Laserfiche WebLink
hereby forfeited by operation of law. <br /> (See Exhibit 24). Neither party is disputing the fact that a forfeiture occurred on the <br /> White Banks Claims. What is disputed is what is the effect of this forfeiture on the rights <br /> and competing ownership claims of the parties to the White Banks Claims. <br /> LOCATION OF THE WHITE BANKS CLAIMS BY THE SKINNERS <br /> In May of 2005, Julie Skinner discovered that the White Banks Claims had been <br /> forfeited by the BLM. She discovered this news by checking the status of the claims on <br /> the BLM's website. The claims were no longer listed as "active" on the website. (See <br /> Exhibit 94). The Skinners believed the land was therefore open for staking and location <br /> and took steps to claim the White Banks Claims. The Skinners did not tell Mr. Congdon <br /> that the White Banks Claims had been forfeited because during this period of time, Mr. <br /> Congdon was negotiating with other parties regarding the mine and the Skinners were <br /> concerned that Mr. Congdon was "doing something behind their backs". <br /> On or about June 1, 2005, Donald Skinner went to the White Banks Claims and <br /> placed location monuments in the form of wooden stakes on each of the ten claims. <br /> Attached to the stakes were location notices which included the name of the claimants, <br /> the name of the claims, the date of location and description and map of the claim. <br /> Exhibit 27 is an example of what Donald Skinner put up. Exhibit 93 shows where <br /> Donald Skinner put the stakes. When Donald Skinner was placing the location <br /> monuments/stakes he looked for pre-existing monuments and stakes because he <br /> wanted to be sure that no one else had already claimed the mines. Donald Skinner did <br /> not see any other monuments or new stakes which would have indicated to him that the <br /> ground had already been claimed so he went ahead and placed his own stakes. <br /> 6 <br />