06/24 15:03

Trial Date: The trial is set to begin on July 9, 2024, with jury selection starting on that day.
Trial Duration: The parties anticipate the trial might conclude in five to six days, though two weeks have been reserved.
Jury Selection: Jury selection will involve calling two panels, one in the morning and another later if needed. The goal is to streamline the process and minimize downtime for jurors.
Final Submissions: The plaintiff's witness list was due on the day of the session and was to be filed by 4:30 PM. Both parties were given until Wednesday to finalize and submit jury instructions.
Trial Technology: Both parties requested the use of a media cart and were informed about the availability of a big-screen TV with HDMI capability in the courtroom. A dry run for the technology setup is scheduled for July 5 at 10:30 AM.
Counsel Withdrawal: Mr. Albert is no longer serving as counsel for the defendants, with Mr. Campion taking over fully.

This session mainly covered the logistical aspects of the upcoming trial, including scheduling, preparation, and technology arrangements.

07/09 08:33

Jury Selection Process:

The court discussed the organization of jury selection, which will be conducted in two groups (20 jurors in the first set and 15 in the second). The court aims to select 14 jurors (12 regular and 2 alternates) within the day.
The court will not allow "back striking" between panels, meaning once a juror is accepted, they are on the panel.

Witness Testimony:

Both parties have listed similar witnesses, many of whom were involved in depositions related to mining operations. There's uncertainty about whether these witnesses will testify live or via Zoom from Dan Creek, depending on the availability of an internet connection. If the witnesses cannot appear live, depositions may be read instead.
The court is open to allowing Zoom testimony if needed and will ensure the technical setup is available.

Witness Handling:

To avoid inefficiency, the court suggested that both parties cross-examine the same witness in one go instead of calling them twice. The court will explain this approach to the jury for clarity.

Exhibits and Evidence:

The parties have largely agreed on the exhibits, with only one notable disagreement regarding a two-page document (DEF 305-306). The court plans to address this issue outside the jury’s presence.
The court reminded the parties not to mention or show any disputed exhibits during opening statements until the issue is resolved.

Instructions and Case Management:

Jury instructions have been submitted jointly by the parties, and there were no further anticipated submissions. The court plans to use these agreed instructions unless there are procedural changes during the trial.

Key Issues Addressed:

The court addressed and clarified various procedural matters related to jury selection, witness testimony, and exhibit handling to ensure a smooth trial process.

The court session focused on jury selection. The parties agreed to dismiss five potential jurors for cause based on various issues, such as pregnancy, financial hardship, and travel plans. The court and counsel discussed the expected duration of the trial, aiming for it to conclude within five trial days. The dismissed jurors were officially noted, and the remaining jurors were prepared to be brought in.

07/09 09:47

Jury Selection Process:

The court session involved the jury selection process for a civil case involving a contract dispute related to gold mining.
Jurors were questioned on their ability to serve impartially and without distractions. Several jurors were excused for cause due to medical issues, childcare concerns, and potential distractions related to the care of animals.

Jurors Dismissed:

Juror 1: Dismissed due to anxiety, brain fog, and discomfort, which could impact her ability to concentrate.
Juror 4: Dismissed due to childcare responsibilities starting on the 16th, which would prevent her from fully participating in the trial.
Juror 9: Dismissed due to concerns about her ability to focus on the trial because of her responsibility to care for multiple pets throughout the day.
Juror 12: Dismissed after expressing increasing concern about a medical condition that worsened during the session.

Court's Decisions:

The judge dismissed the above jurors for cause, ensuring that the selected jury would be able to focus on the trial without significant outside distractions or personal hardships.

The session primarily focused on the jury selection process, ensuring that all selected jurors could serve without bias or distractions.

07/09 11:18

Peremptory Challenges:
The plaintiff exercised two peremptory challenges, removing juror number 7 (Rosa Belli) and juror number 19 (Kim Nelson).
The defendant did not exercise any peremptory challenges.
Jury Selection:
After challenges, seven jurors remained on the panel: Lauren Hedge, Justin Soucy, Cindy Truaki, Janice Wright, Reese Shraggy, Peyton Hollub, and Laurie Verbrugge.
The court dismissed several prospective jurors: Ms. Hinojosa, Ms. McGinty, Ms. Reeves, Ms. Belli, Ms. Fraser, and Ms. Nelson.
Instructions to Jurors:
The judge informed jurors about proper conduct outside of the courtroom, emphasizing the importance of avoiding contact with parties involved in the case.
Next Steps:
The remaining jurors were dismissed for the day and instructed to return the next morning at 8:30 for the continuation of the trial, likely beginning with opening statements.

No significant decisions or rulings were made during this session.

07/09 11:46

Case Overview: The court session focused on jury selection for a civil case involving a contract dispute related to gold mining. The dispute centers around two agreements made in 2020 between the parties to explore mining opportunities in the Dan Creek area near McCarthy, Alaska. These agreements and the performance of obligations under them are the key issues in the case.
Jury Selection:
The session involved questioning potential jurors to determine their suitability for serving on the jury.
Questions covered topics such as prior jury experience, personal or professional biases, ability to serve impartially, and any potential conflicts or hardships that could affect their service.
Specific jurors were dismissed for various reasons, including personal hardships, potential conflicts of interest, and health issues.
Dismissal of Jurors: Several jurors were dismissed either for cause or by peremptory challenge, including:
Ms. Bruner: Dismissed after revealing a connection to one of the parties (her son works for the plaintiff).
Mr. Liverman: Dismissed due to concerns about his ability to care for his grandson if required to serve.
Ms. Gates and Mr. Cole: Dismissed due to health concerns affecting their ability to serve.
No Substantive Motions, Arguments, or Verdicts: The session was primarily focused on administrative and procedural matters related to jury selection, with no substantive discussions or rulings on motions in limine, closing arguments, or a jury verdict.

Note: This session primarily dealt with jury selection and procedural discussions, with no significant developments in the case itself.

07/09 13:07

Jury Selection:

Both plaintiffs and defense made jury challenges.
Witnesses Allison Castillo (juror #19), Julia Fetko (juror #9), Theodore Dirks (juror #12), and Isabella Patterson (juror #15) were struck by both sides.
Final jury panel selected includes 9 jurors: Jillian Wertz (#14), Adrian D'Azeo (#8), Valerie Strong (#10), Patrick Euler (#1), Courtney Berry (#2), Sidney Kewon (#3), Patty Collins (#4), Aaron Naras (#5), and Justin Doggett (#17).
Jurors #8 (Adrian D'Azeo) and #10 (Valerie Strong) were randomly dismissed due to surplus.

Exhibit Issue:

Discussion on whether Defendant’s Exhibit A (Elliott’s 2020 expenses) should be admitted.
Plaintiffs argue it was created by Elliott’s previous attorney, Mr. Albert, which could compromise its credibility and authenticity as evidence.
Defense contends the document was directed by Elliott and should be admitted as it reflects his recollection of expenses.
The court will decide on this issue by the next morning.

Proceedings:

Jury instructions and opening statements scheduled for the next day.
Court plans to ensure jurors haven't done any research or discussed the case before the start of the next session.

Conclusion:

Court session focused on jury selection finalization and an evidentiary dispute concerning a key exhibit.

07/10 08:38

Witness Handling: The court and parties discussed a streamlined approach to witness testimony, where testimony will be handled on a witness-by-witness basis, with no unnecessary repetition.
Motions in Limine: The judge is still reviewing a motion in limine related to damages for abuse of process and may request further arguments. No immediate decision was made.
Exhibit Ruling: The court ruled on an objection regarding Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 (also Defendant's Exhibit A). The exhibit, prepared by Mr. Elliott’s lawyer, will not be precluded at this point but may only be used as a demonstrative exhibit. The final decision on its admissibility will depend on the testimony provided.
Exhibit Agreements: Both parties agreed to admit most of their exhibits without requiring foundation or predicate, except for certain documents still under consideration, such as deposition transcripts and expert reports.

This session focused primarily on procedural matters and did not include any significant events like closing arguments or a jury verdict.

07/10 08:52

Opening Statements:

Plaintiff's Counsel: Argued that the case revolves around a breach of contract and deceit by Mr. Elliott, who misled Mr. Kroenke during their business dealings related to the Dan Creek mine. Mr. Kroenke invested significant resources into testing and mining, only to be obstructed by Mr. Elliott, who ultimately profited from the gold discovered by Mr. Kroenke’s team. The plaintiff seeks compensation for the breach of contract and half of the gold extracted from the mine.
Defense Counsel: Countered that Mr. Elliott, a seasoned miner, entered into an agreement with Mr. Kroenke during uncertain times (COVID-19 pandemic) but that Mr. Kroenke rushed into the agreement without fully understanding the challenges of mining at Dan Creek. The defense emphasized that Mr. Elliott acted in good faith, providing support and even offering a significant amount of gold to cover Mr. Kroenke’s expenses. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s withdrawal from the project was premature and that Mr. Elliott should not be held liable.

Court Instructions:

The judge provided detailed instructions to the jury regarding their duties, the process of the trial, and how to evaluate the evidence presented.

Next Steps:

The session concluded with a plan to start witness testimony, beginning with Mr. Kroenke, after a brief break.

07/10 09:58

Testimony of Seth Kroenke

Business Background: Seth Kroenke, a construction business owner with a focus on civil construction and concrete, described how he got into the industry and eventually became interested in gold mining.
Introduction to Randy Elliott: Kroenke met Randy Elliott through a mutual acquaintance. Elliott showed Kroenke large gold nuggets, which piqued his interest in Elliott's mining claims.
Contract Formation: After several discussions, Kroenke and Elliott entered into a contract to explore and potentially purchase Elliott's mining claims. The contract outlined that both parties would provide equipment and split expenses and profits 50-50.
Site Conditions and Equipment Issues: Upon arriving at the mining site, Kroenke discovered that Elliott's equipment was in poor condition, requiring significant repair and maintenance. This led to delays and the purchase of additional equipment by Kroenke to continue the work.
Operations and Challenges: Kroenke’s team spent a substantial amount of time on tasks such as road building, equipment maintenance, and environmental remediation, which diverted focus from gold extraction. Disorganization and poor planning at the site were highlighted as major issues.
Environmental Concerns: Kroenke observed significant environmental contamination at the site, particularly oil spills from Elliott's equipment, which raised concerns about potential violations of environmental regulations.

This testimony focused heavily on the operational challenges and discrepancies between the parties' expectations and the reality of the mining operation.

07/10 11:05

Direct Testimony of Mr. Kroenke:
Discussed multiple contracts and amendments regarding the provision of equipment, access to mining sites, and financial obligations.
Expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Elliott's failure to provide agreed-upon equipment and access, leading to increased expenses without corresponding results.
Attempted to resolve disputes through communication, highlighting the importance of clear priorities and flexibility.
Contract Issues:
The first contract involved significant testing and preparation work but lacked sufficient progress due to unfulfilled commitments by Mr. Elliott.
A second contract was created to clarify expectations, particularly regarding mining operations, the inclusion of additional equipment (CAT 336), and the division of expenses.
Mining Operations:
Initial tests showed promising results in gold extraction, but efforts were thwarted by Mr. Elliott's instructions to stop mining and focus solely on testing, despite productive findings.
Frustration grew as the crew was repeatedly moved away from profitable sites, culminating in a final disagreement that led to the crew leaving the site.
Expenses and Compensation:
Mr. Kroenke detailed extensive expenses incurred, including equipment costs, labor, and logistical challenges, all of which were paid by his company.
Presented an itemized expense report but noted that further costs were accrued after the summary was provided.
Requested the jury to award half of the expenses incurred and compensation for lost potential gold.
Final Departure:
The relationship deteriorated, leading to the crew's departure after being denied the ability to mine a promising site.
Equipment was left behind, with difficulties retrieving it due to restrictions imposed by Mr. Elliott.

This session focused on the contractual disputes, financial losses, and operational challenges faced by Mr. Kroenke's company in their mining efforts, culminating in their departure from the site.

07/10 12:23

Juror's Question: A juror submitted a question about the price of gold per ounce in September 2020. The court acknowledged the relevance but deferred addressing it until later in the trial.
Cross-Examination of Mr. Kroenke:
Mr. Kroenke described his expertise in civil construction and involvement in gold mining, particularly in Alaska.
He discussed his relationship with Mr. Elliott, emphasizing his intent to potentially buy Mr. Elliott's mine and the lack of drilling logs.
Kroenke outlined his crew's activities and challenges in 2020, noting that they relied on daily reports to track their findings, but also faced limitations imposed by Mr. Elliott.
He discussed the costs associated with proving the value of the mine, the use of daily logs, and the limitations of the equipment available on-site.
Kroenke admitted to offering $1.5 million to buy the mine, contingent on finding investors, but later losing trust in Mr. Elliott.
He expressed concerns over the equipment's condition, Mr. Elliott's management style, and his crew's challenges, stating that Mr. Elliott's interference hindered their operations.
Discussion on Agreements:
Mr. Kroenke admitted that the initial agreement did not include specific budget details but justified the expenses as part of their overall operation. He also discussed the decision to charge for both time and overhead due to a perceived breach of trust by Mr. Elliott.
The testimony also covered the mobilization of equipment, with Mr. Kroenke asserting that Mr. Elliott's crew assisted but ultimately hindered their operations.
Conclusion of Session:
The session ended with plans for the next day's witnesses and technical preparations for potential Zoom testimonies. The judge addressed procedural matters, including objections raised by the counsel.

07/11 08:45

The court addressed a few scheduling matters, including the use of Zoom for two witnesses.
There was a discussion regarding a Motion in Limine related to abuse of process damages. The judge requested further input on the matter, particularly concerning discovery issues and the categories and specific amounts of damages sought.
The session involved testimony from Seth Kroenke and Kevin Clark, both connected to the Remote Alaska Solutions (RAS) and the Dan Creek mining project.
Key Testimonies:
Seth Kroenke: Discussed interactions with Randy Elliott, particularly regarding withheld equipment due to lien disputes. He testified about efforts to retrieve equipment and ongoing communication about resolving expenses.
Kevin Clark: Detailed the logistics and challenges of mobilizing equipment to Dan Creek, issues with the condition of Elliott's equipment, and the use of improper fuel causing problems. Clark also addressed the tracking of time and expenses related to the project, including the presentation of these expenses to Elliott.

The session focused heavily on the logistical and operational aspects of the Dan Creek project, the communication and agreements between the parties, and the financial implications.

07/11 10:22

Court Proceeding Status: The court session resumed with all parties and counsel present.
Key Issue Noted: Mr. Frank Martin, who has a severe hearing disability, will be the next witness.
Accommodation Mentioned: The need for headphones was discussed to accommodate Mr. Martin's disability.

No significant legal arguments or rulings were made during this session. The discussion focused on logistical matters related to the witness with a hearing disability.

07/11 10:27

Witness: Frank Martin

Role: Civil Superintendent for Remote Alaska Solutions (RAS), a company owned by Seth Kroenke. Martin has extensive experience in construction and heavy equipment operation, including building roads and gold mining.
Key Testimony:
Martin was primarily tasked with sampling for gold at the Dan Creek mine, under the direction of Seth Kroenke.
Significant portions of Martin's work (75-80%) involved activities directed by Randy Elliott, not directly related to gold sampling, such as building roads and dikes, and repairing equipment.
Martin testified that while he found some gold, his ability to mine effectively was hindered by being redirected to other tasks by Elliott.
Martin believed that he could have mined significantly more gold if allowed to stay at the initial site, estimating potential recovery of up to 1,000 ounces.
Martin expressed dissatisfaction with being moved off productive mining areas and felt that Elliott's decisions negatively impacted gold recovery efforts.
He mentioned issues with using a centrifuge for gold recovery, preferring miner's carpets for their effectiveness in capturing fine gold.
Payment and Compensation:
Martin was employed and compensated by Remote Alaska Solutions, which also covered his expenses.
He was supposed to receive a 3% share of the gold recovered, which he felt was compromised due to being moved from productive areas.

Note: The session included detailed technical discussions on gold mining processes, equipment use, and operational decisions that impacted the outcome of the mining season.

07/11 11:30

Key Issues Discussed:

Juror Questions: A juror submitted questions regarding whether it was necessary to build roads and dikes for testing and sampling. Witness Mr. Martin was recalled to answer these questions. He confirmed that roads were necessary due to soil conditions, but dikes were only precautionary.
Witness Testimony - Travis Turnbull:
Described his role in evaluating and eventually mining at the Dan Creek site.
Detailed challenges in fixing and operating equipment, specifically the "Big Blue" plant, and frustrations with repeated equipment failures.
Testified about the direction received from Mr. Elliott, which included frequently moving to different mining locations, leading to reduced productivity.
Stated that Mr. Elliott directed operations, even though the mining was supposed to be guided by Seth Kroenke's goals.
Expert Testimony - Robert Rutherford:
Provided his expert opinion on the reasonableness of expenses incurred during the mining operation.
Evaluated costs related to materials, labor, equipment rental, flights, and mobilization/demobilization, concluding that all were reasonable.
Emphasized that his analysis was based on the assumption that Kroenke's company acted as a subcontractor.

Conclusion: The session primarily focused on the necessity and challenges of infrastructure for mining operations and the reasonableness of the expenses incurred during these operations.

07/11 13:13

Juror Questions:
What is the area defined as "Idaho Gulch" and why was it removed in the amendment?
Will the other mining contracts be shown?
Were Frank and Travis promised gold before the contract or the amendment?
What contract was the FUBAR crew mining to fulfill for Travis?
Exhibit Discussion:
The only outstanding objection pertains to Defendant's Exhibit A.
The court has not yet admitted or excluded Exhibit A; it may be used as a demonstrative aid in closing or to refresh memory.
The possibility of a voir dire for Ms. Elliott was mentioned to resolve the issue before presenting it to the jury.
Next Steps:
The court will address any rebuttal needs and the motion in limine the following morning.

07/12 08:37

Motions in Limine:

The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Bedinger, requested rulings on three motions in limine, primarily focusing on the exclusion of evidence related to abuse of process damages.
The court granted the motions, subject to limitations on testimony regarding specific damages that were not disclosed in initial discovery.

Key Testimony and Issues:

Mr. Elliott’s ability to market or sell his property was impacted by a lien placed by the plaintiff, which was central to the abuse of process claim. The defense argued that the plaintiff had prior knowledge that the lien could hinder the sale of the property.
The court discussed whether Mr. Elliott could testify about a potential buyer without introducing hearsay evidence.
The court permitted Mr. Elliott to testify that he could not market or sell the property due to the lien but restricted any mention of specific offers or buyers.

Exhibit Admission and Objections:

The defense sought to introduce a late exhibit, an audio recording of a meeting between Mr. Kroenke and Mr. Elliott. The plaintiff objected, arguing it was prejudicial due to the late disclosure.
The court overruled the objection, allowing the exhibit with the reasoning that the recording was already known to the plaintiff and was relevant to rebut earlier testimony.

Witness Testimony and Examination:

Mr. Elliott testified extensively about his experience with gold mining, the challenges of operating at Dan Creek, and his interactions with Mr. Kroenke regarding the sale and development of the property.
Video exhibits were shown, demonstrating the mining operations and the complex logistics involved in running the gold mine, emphasizing the risks and difficulties faced during the 2020 season.

This session primarily focused on the admissibility of evidence and testimony related to the plaintiff’s claims and the defense’s arguments concerning the operations at Dan Creek and the implications of the lien on the property.

07/12 10:25

Audio Recording Playback: The court session involved the playback of an audio recording from a meeting on June 6, 2020, between Seth Kroenke, Kevin Clark, and the speaker, which focused on discussions about a partnership agreement and the allocation of expenses related to a mining operation.
Exhibit 16 - Text Messages: The court reviewed a series of text messages exchanged in July 2020 between the speaker and Seth Kroenke. Key points included:
A dispute over the payment of gold and the terms of their agreement.
Kroenke's demand for an additional 100 ounces of gold due to mounting expenses.
A back-and-forth negotiation about the potential purchase of the property, with offers and counteroffers made.
Lien Filed: A lien for $513,644.43 was filed by Kroenke on November 13, 2020, covering all 480 acres of the speaker's property, despite Kroenke's operations only affecting approximately 26 acres.
Allegations and Disputes:
The speaker refuted claims that he had agreed to a cost-plus contract, stating that such an agreement was never made.
He contested the notion that he prevented Kroenke's crew from mining, explaining that any delays or issues were due to equipment failures and not intentional obstruction.
The speaker highlighted the significant expenses he personally incurred, including fuel and equipment maintenance, with no receipts kept for many of these costs.
Idaho Gulch: The speaker expressed a strong reluctance to sell the Idaho Gulch property, emphasizing its personal and historical value.
Threats and Legal Counsel: Kroenke's mention of corporate counsel and threats of litigation were perceived as coercive by the speaker.
Closing Remarks:
The speaker felt that the accusations of deceit were unfounded, asserting that his efforts were focused on making the mining operation profitable.
Despite the challenges and disputes, the speaker believed that the operation could have been profitable if Kroenke's team had continued their work.

Conclusion: The court session primarily focused on disputes over the terms of a mining agreement, the handling of expenses, and the filing of a lien on the speaker's property. Testimonies and exhibits highlighted the financial disagreements and the breakdown in communication between the parties involved.

07/12 11:21

Cross-Examination of Mr. Elliott:

Text Messages Review: Mr. Elliott was questioned about his reaction to expenses shown by Kevin Clark, revealing a lack of immediate shock in his text responses. He stated that he was shocked but did not text that sentiment.
Discussion of Options: The cross-examination covered a conversation where Seth Kroenke proposed two options, with the first option being a 30-day test with the plant they built. Mr. Elliott agreed that Kroenke was trying to resolve the issue without threatening litigation.
Mine Valuation and Sales Discussion: The value of Mr. Elliott's mine was discussed, showing that he purchased it for between $1.5 and $2.4 million in 2010, and valued it at $40-$50 million in 2023. He acknowledged leasing the property to the Dallas Mining Brothers and executing a 15-page contract with them.
Contract Details: Mr. Elliott confirmed that the contracts he entered with Seth Kroenke were thoroughly discussed and he made no changes to the first contract and only one change (adding the word "anecdotal") to the second. The meaning of the word "anecdotal" was debated, with Elliott agreeing that it could imply unreliability, though he insisted it was not meant to suggest lying.
Provision of Equipment and Personnel: Elliott confirmed that Kroenke provided the equipment and personnel as agreed in the contract, and that the personnel were highly qualified. Elliott’s own equipment was described as "junk," requiring repairs, which were likely carried out by Kroenke's team.
Lack of Expense Documentation: Elliott admitted that he did not provide any receipts, invoices, or other documentation to support his claimed expenses throughout the lawsuit, contradicting his earlier assertion that he provided itemized expenses.

Court Session Conclusion:

The session ended with discussions about scheduling, with the possibility of closing the case on Monday, depending on the need for rebuttal witnesses. Closing arguments are anticipated to take about an hour each. The judge indicated a preference to bring the jury back on Tuesday for closing arguments and jury instructions, rather than extending Monday's session.

07/15 08:34

Jury Matters:

Juror number 10 was dismissed due to illness, reducing the jury to 13 members.
Discussion of logistics for Zoom testimony and the handling of documents during the testimony.
Plan to finish evidence presentation and conduct closing arguments the next day.

Deposition and Testimony Procedures:

Discussions on how to present documents to witnesses during Zoom testimonies, including the logistics of sharing deposition transcripts.
Considerations for handling potential impeachment during cross-examination via Zoom.

Case Issues:

The plaintiff likely plans to drop the implied contract count.
Detailed examination of the contractual agreements between the parties, particularly regarding expense splitting and gold recovery percentages.
Testimony focused on the operations at Dan Creek, including the management of personnel, construction of protective dikes, and the difference between testing and mining.
Dispute over the relevance of Mr. Elliott's certification as a pilot in relation to flight expenses incurred by Mr. Kroenke.

Objections:

Several objections were raised and ruled upon, particularly regarding the relevance and prejudicial nature of certain lines of questioning related to flight expenses.

Next Steps:

The court will resume with Zoom witness testimony and close arguments the following day. Jury deliberations are expected to begin shortly after.

This session primarily dealt with procedural matters, the logistics of remote testimonies, and clarifications regarding the contractual obligations and operations at Dan Creek.

07/15 09:43

Witness Testimony:

Raquel Luna (Defense Witness):
Background: Involved in gold mining since 2019 with the FUBAR crew, including her business partner, Charlie Armstrong, and her son, Joseph Ford.
Operations:
- Began mining at Dan Creek in 2019; continued every summer since.
- Described arrangements with Mr. Elliott, including equipment use and a gold split (20% to her crew, 80% to Mr. Elliott in 2020).
- Detailed annual gold recovery from 2020 to 2023, increasing each year.
Pits and Equipment:
- Clarified that her team did not mine in Seth Kroenke's pit in 2020; they used their own pit and later the blue plant after Kroenke's team left.
- Provided insight into the work and modifications made to the blue plant.
Crew and Operations:
- Her crew operated two 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, with significant expenses including fuel, food, and equipment maintenance.
Cross-Examination:
- Confirmed no prior gold mining experience before 2019 but emphasized the success and growth of her operations.
- Discussed the substantial investment in equipment and the overall cost of operations.
Ron Whittem (Defense Witness):
Background: Long-time bush resident and heavy equipment operator, with 10 years of experience at Dan Creek.
Operations and Relationship with Elliott:
- Owns property at Dan Creek, leases additional land from Mr. Elliott for mining.
- Described a smaller crew (3-6 people) and estimated annual operating expenses at $50,000 (excluding major capital expenditures).
Observations of Kroenke's Crew:
- Noted that Kroenke's crew was not consistently working; mentioned a conversation with Travis Turnbull where Turnbull allegedly said they were "mining the miner."
Medical Assistance:
- Provided medical evacuation for Travis Turnbull due to illness, without charging for the service.
Equipment Storage:
- Offered to allow Seth Kroenke to store his equipment on Whittem’s property, emphasizing a desire to protect the equipment and stop rental charges.
Cross-Examination:
- Confirmed a close friendship with Mr. Elliott, but stressed his commitment to honesty in court.
- Discussed significant investments in equipment, estimating the value close to $1 million.

Procedural Notes:

Motions:
The plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the counterclaim for abuse of process and on the request for human damages. The court deferred ruling on the motion until after the rebuttal case.
Rebuttal:
The plaintiff plans to recall Mr. Kroenke and use deposition testimony from Mr. Charles Armstrong.

Overall: The session primarily focused on witness testimony regarding gold mining operations, relationships between parties, and specific incidents related to the 2020 mining season.

07/15 11:00

Exhibit 27 (Audio Recordings):

The court discussed the introduction of audio from the July 7th meeting as Exhibit 27. There was an objection to its introduction, but the court allowed it, ruling that the jury could have access to the entire audio recording, not just the snippets played in court.
The plaintiff intends to play about 4-5 minutes of audio, which is part of a longer 30-minute recording. The court ruled that the entire recording would be available to the jury during deliberations.

Deposition of Charles Armstrong:

A portion of Charles Armstrong's deposition was read to the jury, focusing on a statement where Armstrong confirmed seeing gold being mined.

Rebuttal Testimony by Mr. Kroenke:

Mr. Kroenke testified about his intent and efforts to mine and process gold at the site, the equipment used (specifically the "Big Blue" processing plant), and his discussions with Mr. Elliott about covering expenses. He emphasized that mining was the focal point of his operations and that the "Big Blue" plant was essential for this purpose.
Mr. Kroenke provided context for his communications with Mr. Elliott, including text messages and recorded meetings, which indicated Elliott's repeated assurances that expenses would be covered.

Cross-Examination of Mr. Kroenke:

The defense challenged Mr. Kroenke on the specifics of the contract, his expectations of expense coverage, and the sufficiency of his crew to operate the mining site. The defense also questioned the timing and circumstances under which the "Big Blue" plant was relinquished to Mr. Elliott's crew.

Directed Verdict Motion:

The plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict focused on dismissing the abuse of process claim and related punitive damages. The plaintiff argued that the lien was filed properly under the contract and that there was no evidence of misuse of legal process for an improper purpose.
The defense opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence, particularly text messages and the timing of certain actions, supported a claim of abuse of process and that the jury should decide on punitive damages based on the plaintiff's conduct during the dispute.

Closing Instructions:

The court discussed the jury instructions and noted that the plaintiff is withdrawing their claim for implied contract, and related instructions would be removed.

Next Steps:

The court plans to issue a ruling on the directed verdict motion before closing arguments. Closing arguments are scheduled for the next session, followed by jury deliberations.

07/16 08:33

Directed Verdict

Motion for Directed Verdict: Denied.
Abuse of Process: Evidence supports the claim that Mr. Kroenke committed a willful act by filing a lien for $500,000 on property not covered by the contract, arguably for an ulterior motive.
Punitive Damages: The decision on punitive damages is closer, requiring clear and convincing evidence of recklessly indifferent or outrageous conduct by Mr. Kroenke. The jury should decide both issues.

Jury Instructions

Instruction Number 7: Revised to reflect the presence of only one expert witness, simplifying the instruction.
Instruction Number 16: Edited to clarify that punitive damages can only be awarded for abuse of process, not for breach of contract. Additionally, the instruction was modified to correctly state that Mr. Elliott can only claim nominal damages for breach of contract, consistent with prior disclosures.
Instruction Number 20: Updated to specify that punitive damages relate only to the abuse of process claim.
Instruction Number 24: Adjusted to clarify the jury's process if they do not reach a verdict by 4 p.m.

Other Points

Exhibit Review: Both parties agreed to review the binders of exhibits to ensure accuracy before sending them to the jury.
Closing Arguments: Jury is to be called in for closing arguments after finalizing the jury instructions and verdict form.

This session primarily dealt with jury instructions and the denial of the motion for a directed verdict, with significant discussion on the appropriate basis for damages and punitive damages.

07/16 09:48

The court session focused on finalizing preparations for closing arguments and ensuring that exhibits, particularly USB drives with audio and video files, are properly organized and only contain admitted evidence. The judge confirmed that jury instructions were reviewed and approved by both parties.
The judge will sign the jury instructions and prepare them for the jury before closing arguments. The alternate juror will sit through the closing and instructions, with the final juror selection occurring just before deliberation.

07/16 09:56

Court Session Details:

The session was focused on closing arguments.

Closing Arguments by Mr. Brzezinski:

Key Points:
Emphasized the importance of facts over anecdotal stories in the courtroom.
Challenged the lack of evidence provided by the opposing counsel, Mr. Campion, on several key claims.
Highlighted that Seth’s company had extensive experience with remote projects, contradicting the opposing side's claims.
Asserted that Seth's testimony was consistent and credible, contrasting it with what he portrayed as exaggerations and inconsistencies in Mr. Elliott's testimony.
Arguments Against Mr. Campion's Claims:
No evidence provided to support the claim that Seth's business was in trouble.
No proof presented that Seth’s company lacked experience in remote areas.
The claim that Seth was rushed into the project was refuted with evidence that both parties needed to act quickly.

Closing Note:

Brzezinski reserved the right to address further matters after Mr. Campion’s closing argument.

This summary provides the essential points of the closing arguments without unnecessary details, focusing on the arguments and evidence presented.

07/16 10:16

Key Issues:

Reimbursement of Expenses:

The central issue is whether Randy Elliott reimbursed Seth for half of the expenses related to the Dan Creek mine project as per their contract.
The contract required expenses to be directly related to the project and supported by proof for reimbursement.
The expenses in question included material fabrication, food and living expenses, labor, equipment, support flights, and mobilization in and out. These were argued to be directly related to the Dan Creek mine, with proof provided through exhibits.
The failure to reimburse these expenses was presented as a breach of contract by Randy Elliott.

Prevention from Mining Gold:

The second key issue was whether Seth was prevented from mining gold by Randy Elliott.
The contract granted Seth unrestricted rights to evaluate and test the entire area of the Dan Creek mine. However, it was argued that the construction of "Big Blue," a processing plant, indicated that mining, not just testing, was intended.
Seth claimed that his crew was restricted to testing only, despite mining being a fundamental part of the agreement to recover costs and make a profit.

Arguments from Both Sides:

Plaintiff's Argument (Seth's Side):
Seth's expenses were related to the project, with proper documentation provided, and Randy Elliott's failure to reimburse was a breach of contract.
Mining was a critical part of the agreement, but Seth was prevented from fully engaging in it.
Defendant's Argument (Randy's Side):
Randy Elliott argued that he fulfilled his obligations by providing access to the mine and that the expenses claimed by Seth were either inflated or unrelated to the project.
Randy Elliott maintained that Seth's claims of being prevented from mining were unfounded, as the contract focused on testing rather than full-scale mining.

Request for Relief:

Seth's Request:
Reimbursement of the claimed expenses as per the contract.
Damages for breach of contract and for being prevented from mining.
Randy's Request:
Nominal damages of $1, asserting that he met his contractual obligations and that Seth's claims were exaggerated.

This summary captures the core issues, arguments, and requests for relief presented during the court session.

07/16 11:41

Argument Overview: The session involved closing arguments in a civil case related to a breach of contract. The primary contention was whether Seth Kroenke was wrongfully prevented from mining gold using a machine called Big Blue, resulting in significant financial loss.
Breach of Contract: It was argued that Mr. Elliott, representing Treasure Chest LLC, breached multiple aspects of the contract:
Failed to provide the necessary equipment.
Denied Kroenke unrestricted access to the mining site.
Did not reimburse Kroenke for incurred expenses.
Damages Calculation: The plaintiff's attorney requested the jury to award damages based on two components:
Expenses: $273,149.63 (half of the total expenses incurred).
Lost Gold Opportunity: 1,500 ounces of gold (estimated value of $1,792,500 based on $2,390 per ounce).
Total Requested Damages: $2,065,649.63.
Evidence Presented: The attorney highlighted that Mr. Elliott’s actions, as recorded in text messages and audio, contradicted his courtroom testimony. The argument emphasized that Elliott’s promises were not fulfilled, leading to Kroenke's financial losses.
Jury Instructions: The judge was preparing to instruct the jury on legal matters relevant to determining whether a breach occurred and the appropriate damages.

This session focused on summarizing the closing arguments and the financial implications of the alleged breach of contract.

07/16 12:27

Jury Instructions: The judge provided detailed instructions to the jury on how to deliberate, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and applying the law impartially. The instructions covered how to evaluate witness testimony, expert opinions, and the legal standards for breach of contract, implied promise of good faith, and the tort of abuse of process.

Key Issues in the Case:

Breach of Contract Claims: Both parties, Kroenke and Treasure Chest LLC, accuse each other of breaching a contract. The jury must determine if a contract existed, whether it was breached, and if damages should be awarded.
Implied Promise of Good Faith: The jury must decide if either party breached the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing within the contract.
Compensatory and Nominal Damages: The jury was instructed on how to award compensatory damages if they find a breach of contract, or nominal damages if no financial loss is proven.
Abuse of Process Claim: Treasure Chest LLC alleges that Kroenke committed abuse of process by recording liens against their property. The jury must determine if this act was improper and if it warrants punitive damages.

Final Steps Before Deliberation:

Exhibits and Evidence: Both parties verified the exhibits and thumb drives containing evidence for the jury. The jury was provided with a laptop to review digital evidence during deliberations.
Deliberation Process: The jury was sent to deliberate with specific instructions, including electing a foreperson and maintaining confidentiality during the deliberation process.

The case is now in the hands of the jury.

07/16 14:39

Jury Question: The jury submitted a question asking if they could answer "yes" to all questions numbered 1, 2, 5, and 6 on the special verdict form.
Response: After discussion, it was agreed that the correct response to the jury's question is "yes." The judge decided to respond with a simple "yes" and not provide additional instructions unless requested by the jury.
Calculator Request: The jury also verbally requested a calculator, which was granted without objection after consulting counsel via email.

No other significant matters were discussed during the session.

07/18 10:58

Jury Deliberation Question: The jury had a question regarding whether a specific act constitutes a legal breach of contract.
Counsel's Response: Both parties agreed to refer the jury to instruction number 14, which defines a breach of contract.
Court's Action: The judge responded to the jury's question by directing them to review instruction number 14 regarding the definition of breach of contract.

This session was primarily focused on addressing the jury's question during deliberations.

07/18 11:41

Jury Question and Response: The jury submitted a question asking whether an inability to come to a decision on question five negates other decisions. Both attorneys agreed that the answer should be "no." The court ruled that the jury should be directed to continue deliberations.
Discussion of Jury Instructions: There was a debate about whether to supplement the court's previous answer to a jury question by referring the jury to specific jury instructions. Ultimately, the court decided to direct the jury to review jury instructions 13 through 17 related to breach of contract, nominal damages, and other relevant points.
Final Decision: The court wrote a response to the jury affirming that their struggle with question five does not negate their prior answers and directed them to review instructions 13 through 17 for further guidance.

This session primarily focused on how to guide the jury's decision-making process through specific instructions related to breach of contract.

07/18 14:53

Jury Verdict:

Breach of Contract by Treasure Chest LLC and Randy Elliott: The jury found that both Treasure Chest LLC and Randy Elliott breached a contract with Seth Kroenke, awarding $170,927.19 in damages.
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The jury also found that Treasure Chest LLC and Randy Elliott breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Seth Kroenke, awarding $292,500 in damages.
Breach of Contract by Seth Kroenke: The jury found that Seth Kroenke breached a contract with Treasure Chest LLC and Randy Elliott, awarding $1 in damages.
Abusive Process: The jury found that Seth Kroenke did not engage in an abusive process when filing his lien.

Next Steps:

The court noted that there are still outstanding equitable claims related to the enforcement or expungement of the lien. The parties were advised to confer and determine how to proceed, potentially involving further proceedings or briefings.