Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )

Filed by the Registrant |_| Filed by a Party
other than
the Registrant |X|
Check the appropriate box:
| | Preliminary Proxy Statement
|_| Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only
(as permitted by
Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
| | Definitive Proxy Statement
|X| Definitive Additional Materials
|_| Soliciting Material Pursuant to ss.240.14a-12

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) Inc.
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if
than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate
|X| No fee required
|_| Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act
Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

1) Title of each class of securities to which
transaction applies:

2) Aggregate number of securities to which
transaction applies:

3) Per unit price or other underlying value of
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the
amount on
which the
filing fee is calculated and state how it was

4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of

5) Total fee paid:

|_| Fee paid previously with preliminary

|_| Check box if any part of the fee is offset as
by Exchange Act
0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the
fee was paid previously. Identify the previous
by registration statement number, or the Form or
Schedule and the date of its filing.

1) Amount Previously Paid:

2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

3) Filing Party:

4) Date Filed:

Messages posted on Yahoo.

Re: Hidden Agenda,
by: AaCBrown (44/M/New York
City, New York)
pm EDT
4092 of

I don't understand why asking "Who is JSherry?" and
"Who is Anthony Ford?" (when you are both people) is
seeking a reply to my postings. But that's okay.

I don't think anything Deborah or I have said has been
ugly or unfair to John Sottile. We have criticized his
communication, focus and risk aversion, but not his
management of the business; and certainly not his
honesty, competence or character. We want him as
CEO of Goldfield, we just think he will do a better job
for shareholders with a board that challenges him. I
think any CEO does better with a board that challenges
him or her. With all due respect, you have said far
more hurtful things about John Sottile than we ever

Frankly, I think you are really saying that John Sottile
feels insulted. I think that's a reflection of being
surrounded by too many yes-men; by having a
company insulated from shareholders and press. When
you're the CEO of a public company you have taken
the public's money, you need also to take the public's
opinion. Sure, a lot of shareholders are ignorant,
foolish and greedy; but if you don't like dealing with
the public you should get another job. Just cruise
around a few Yahoo! boards at random and you'll see
we're pretty reasonable compared to the stuff you read
on them.

Saying John Sottile "objects to those trying to force the
unwanted down his throat" is saying he objects to
disagreement. The Goldfield board of directors is not
his throat, it's the body shareholders elect to oversee
their interests. We can elect whomever we like, for
whatever reasons we like. I think Goldfield would
return more money to common shareholders if there
were more disagreement. A good business tolerates,
needs, creative tension and a diversity of views.

I believe you are working for the best interests of
shareholders, after all you are the largest shareholder
and have been an activist for years. I appreciate that at
this point we disagree about the best action. One big
difference is you will have a son on the board,
someone you know and trust. I have no one on the
board I know and trust. That's why I want one, and you
wanted one too before the Company nominated Al

But in the past we have agreed more than disagreed,
and I think that will be true in the future as well,
whether we win or lose. So I think we should just
agree to disagree for the moment.

eRaider is soliciting proxies for Goldfield's annual
meeting on June 19. Click on [Yahoo! censored link]
to get summarized information on the participants to
the proxy solicitation. Also, eRaider strongly advises
all shareholders to read the proxy statement when it is
available on the website. If you want a
free copy of the proxy statement and/or the
information on the participants, please email [Yahoo!
censored email address] or write us at:

Privateer Asset Management
POB 20170
Park West Station
NY, NY 10025

Aaron Brown
eRaider co-founder

The rest of the messages are on the eRaider website, the GV message

Message 422
We would welcome a report on St. Cloud. However, be careful not to
misrepresent yourself, we don't want to be accused of spying. But if the
Company will give you a tour (most companies welcome shareholder
visitors, but the current circumstances might preclude that), we'd all love
to know. If not, it would still be nice to know if the facilities look active,
the people look enthusiastic and so forth. You can tell a lot about a
company in five minutes.

Your instincts are sound. Dissident shareholders are always well advised
to double check everything about the voting: with the exchange, with
brokers (the large brokers, anyway) and how things are counted
(remember the Florida Presidential election).
Aaron Brown
eRaider co-founder
Msg 423

There is no legal obligation to inform shareholders that the election is
contested. Personally, I feel the board has an ethical obligation to make the
election as fair as possible. To me that means putting rival director
candidates in the proxy statement, so shareholders get one document with
all candidates presented on an equal basis. Without this, boards must know
that a lot of shareholders will vote their way, not because they agree with
the board, but because they do not know there is another choice. No one
should want uninformed votes.

However, there is no law in any state that says this and it is almost
unheard of for boards to allow equal time for dissident nominees. I think
this is a part of a corporate culture that is anti-democratic, afraid of
diversity and basically anti-shareholder. eRaider challenges this attitude,
and I think things are changing our way. In ten years, I am confident
things will be much more fair and open.

As you mention in your next message, Goldfield has gone beyond the
legal minimum by mentioning us in their proxy statement. I consider this a
positive sign. Of course, it's always a choice for an incumbant: ignore the
opposition to make it seem trivial, or fight it at the risk of making it seem
more important. I think shareholder interests are better served by open
discussion of disagreements.
Aaron Brown
eRaider co-founder