Claim filing mistake, is it valid

[danec71]

So this goes along with some info gathering I have been doing.i will explain this easily hopefully. This claim filing im asking about does have an old survey although it isnt patended.so if I am not wrong most lode claims will be centered on the vein.is this a qualifying requirement?also doesn't the discovery post have to be placed at a tunnel,open cut or shaft at the time.i know it has to be tied to some kind of permenant mark such as a cadastral survey or something natural but permanent.anyway this guy has put his discovery post at a corner marker it shares with a joining claim then goes south to post 2.now for some reason and it could have to do with the location of the claim to the south he has shrank it down to just 300 feet wide.post 1 and post 2 are both on cadastral survey markers.according to the old survey post 2 is actually where the vein is centered on that claim back in the day.so now his south line is technically the strike of the vein.the claim on the south is actually centered on another vein and probably they over lapped at some point in time.all the cross cut tunnels access the vein from his location.where his discovery post is there is no evidence of any cut,shaft or tunnel.from this little info does this seem like a valid filing.also it has been like this for 15 years so maybe it's just how it is now

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

You may want to think about what the "Discovery vein" is. You may want to read and check up for yourself some of this one's post topic's.
It is unlikely a "Vein" is going to conform to the "Surveys" you refer to.
Thanks for your questions.

 

[danec71]

Well I guess maybe the easy question is does the discovery post have to be on a shaft ,cut or tunnel to be the discovery.or can you just name one of your corner markers as the discovery and go from there even if there is no evidence of anything

 

[Assembler]

Well I guess maybe the easy question is does the discovery post have to be on a shaft ,cut or tunnel to be the discovery.or can you just name one of your corner markers as the discovery and go from there even if there is no evidence of anything

If there is little to no values at the "Discovery point" is there a "Discovery"?

 

[danec71]

That would be a no of course. Figureing out this mess is going to make my life a lot easier up on the hill

 

[Assembler]

Something to research is that in some "States" one needs to dig 10' or more down from the "Vein apex" in order to make a new or re- "Discovery".

 

[danec71]

Do you happen to know for Washington state. I'm looking but I can't seem to find something definite

 

[Assembler]

Do you happen to know for Washington state. I'm looking but I can't seem to find something definite

Washington revised Stat. section 8618.
The "State of Oregon Code" states "Work not deemed part of assessment work: Affidavit of compliance":

Sink a discovery shaft upon the claim located to a depth of at least ten feet from the lowest part of the rim of such shaft at the surface, or deeper if necessary, to show by such work a lode or vein of mineral deposit in place.......

Washington revised Stat. section 8615 should refer in part to the following:

Diligence in marking the boundaries of a claim, the law being otherwise complied with, will protect the rights of a discoverer of a mineral vein against a subsequent locator.

You are welcome.

 

[danec71]

Thanks I appreciate it. I don't see where it's applicable to a rediscovery. So if the tunnel exist and you can go inside and show mineral value with vein in place Will that count as a rediscovery to file a new claim on an existing tunnel. From what I've heard in this case you have to go in and work or drive a certain amount of tunnel to make it valid.

 

[danec71]

Here is a picture of his discovery post. It's at a cadastral survey Mark for the corner of a patented claim. Actually this is the corner for four different claims. As you can see There is absolutely no shaft, cut or tunnel at this point. This is why I'm asking the question

 

[Assembler]

Thanks I appreciate it. I don't see where it's applicable to a rediscovery. So if the tunnel exist and you can go inside and show mineral value with vein in place Will that count as a rediscovery to file a new claim on an existing tunnel. From what I've heard in this case you have to go in and work or drive a certain amount of tunnel to make it valid.

The concept here of the "Re-discovery / new discovery" is the "New" exposing of 10' of the "Mineral deposit / lode". Some will refer this as "Working of the tunnel" however must be "Work not deemed part of assessment work"

 

[Assembler]

Here is a picture of his discovery post. It's at a cadastral survey Mark for the corner of a patented claim. Actually this is the corner for four different claims. As you can see There is absolutely no shaft, cut or tunnel at this point. This is why I'm asking the question

Not a "Discovery point".

 

[danec71]

Thanks I found the laws I was looking for.in 1949 in Washington the 10 foot shaft east of the mountains was revised to digging a 10 foot shaft or an equal amount of work to expose the vein that would eaual the amount of money it would cost to dig a shaft was sufficient .i downloaded the wa state mining law bulletin.thanks for your help.this is not a discovery.

 

[danec71]

That picture is the discovery post 1 on the picture I drew.

 

[Assembler]

Thanks I found the laws I was looking for.in 1949 in Washington the 10 foot shaft east of the mountains was revised to digging a 10 foot shaft or an equal amount of work to expose the vein that would eaual the amount of money it would cost to dig a shaft was sufficient .i downloaded the wa state mining law bulletin.thanks for your help.this is not a discovery.

Great job that you can read for yourself the "Code" reference about 10'. What do you think will happen with this type of "Discovery"?........LOL

You may want to read this one's other posts about "Mineral in character" vs. "Mineral deposits". Something to think about with a "Discovery" big time.

 

[danec71]

So how would one approach declaring this location void because of a false discovery.my intent is not to take from this guy but use it as leverage to stop his faLse accusations.i may file then make a deal with him to stop certain activities.i have already won a lawsuit over a different matter with him and it never ends.maybe if he seen that it might cost him more he will just go his own way.might sound dirty but in the end I think it will cure a lot of things.i know the point the discovery should have been placed

 

[Assembler]

So how would one approach declaring this location void because of a false discovery.my intent is not to take from this guy but use it as leverage to stop his faLse accusations.i may file then make a deal with him to stop certain activities.i have already won a lawsuit over a different matter with him and it never ends.maybe if he seen that it might cost him more he will just go his own way.might sound dirty but in the end I think it will cure a lot of things.i know the point the discovery should have been placed

To start with falsifying a "Affidavit of compliance" has some real bad penalties. The moment that the "Notary public seals and records in the log book" is when the time clock is running on any "Affidavit". By the way this can be "Recognized" by any "Court" you decide to go with no questions asked.

Will only address the "Discovery" at this time.