The English is as transcribed. It is not my translation of the Spanish. I made some minor corrections for ease of reading. Text in brackets [ ] was not translated into English in the original, which I translated for clarity. R: Judicial Receiver, Fernando Narbona Rodriguez; BJ: Brent Johnson; AV: Alvaro Vives; JT: Juan Torres; I: Interpreter.
~
R: Ok, good afternoon, here with the acquitting provisions respect of the acquitting Mr. Brent Hugo Johnson, lvaro Vives and Joaqun Plaza and also the interpreter. I need the acquitting Mr. Brent, to provide the proof of identity identification, please show that to the camera.
Please put it a bit far away, so we can take a look at your name.
There we are, thank you very much.
Do you promise to say the truth on what we're going to ask on this audience?
BJ: I absolutely do.
R: This specification is encrypted and I just received this information, so we are going to proceed with the questions.
This is a specification containing the position that Mr. Brent Hugo Johnson should personally absolve for himself and under oath in action indemnification for damages claim Torres v. Claro & Co that are filed before the 7th Civil Court of Santiago under the role number 2418 of the year 2021.
If you need... we need repetition of anything, we will try to solve that, and we will try to repeat the information as many times as necessary.
- First of all to please clarify if you speak fluent Spanish.
BJ: Sorry. I do not
- So you explain your relationship with the Canadian company Mountain Star Gold Inc.
BJ: Would you like me to explain it?
R: Yes, please. This is what the question is about.
BJ: Sure. I was appointed as CEO, president and director of Mountain West Resources in 1995. I commenced the job officially in October of 95 when I was voted by the shareholders to be into those positions. I remained in that position -all three positions - until April 9th, 2019, when the British Columbia Securities Commission made their ruling and banned me from being those positions and also banned Mountain Star Gold from ever trading again and also from me having extreme restrictions. I'm not even allowed to form a private company. So that's where I am right now and that's what we're talking about.
AV: Can you please clarify if Mountain West Resources and Mountain West Inc are the same company?
BJ: Mountain West Resources Inc and Mountain Star Gold are the same company, yes.
- Please if you can say how it is effective and consistent that you where the Chief Executive Officer between the years that you mentioned, a Chief Executive Officer and CEO and director of Mountain Star.
BJ: Yes, I was those three positions of both companies.
JT: Between 2011 and 2019?
BJ: That's for Mountain Star Gold, and from 1995 to 2011 into 2012, when we changed the name to Mountain Star Gold, I don't recall the exact date of name change only.
- For you to say how it is effective and you were aware that Fitzgerald Living Trust (Fitzgerald) 11 initiated a civil contempt process against Mountain Star and you.
JT: I object because it is not related to the points that were set out in the court test.
[Questions 4 thru 7 were withdrawn.]
8. So for you to say how it is effective and you know that Mountain Star was subject to control by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Canadian State of British Columbia, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
BJ: Yes, they charged us. Yes, it was effective.
9. For you to say and how it is effective, if you know, that you were subject to the control of the
Securities Commission.
BJ: Yes, the Securities Commission completely controlled us.
10. So you to say how it is effective and if you know that Mountain Star was obliged to deliver information to the market that was relevant for the purposes of valuing the share, your share.
BJ: Yes, we always have to do every three months continuous disclosure to the markets and also we have to do a news report today, if there's information that comes in today that the market must be informed of.
11. To say please say how it is effective, and for the record, that Mountain Star entered into an option agreement with Jorge Rodrigo Lopehanda Corts in 2011, called the option agreement.
BJ: That is effective, yes
12. So you know how it is effective and that you are aware that you entered into the option agreement without having reviewed these terms and conditions advised by a Chilean lawyer.
BJ: I don't know exactly what you mean in regard to that. We had lots of advice by our Canadian lawyer before we entered into it, we had many, many hours so... and Mr. Alan Finlayson prepared the agreement, which one of them is 27 pages long. The next one, the another one I can't remember the title of it, but it's about close to 70 pages long so I would suggest it was reviewed. It is effective.
JT: [Don Fernando, I would like you to repeat the question, because you specifically asked whether the contract was reviewed by a Chilean lawyer. I understand that it was reviewed by a Canadian lawyer and you have not asked that question, but the question was whether it was reviewed by a Chilean lawyer.]
R: The question is if this contract was reviewed by a Chilean lawyer.
BJ: It was... Jorge Lopehanda had a Chilean lawyer, I'm not sure that Juan Guillermo had started yet. And he had another, I'm trying to think of his name at the moment. believe he reviewed it. Mr. Alan Finlayson found a lawyer in Chile that would have reviewed the contract, our business fully. He said it would cost us 175.000 USD in advance and once he did that, that's all he would do. So we did not do that step.
JT: [Yes, Mr. Ferdando, forgive me for insisting, but it was not clear to me. I understand that his counterparty in the first contract, Mr. Jorge Lopehandia would have a Chilean lawyer. The question is whether Mountainstar had a Chilean lawyer for the review of the contract and I think that has not been made clear.]
R: The specific question and I repeat again, it is if Mountain Star had a Chilean lawyer for the review of the contract.
BJ: Not an independent Chilean lawyer.
R: Okay. So, we are going to skip this exhibition. Question 13: So, you can say please how it is effective and you know that the option contract was the main asset of Mountain Star.
BJ: Yes, we had another mining situation in Juneau, Alaska to produce gold, but the main one would be considered Pascua. Yes.
I: Would be considered how was the word? Sorry.
BJ: Would be considered the Pascua deposit. Lama is in Argentina.
I: Can you repeat the answer, please?
BJ: Ok. The main asset was the Pascua deposit, Amarillos Sur, Amarillos Norte. Approximately 20, approximately 14,400 hectares of mining claims.
I: Please can you clarify if the deposits of Pascua are related to the contract option. Yes or no?
BJ: Yes.
R: Question 14: To say how effective it is and if you are aware that Mountain Star informed the market of the execution of the option contract.
BJ: Absolutely, timely.
R: To state how it is effective, please and for the record that, by virtue of the option contract, Mountain Star had the right to acquire the property of the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims.
BJ: Yes, those are metallic mining claims. The other mining claims were salts and nitrates, Metallic mining claims override salts and nitrates.
[Question was repeated.]
BJ: Absolutely, yes.
[Question 16 was withdrawn.]
R: Question 17: So in order for you to say how it is effective, and to your knowledge, if Mountain Star entered into the option agreement with the understanding that the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims constituted mining concessions.
BJ: I believe they had to be worked to mining concession. I believe they were mining concessions. We did it all absolutely legally, that's all I can say. I'm not a geologist or an engineer, so I'm not going to pretend to be and that was handled by various people within the company and lawyers. There's certainly I believe they were mining concessions and they were done in the absolute proper due process that SERNEAGEOMIN requires.
R: Question 18: To state how it is effective and if you know that if the Amarillos Norte y Amarillos Sur mining claims are canceled and Mountain Star would have the right to obtain the restitution of the funds paid to Mr. Jorge Lopehanda under the option agreement.
[JT: I object on the grounds that this is a contractual relationship between MSX and Jorge Lopehandia, which is not related to the subject matter of the trial but is a relationship unrelated to it.]
[AV: Sorry, here unfortunately, we are going to have a problem if this ends up generating multiple hearings for Mr. Johnson. It will have to be like that. I oppose that objection and request that the 9
th Court rule because the contract in question is precisely the reason why they are alleging damages against our client. The effect that the declaration of Mr. Felipe Ossa had according to the plaintiffs in the option contract is the reason they invoke as cause of a trial and consequently properly understand that contract and its effects is critical for the purposes of resolving the present case. It is fully in relation to …]
[JT: I will withdraw the objection.]
[Question is repeated.]
BJ: Yes, I believe the option agreement allowed that.
R: Question 19: To indicate whether after the cancellation of the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining demonstrations Mountain Star exercised this right.
BJ: We did not exercise our rights to cancel... The Amarillos Sur y Amarillos Norte were cancelled in 2017 with a clear strategy in place. Juan Guillermo can tell me if I need to say anything further to that. Juan Guillermo and Jorge did it with brilliant strategy. That's all I'll say.
R: Your answer was related to the restitution of the funds, right?
BJ: Yes.
[JT: Don Fernando, Is possible to remind the absolvent that he must remain alone in the 18th room for the duration of the diligence?]
R: One of the requirements of today's session is not to check any documents please during this session and to be alone in your room, please, Brent.
BJ: I haven't checked any documents and I'm alone in my room.
R: Question 20: To be shown the paragraph 8 of the explanatory press release Legal Proceedings in Chile, titled the Pascua Llama Project –the press release– and indicate whether the mining claims to which you refer are the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur.
I: They are going to show you some documents that were translated into English. It is the document number 347 of the CPC and they're going to show you the original document, the original exhibit. Before that [inaudible], they are going to share the screen, so you can review that. Please confirm that you can see it. Do you see that correctly, Mr. Brent? You need to confirm that it is so.
BJ: Yes, I see it, point number 8. Yeah.
[Question is repeated.]
BJ: Yes, they are.
R: Question 21: To indicate, if you know, that the Amarillos Norte and the Amarillos Sur mining demonstrations were canceled between 2012 and 2013.
BJ: Some of the claims were canceled along the way. I don't have exact dates. They were canceled because of Mr. Juan Guillermo and Mr. Lopehanda filing further lawsuits, responding to further lawsuits, I might add. As everyone in that room will know that cost your enemy the max and you'll get them somewhere along the way. Not this case.
I: Can you repeat the last part please? I didn't get that.
BJ: I said cost your enemy –meaning Mountain Star Gold– the maximum amount of expense and throw in a few more lawsuits and you will get them right away because Barrick has the money –we didn't– and anyway, that's not going to be the result.
I: Can you repeat please your answer, Brent?
BJ: Yes, I certainly can. What people do in a battle such as this is the big guy costs the little guy the maximum amount of money. Horrific number of incorrect unwarranted lawsuits were thrown in against Mr. Lopehanda and that's why some of the claims up at Pascua –we're on Amarillos Sur and mainly, I think Amarillos Sur, but Amarillos Norte as well– while they were dropped, because there was not enough money. Some will drop, not all of them.
[AV: Mr. Fernando, I would like you to repeat the question to answer first on the state of the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur claims, whether or not they were cancelled, what he remembers and knows and how many of them does he remember and knows and then, without prejudice to what he wants to tell us about Barrick and his relationship with Mr. Lopehandia.]
I: Please indicate if you are aware that the Amarillos Norte y Amarillos Sur mining claims were canceled between 2012 and 2013. Is that correct? Do you know that?
BJ: I do not know the dates they were canceled, but they not all were canceled, some were canceled.
R: Question 22: Please indicate whether Mountain Star inform the market of the cancellation of the Amarillos Norte y Amarillos Sur mining demonstrations that were canceled between 2012 and 2013.
BJ: To be fully honest, I will say I don't think they were reported. I might be wrong so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong on the good side and the reason would be because we didn't cancel them all. So they were still in effect.
R: Question 23: To state how it is effective and to be aware that the result of the process labeled Villar Compaa, followed before the 14th Civil Court of Santiago under the case number 1912 of the year 2001, the Villar process, was relevant for the purposes of the execution of the option contract.
BJ: Yes, it was extremely relevant to the whole process because that injunction had Mr. Unda Llanos state that he knew nothing about Barrick Gold Corporation whatsoever. Never worked for him, never had anything to do with them and when he overlaid the Tesoros claims he knew nothing of them. It's proven later in 2012 that he was an employee of Barrick Gold Corporation.
I: Can you repeat your answer please, Brent?
[Question is repeated.]
BJ: It has been relevant for the option contract until Mr. Juan Guillermo and Mr. Lopehanda dropped the injunction, which I believe was in 2017, because Barrick Gold or any of their subsidiaries were not allowed to do any acts or contracts on that property and Undo Llanos swore under oath that the...
I: Brent sorry, you need to speak slower, so I can write down all the information, because it's full of details and I need to translate very accurately. Can you go back please, to the very beginning?
BJ: No problem. So the injunction in 1912-2001 was sworn by Hctor Unda Llanos that when he overlaid the Tesoro’s claim on top of Jorge Lopehanda claims, Villar’s claims that he knew nothing about Barrick Gold Corporation in that time frame and therefore the court allowed it to go forward. In 2012 Mr. Unda Llanos in another court –I believe in Vallenar– swore with one of Barrick's lawyers, I think Claudia Schaffel, that he'd been an employee of Barrick Gold Corporation since 1995. So I think that's really all I need to say on it. Legally, all you gentleman know what that means.
R: Question 24: To indicate, please, if you know in what year the Villar process ended and if you know its result.''
BJ: I do not know that... several, big many different court sessions. I know it was still going on in 2014. A very heavy decision came through around just after October 2nd of 2014 and where the Supreme Court had to get involved. And I think that might have been the time when –yeah, that was the time– the Supreme Court threw Jorge's brother Cristbal out of the case and threw Villar out of the case, but Jorge had maintained his rights and he continued.
I: Are you aware if the process is still open? Do you know that?
BJ: My understanding is the Villar process is not still open, but Juan Guillermo knows the best on that, as to whether that's important to us or not. I would suggest it's no concern to us whatsoever or he has title.
[The above answer as interpreted into Spanish does not agree with the English above. The answer in Spanish reads: As far as I know, it is not still open. Juan Guillermo may have more information and he also knows that if it is important or not for us. I think not, that it is not important and if Jorge has more information about it, perhaps. Jorge now holds the title. In other words, he has the responsibility.]
[AV: I think he didn’t say responsibility, he said only title.]
[I: Title. Jorge has the title.]
R: Question 25: Please indicate if Mountain Star informed the market that Mr. Rodolfo Villar claim in the Villar process was rejected completely.
BJ: I don’t know.
R: Question 26: So you say please how effective it is and if you know that the result of the process labeled "Lopehanda v. Ca Minera Nevada" proceeded before the second civil court of Vallenar and that the case number 719-2011 –the Lopehanda process– and if it was relevant for the purposes of the execution of the option contract".
BJ: What I remember of that very clearly it was very, very positive in favor of Lopehanda and Juan Guillermo and our case.
I: Would you say that this was relevant for the purposes of the execution of the option contract?
BJ: It was relevant for the ongoing process of the option contract, which of course the ongoing option contract was in place on April 9th, 2000, and still is in place April 9th, 2019, when I will state the
B.C. Court of Appeal. I use the word fraudulently threw Mountain Star and me out of the industry.
I: Can you repeat the last part, please?
BJ: Yes. The contract was still in place is still in place up to and including now, but including the time when the three judges at the BC Securities Commission fraudulently threw myself and Mountain Star out of the industry forever.
I: Can you please repeat your answer Brent, please?
BJ: Yes. The option agreement is still in place to this day and it was in place on April 9th, 2019 when the three judges, the panel, threw Mountain Star Gold the company and myself personally out of the industry forever, fraudulently.
I: When you speak about the three judges of the panel, are you talking about the British Columbia Commission?
BJ: Yes, I am.
I: It is still not clear in your answer if the Lopehanda process, dealt with in the court of Vallenar, is relevant or not for the option contract.
BJ: All of what went on there on October 2nd of 2014 through Vallenar... the Supreme Court judge rule that Villar is no longer in the contract because he didn't maintain his rights. Cristbal Lopehanda did not, is not in the contract any longer because he did not maintain his rights but Jorge Lopehanda is the only one standing in the contract because he did maintain his rights. So yes, it is relevant.
R: Question 27: Do you know when ended the trial initiative by Cristbal Lopehanda and its results? Do you 21 know that information?
BJ: I absolutely know the result. Cristbal lost. He was –if I am stating correctly, I'm pretty sure I am– defending, fighting in favor of Barrick and it ended there because within 24 hours Cristbal Lopehanda was broadsided by a high speed car within two blocks of his home and killed.
R: Question 28: To indicate please if Mountain Star inform the market that Mr. Cristbal Lopehanda, claiming the Lopehanda process, that was rejected in its entirety.
BJ: I don't believe, actually, I don't remember on that. We are talking intense history that's going on since 2010 the beginning to the present time, so i don't remember.
R: To state please how it is effective and if you're aware that the result of the process labeled as 'Torres v. Compana Minera Nevada', followed before the first court of letters of Vallenar under the case 560-2012, the Torres process was relevant for the purposes of the execution of 26 the option contract.
BJ: It was relevant. I do not have memory as to when that case... where it fit in.
R: Question 30: Please indicate if you know what year the Torres process ended and it's result.
BJ: I don't remember. I don't remember what year they ended and the way it's going from the Board of Directors of Mountain Star position it's still going at a very serious level.
I: Do you know if the process for Mr. Jorge Lopehanda in Vallenar has ended or not? Are you 4 aware of that? Do you know if that process has ended?
BJ: I believe the process in Vallenar has ended.
I: Do you remember or know how it ended?
BJ: There was many initiations in the different courts, including in Vallenar, so I don't know which one is being referred to. So my answer is I don't remember.
[Question 31 is withdrawn.]