have utilized this remedy with respect to the Fremont claims. This remedy, however, is practical only in a few. instances. Those instances, as suggested by the testimony of Mr. Omer Humble, are where uncontroverted evidence exists that the specific claim being overstaked either was not located in substantial compliance with the mining law or has not been maintained by the requisite assessment work.3/ In situations where the evidence is not clear and uncontradicted, a person can utilize the overstaking remedy only at substantial risk. That person has the burden of establishing, in an appropriate proceeding, that the claim was subject to overstaking (for improper location or failure to perform assessment work). If the overstaker does not overcome that burden, the overstaker then committed a trespass during the overstaking process, and the original claimholder has a cause of action against the overstaker. The Supply System submits that few mining claims are so clearly and uncontrovertedly invalid as to justify such substantial risks. The Supply System commends the Subcommittee for its investigation with respect to both the uranium cartel and the problems inherent in the mining law. Under the mining law as it now stands, an organization such as the Supply System can acquire mining claims only by accepting the risks 3/ The evidence with respect to the Fremont claims is not uncontroverted. Mr. E. L. Gibson testified at the hearings that certain claims were not located properly. His statements in this regard, however, are directly contradicted by his earlier sworn affidavits filed of record in Wyoming. identified in the Subcommittee's hearings, even if an investigation far more thorough than is customary is conducted. The Subcommittee's hearings demonstrate that the possibility always exists that it may later develop that the requirements of the law, in fact, were not met. Consequently, the Supply System endorses changes in that law, changes that would encourage compliance with the law while documenting the actual steps taken to locate and maintain the claims. Such changes would greatly facilitate acquisition of mining claims by responsible organizations seeking to develop our nation's uranium reserves. Based upon our telephone conversation of October 8, 1973, I am supplying 2. Mr. Gibson claims a 5% interest in Colorado iron lands. 4. Mr. Gibson claims that he is owed approximately $45,000 for validation work done in Sweet Water County, Wyoming. Mr. Schauss agreed to pay Mr. Gibson 10¢ a foot for validating claims in that area; he validated approximately nine thousand claims, although the exact number is still rather vague. 5. Mr. Gibson claims approximately $1,400 for staking work done in connection with the rob claims. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Schauss agreed that Mr. Gibson would be paid $7 per claim for the staking. 6. Mr. Gibson claims approximately $2,800 for staking work done in connection with the Lola claims. Again, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Schauss had agreed on a figure of $7 per claim and there are four hundred claims within the group. 7. Mr. Gibson claims $1,338.1. as a consequence of a repair bill that he paid for Mr. Schauss. To my knowledge and after extensive discussions with my client, the above deducted from any settlement reached by Mr. Schauss and Mr. Gibson. Moreover, I am convinced that the claim that Mr. Schauss alleges against Mr. Gibson for expenses in the approximate amount of $11,000 should not impede settlement; from the information I have received, Mr. Gibson can at least substantiate approximately $10,500 of that total sum. In all candor, I must express to you my feeling that settlement of the above matters does not seem to be a viable possibility. Mr. Gibson has made very reasonable offers of settlement with no apparent results. Unless that situation changes in the immediate future, I foresee no other choice it to commence litigation. Sincerely, RPS/mk Robert P. Schuster Please be advised that I have caused to be overstaked claims in the "Bow" group of claims located by Gulf Oil Corporation in Township 17 and 18 North, Range 81 West, Carbon County, Wyoming. This letter is to advise your company that Gulf Oil Corporation has filed 368 false affidavits in the Carbon County Courthouse in August, 1975, stating that Gulf Oil Corporation has located the above mining claims and that it has completed the drilling or validating work as required by law. The latter work has not been done according to law. Natrona Service has worked for Gulf 011 Company many times in the past and it is beyond my comprehension how your company can abandon all ethics and knowingly file the above-mentioned false affidavits in the interest of saving a few dollars rather than to comply with the law and have a valid claim, سائق You certainly must be aware of the conflict now going on between Natrona Service and Kerr-McGee, Conoco and Phillips. These companies, by virtue of their callous disregard of the Wyoming Mining Laws and filing of false affidavits, have contributed to the complete ruin of a once prof fitable and viable business and constituted a fraud on the citizens of this state. At a time when the energy companies are under the spotlight of all of their many enemies, I fail to see that your company can afford this attitude. : I see no course open to re-than to advise my attorneys to include Gulf Oil Corporation in the damage suit recently filed by Natrona Service in Wyoming Federal District Court, JWMjer Very truly yours, John W. MacGuire President |