Clarence H. Gordon
Sir:
Your statements and actions are very cleverly sprinkled half-truths and lies. It is indeed a wasteful shame that such talent isn’t being put to better use than to try to oust Mrs. Duke from that which is rightfully hers.
You state, “without knowing if the gold Crown can produce gold in sufficient amounts to return dividends”. The Gold Crown last year did produce and a shipment to the mint was made. That was what you were waiting for; then and only then did you start your smear campaign. If the Gold Crown had not produced you would have remained in the background. Such action is not new, you are following a truly time worn pattern, but it is rather potty to have and to pursue such action as you are and have taken in a spirit of revenge for having once been refused a seat on the board of directors; at the mine.
“When Mr. Gordon was elected to the board of directors, he discovered that misrepresentations had been made to him and to other stockholders at the time of their purchase of Gold Crown stock.” What you or anyone else was told is hearsay and not admissible as evidence in any court. We have only your word as to what you were told. I personally heard Fred’s talks and was present at some of his sales of stock He did not then or at any other time to my knowledge miss-represent anything about the Gold Crown mine or anything pertaining to it.
If the mill at the time was of the “wrong type” why and how did it produce the shipment that was sent to the mint? Am I to believe a real estate promoter and accept his word as an authority or shall I believe working, gold mining men that have spent years as hard rock miners and not only in this, but other countries?
The mill was only to high grade? Now just what is a mill supposed to produce? Minted coin?
I attended the Reno meeting. Mr. GORDON was elected and his Ivan C. Smith with him; a lot of promises were made and we were led to believe that creditors could and would be “held off” and that we could expect production in a month or so. Mrs. DUKE agreed to withdraw for a trial period and turned her proxies over to a Grass Valley lawyer. She also insisted that on the board there be two members pro-, and two members con-, and one impartial. That, I believe is how it turned out and the nominations were accepted by both Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Duke.
Mr. Brunker was accepted as president, is it in violation of some law that he is a friend of Mrs. Duke and the Giles brothers? If so you should be made aware of the fact that a great many of the stockholders are in violation of that law, they may have many friends and I am glad to be one of the any.
Democracy is based primarily on a majority rule. When a minority leader takes, or tries to take control, there we have a dictatorship. Dictators are not in favor, especially not in this country. I do not believe that the majority of the Gold Crown stockholders will permit you to take over once I inform them of the true state of things and that, I intend to do the best of my ability.
You stated in item 8 Mr. Gordon was not re-elected to the board despite the fact that he held approximately 100,000 proxies. THESE ARE NOT 100,000 proxies in total, the figure 100,000 probably represents about half the shares of the minority and a very small portion of about half the shares of the total. Secondly, I was present at the stockholders meeting, September 27, 1958, when you, Mr. Gordon were elected to the board of directors so your following statement “during the year after Mr. Gordon left the board” is also incorrect as a year has not passed since that meeting.
I have every reason to believe that you C. H. Gordon (and the few you have persuaded) are the one and only reason the Gold Crown is not producing and paying dividends.
Dr. G. O. Burrow