Laserfiche WebLink
• NOV-04-1999 08;45 AM <br />R~~~ <br />~~~an9°~ne ~O&~ <br />pN~s~°0 °~ M <br />~BY/IIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIII 303 9652` P. O1 <br />_ :,y <br />f° , ~ .: ~ <br />SIERRA MI RALt3 CORPOtiA71ON ~ ,%~'~ ~• ~ ~ ` ~9 ~ B~PY <br />.YO R~MRSNplaO- ~.., <br />v <br />6 t et g Naw-OarlN., aunt 2000 <br />fratilWOOD. COLOMDO Op 1 1 I <br />~,~- OSIG~-~ <br />Novaml,l»r 04,1999 <br />Mr. Steve & Mts. Kim Mchttyrc <br />1220 Bert I1~Ivoi lhlve <br />Tempe, AZ 8!283 <br />Ilea Stave ~ Kiur: <br />Thank you ibr your letter of October 2Z, <br />Tho otlglnal US Patent docurtrerrts ibr ~ <br />(Survey No. 4411) both IDclude bearing! <br />Sterling ®d otheg physkxl tbetrttev is th <br />conlnron boundary lhre on each of the W <br />them were dlectepaeciea, the OMYA cle <br />chtiaot. Areas of overlap era OMYA ow <br />eunroy of 1988 aro both consistent with <br />based on the krcadon of USLM StorNn¢ <br />YULE MARBLE `°~~~~, <br />e <br />Tai: (70s)771-0l10 <br /> <br />oy . 08 <br />9'1~ - ~~7 - f/~1~M,~,~ 1999 <br />¢ GP0'69y <br />clehm (Survey No. 4530) and the OMYA claims <br />d dlstanea to skim oottrers whh rt;ti;retlce to USLM <br />!~ The btalr6tgs turd dL~tanoea shown !br the <br />t doctmtetMS ttrrtch each other. However, even if <br />1 would control ea they were patented prbr to your <br />I ground. Seahron Kk1~s survey of 1965 and CYMCa <br />patent documents for the OMYA claims. Both are <br />l other p~hysiee(ldautes in the area. <br />You mislmderetood nU' stetemeat the xanaay of t'YMCs survey. I was teltremg to <br />the axuracy of the aerie! photograph which i had placed the property boundaries. This <br />photo was only useflil to bcete the cWm: hers wkhia a hew ttrta of>lxt is the field sad was not <br />intended to be used to accurately locate <br />The 11ek1 notes for your clehm have been <br />aPp~b' aro ro)yk~ solely on the sited 1 <br />support your aseeRiome regardklg claim a <br />where the boundary lies between your c1~ <br />No. 4411 would scrum!, not the Woos !a <br />the inforaaatbn provkled in the notes ibr ~ <br />de8oh[ve proof ea to wirer! the boundary <br />documents sad supporting docirmcrds for <br />Applaently you believe that if survey de <br />~~ m Perini 1rroPerty llourelerics. <br />Ilable to all ~5"Om sins! they were written. You <br />noes i4om Yuk Creels to the cleinr corners to <br />sti and twlmdarke. IP survey notes were to control <br />and the OMXA claims, the survey notes for Survey <br />rvey No. 4330. Whr'k a anveyar might use sortie of <br />ley No. 4330, such rotes could not provide <br />. Such proof could Dorm only 9om the patent <br />way No. 4411. <br />not recorded with the county akrk, that data nlrrst be <br />1 m incorrect. A ProtZesbrml Land Surveyor mrst <br />