My posting would not post due to the length of the questions and answers. I will have to post this in two parts.

So many questions, so did you have Mike Casto's attorney assist you with them?

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES:

1. "Have you ever produced, for people to see, an easement over the land that is now owned by Kevin and Tanya?"

A. The document is on the DCHS,Inc website:
http://www.deepcreekhotsprings.org/dchsdeed.html

2. "Did you know that there was once a house on that land and that "the road" was actually a driveway to that house?"

A. This road provided access for two private landowners. One with a house one was vacant land. This road provided necessary access to these two private landowners. Otherwise their land would have been landlocked.
When the land to the south of Moss Mill Ranch and Kevin and Tanya was sold through a huge land exchange to the United States of America or public land. United States of America or public land is land that belongs to the public, you and me.

United States Code, Title 43 Section 1715. Acquisitions of public lands

"(c) Lands and interests in lands acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section or section 1716 of this title shall, upon
acceptance of title, become public lands, and, for the administration of public land laws not repealed by this Act, shall remain public lands."

3. "Did you know that when the original house burnt down it was rebuilt on what is now BLM land just to be nearer a water source?"

A. The reason it was built where it was built is irrelevant to the easement issue. The house that was rebuilt ended up on land belonging to the United States Government and that is where William Schweiss filed his
mining claim.

4. "Have you ever told anyone that William Schwiess lived in the Moss Mill illegally in trespass and was eventually removed by force and fined in the courts for over $7000?"

A. William had a legal mining claim for 17 years. In December 10, 1998, the building was bulldozed. When ordered to vacate the mining claim by the Federal court judge, William Schweiss vacated the buildings. There was no force except the force of the legal system. The $7,000 is for the cost of bulldozing the buildings.

5. "Quite the business partner. Have you mentioned that you (Gail) and William are the two owners of DCHS Inc ?"

A. We have not asked anyone else to take the risks that we are personally taking. That would not be fair to ask.

6. "Will any of your "tax deductible donations" go to paying off William's fines?"

A. The bulldozing costs are William's personal debt.

7. "Have you asked Kevin and Tanya to open their land to the public for access?"

A. They just recently became the owners and have already informed the BLM in writing that they would not allow the public access through their land.

8. "Why didn't you buy the land when it was for sale?"

A. Was there a for sale sign?

9. "Will Kevin and Tanya become enemies of the cause if they decide not to let the public across their land?"

A. That will depend on Kevin and Tanya. The Government Agencies have an interest in this road, both the BLM and the County of San Bernardino. I have no authority concerning whether Moss Mill Road is opened or
closed. Kevin and Tanya may have no choice either.

10. "Have you brought to anyone's attention that there is no easement across their land?"

A. The prior chain of title deeds:
http://www.deepcreekhotsprings.org/bfredsdeeds.html

I have their title documents at this link:
http://www.deepcreekhotsprings.org/kevintanyadeed.html

11. "Why not? Why isn't there?"

A. Could it be Fred's tricky deeds?

12. "You were nice enough to post the lawsuit against Mike by Nancy Bates. Have you mentioned that the lawsuit was thrown out"

A. In Nancy Bates' lawsuit, Mike Castro countersued for libel and slander. Nancy's attorney filed a "special motion to strike" which alleges that Mike Castro filed the countersuit to silence Widow Bates. In the
room, the Judge decided in Widow Bates favor awarding legal fees to Widow Bates' attorney. The final ruling by the judge, did a 180 degree change in his decision. Something funny happened there. It frightened Widow Bates' attorney off of the case. With the legal wrangling, Widow Bates ran out of money. Gentile insisted that Widow Bates appear in court in person while menacing her with arrest. Then the Judge ordered that she appear in person while this warrant was out for her arrest. Widow Bates knew that if she appeared she might be arrested for these false charges that Mike Castro was able to bring against her. In her absence, the lawsuit filed against Mike Castro was dismissed with prejudice. Meaning that she is barred from filing this case again unless she has new evidence. She appealed but was unable to withstand the threats.

13. "and that there is now a warrant out for the arrest for Nancy Bates in conjunction with that lawsuit?"

A. The warrant was issued several years ago. We estimate 1999? Actually, I would really like to know when. The warrant was for the
alleged charge of obscene or threatening phone calls made to Mike Castro. The charges are misdemeanors. The Sheriff Detective was
Laura Savage.