mineral surveys

IONA LODE CLAIM CONFLICTS: Puritan, Puritan No. 2, Happy Strike and Peno Alto No. 2

M.S. 2424

The Mineral Survey of record clearly does not accurately account for these pre-existing senior rights when J.J. Fisher engaged in the ‘platting of the claims’. The 2424 PLAT only shows reduced versions of the multiple recorded 1500′ x 600’ Notices of Mining Locations, in conflict with the claims that would otherwise only receive junior rights, at the time, or rights to the areas that are not already spoken for, monumented of, acknowledged to exist there, etc..

Take for example Norman Hale’s preexisting IONA Lode ‘claim’ of 1899. That is of course only relevant if the area that is being depicted as the IONA is actually where on the earth the IONA claim actually existed, (more importantly where it is alleged to exist of surrounding patented claims present day) if it existed, which for the purposes of this MS2424 illustration we are presuming did exist, and on some area of ground wherein it is shown to be conflicting with several other lode claims on the mineral survey. Make sense? Of course it doesn’t.

If the IONA was ‘unsurveyed’ as M.S. 2424 depicts, how did J.J. Fisher simultaneously depict the surveyed IONA corner locations within the same Mineral Survey 2424? Why was this IONA mining claim not mentioned at the end of the M.S. 2424 field notes in the ‘LOCATION’ section where other claims are referenced? Why is the IONA Notice of Mining Location stating the IOINA is in a different area of ground in Thumb Butte District? Why are no other claim notices as referenced to comprise mineral survey 2424 indicating the presence of the IONA lode claim as an adjacent claim?

Theoretical Exclusions to Title Survey

How could the patent be issued for the lands that appear to be covering this senior ground located IONA by way of the Mineral Survey M.S. 2424? The Puritan, Puritan No. 2, Happy Strike and Peno Alto No. 2 are all overlapping the IONA lode (if that’s the IONA area), but somehow the survey itself and subsequent patent of survey fail to mention it at all, and thus give us nothing short of ’theoretical exclusions’ in the (fictitious) field notes which are so engrained into the purported 818945 patent, that ‘the notes are effectively the patent itself’ by incorporated reference.

The theoretical exclusions in M.S. 2424 are not isolated to the IONA. They virtually exist with each and every claim as presented by J.J. Fisher. If one looks closely enough at the plat (and the location notices), one can see the conflicts, theoretical exclusions and issues abound with junior/senior mineral estate and thus a severe case of lack of title rights, across the board.

If your immune system is reacting to an infection or irritation….maybe a nights stay at Samuel Hartman’s Sanitorium will cure you of your ills.

Let’s take a closer look.

Highland Park, Arizona Mining Claims