landowners, the stakes are high. Regulatory requirements and restrictions under the act are expensive and can severely limit the owner’s property rights. Property owners should have the right to challenge a jurisdictional determination.

The government says landowners who disagree with a jurisdictional determination can go ahead with a planned project without a permit and then fight the determination when the government brings an enforcement action.

Or, the landowner can apply for the necessary permits. If the permit is denied or the landowner disagrees with the government’s findings, the landowner can file suit.

Neither of these are practical options.

A landowner would be foolish to expend capital and proceed without a permit if the Corps of Engineers has determined jurisdiction, whether that ruling is a final determination or merely advisory.

Having determined a landowner needs a permit, by whatever means, the Corps will certainly follow with an enforcement action if a landowner proceeds. Win or lose, the landowner will be saddled with the expense of defending his action. And should he lose, the government can pile on ruinous fines and penalties, and perhaps criminal charges.

Should the landowner acquiesce to the Corps’ determination, he submits to a costly, time-consuming process. If the permit is denied, or there is an issue with the terms, the litigating landowner walks into court having already conceded that the Corps has jurisdiction.

The Corps may consider its determinations advisory in nature, but the same can be said of a rattlesnake shaking its tail. Either are ignored only at great peril.

The rattlesnake’s warning can be appreciated for its honesty, while the Corps’ is veiled by semantics. Having been warned, the landowner will certainly feel the sting of the Corps’ strike.

The Corps’ determinations are final by any standard of common sense. As such, they should be allowed to be challenged in court without the landowner first being placed in legal or financial jeopardy.

We are confidant the high court will agree.