Post by
MTStack on Feb 15, 2023 9:55am
JT really doesn't want the BC Appeal verdict in evidence
JGTF, attorney for the plaintiffs, … C 2418-2021, to this Court I respectfully state”
For the present act, I come to file an appeal of reposition against the resolution dated February 9, 2023, Folio 153, notifying the State Journal on the same date, only with respect to the resolution of Folio 203, because this Court has accepted submitted documents by the opposing party outside of the ordinary evidence term. The contested decision shall be resolved outright and the resolution shall be revoked, and instead, regarding the documents as not having been submitted, because the ordinary evidentiary period has elapsed, and according to Article 348 of the Code of Civil Procedure, documents may only be submitted in the first instance until the expiration of the evidentiary term.
FIRST ADDENDUM: I ASK THE COURT, in the event of the rejection of the appeal of reposition in the principal, I object to the document attached to Folio 203, consisting of the alleged decision of the Court of Appeals of British Columbia, Canada, dated December 7, 2022, because there is no record of its authenticity, nor the signature of the alleged magistrates, nor is there even a digital signature. In turn, as a result, this document has not been legalized or authenticated before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile so that this eventual ruling is valid as an instrument in the present trial.
SECOND ADDENDUM: In addition to the principal and the first addendum, without prejudice to the fact that the authenticity of the document to be translated is not even recorded, according to what is stated in the first addendum of this document, that the document, submitted in the first addendum of Folio 203, be reviewed and a translation of the document be made by an expert appointed by this Court at the expense of the defendants.
THIRD ADDENDUM: I ASK THE COURT, it should be borne in mind that, given the content of what is referred to by the opposing party in its brief in Folio 203, the Canadian lawyers will submit before the Supreme Court of Canada, before the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights and before any foreign court, be it ordinary or arbitral, everything done in these records in in the trial C 1036-2021 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago, especially in reference to the alleged quality of Felipe Ossa Guzman as an expert lawyer in Chilean mining law, since he does not have it or has had it, as will be specified below.
I. SUPPOSED EXPERTISE IN CHILEAN MINING LAW OF OSSA
1. Felipe Ossa, hereinafter "O" acknowledged on several occasions that he is not an expert lawyer in Chilean mining law (Answers Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 47, 48 and 49, of 08/09/2021, First Hearing in trial C-1036-2021 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago and Answers Nos. 2 and 8, of 03/09/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second citation) (Answers Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 47, 48 and 49, of 11/10/2021, First Hearing in trial C-2418 of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago and Answers Nos. 2 and 8, of 04/22/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second summons)
2. Ossa indicates that he was hired by the BC Securities Commission as "... litigation expert..." (Answer No. 3, 09/08/2021 in first summons, process of the First Civil Court, C-1036-2021 (Answer No. 3, of 10/11/2021, of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, first summons). He responds that way since he was asked if he had been hired because of his knowledge and experience in Chilean mining law. The reason for his hiring was not to be an expert in Chilean mining law, but in litigation, according to him.
Subsequently, he indicated and ratified (Response No. 5, 08/09/2021, First Hearing in trial C-1036 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago) (Response No. 5, 10/11/2021, First Hearing in trial C-2418-2021 of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago) that he was not hired by the BCSC because he was an expert lawyer in Chilean mining law.
II. OSSA DID NOT HAVE BEFORE HIM THE COMPLETE RECORDS OF THE TRIALS REFERRED TO IN HIS AFFIDAVIT.
He acknowledges that he did not have in view complete files: C-719-2011 of the 2nd Court of Letters of Vallenar; C-560-2012 of the 1st Court of Letters of Vallenar; C-1912-2001 of the 14th Civil Court of Santiago, C-3784-2016 of the 18th Civil Court of Santiago. See the following answers: Nos. 17 and 27, 08/09/2021, First Hearing in trial C-1036-2021 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago. See Answers Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, of 09/03/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second summons.
See the following answers: Nos. 17 and 27, 10/11/2021, First Hearing in trial C-2418-2021 of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago. See Answers Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, of 09/03/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second summons.
III. OSSA ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SOME OF THE CONTENT IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IS WRONG.
He had indicated in his Affidavit with regard to the mining concessions called "TESORO One 1-30 to Tesoro Twelve 1-5" that Mr. Unda had allegedly indicated in the contestation and the rejoinder (before the 14th Civil Court of Santiago, C-1912-2001) that he had constituted them on
behalf of Minera Nevada.
He recognizes (Answers Nos. 20 and 22, 08/09/2021, First Hearing in trial C-1036-2021 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago) (Answers Nos. 20 and 22, 10/11/2021, First Hearing in trial C-2418-2021 of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago) that this was not true, since in the aforementioned writings, Mr. Hctor Unda Llanos through his lawyer, indicates that the constitution of the mining concessions called TESOROS, were constituted in his own name and that he did not act in his capacity as agent, agent or representative of Minera Nevada.
To justify this falsehood, he alludes to the fact that he had only the judgment before him, and not the complete file.
IV. OSSA DENIES IN COURT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT.
1. Ossa denies in his appearance to the court that he has issued a report of the trial C-3784-2016 of the 18 Civil Court of Santiago, being that in his Affidavit he treats and analyzes it in detail. (Answers 30 and 31, 09/08/2021, First Hearing in C-1036-2021 Process of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago) (Answers 30 and 31, 10/11/2021, First Hearing in C-2418-2021 Process of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago).
2. He then acknowledges in his second statement that he did not have in view the complete file, since he would only have had his alleged judgments available (Answer 20, of 09/03/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second citation) (Answer 20, of 22/04/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second citation).
V. OSSA RECOGNIZES THE RIGHTS OF OWNER OF MINING CLAIMS.
1. Ossa recognizes that owners of mining claims have rights under the Mining Code. (Answer 35, 08/09/2021, First Hearing in trial C-1036-2021 of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago) (Response 35, 11/10/2021, First Hearing in trial C-2418-2021 of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago) (Response 24, 30, of 03/09/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second summons).
2. Ossa acknowledges that Jorge Lopehanda Corts was the owner of the mining claims called AMARILLOS NORTE AND AMARILLOS SUR of 2011 and that he had the right to carry out preliminary exploration work in the area, such as extracting minerals, without prejudice to the rights of third parties in the area. (Answers 24, 30, 31, 04/22/2022, of the 7th Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second summons).
VI. OSSA ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE DID NOT ATTACH HIS CURRICULUM VITAE DESPITE NOTING IT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT.
Ossa acknowledges that he did not attach a copy of his CV or the post-graduate certificates in his Affidavit and neither when he testified in Canada, despite the fact that in his Affidavit he indicated that he had done so (Answers 4, 6, 7, of 09/03/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second citation) (Answers 4, 6, 7, of 04/22/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second citation).
VII. OSSA RECOGNIZES OWNERSHIP OF TESORO MINING CONCESSIONS IN THE NAME OF UNDA.
Ossa acknowledges that, of the documents contained in his affidavit, exhibit S, relating to the TESOROS mining concessions, Mr. Hctor Mardoqueo Unda Llanos is listed as the registered owner. (Answer 12, of 03/09/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second summons) (Answer 12, of 04/22/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second summons).
VIII. PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE OF 14th CIVIL COURT OF SANTIAGO.
Ossa indicates that the precautionary measure that prohibits carrying out acts and contracts
decreed by the 14th Civil Court of Santiago, C-1912-2011 would have been without effect on the date on which he prepared his AFFIDAVIT, but the lifting was only registered on the margin of the TESOROS titles in the Conservator of Mines of Vallenar dated October 20, 2017, as can be corroborated with the domain titles (Answer 14, of 03/09/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second citation) (Answer 14, of 04/22/2022, of the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, C-2418-2021, second citation).
IX. OSSA ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE DID NOT HAVE IN VIEW LEGALIZED COPIES OF THE RECORDS OF THE TRIALS WHERE HE ISSUED HIS AFFIDAVIT, NOR DID HE LEGALIZE THE AFFIDAVIT.
Ossa acknowledges that he did not have in view the legalized copies of the judgments he had in view, that can be corroborated in the fact that, in most of the attached documents, the signatures of the judges do not appear. (Answer 21 and 33, of 03/09/2022, of the First Civil Court of Santiago, C-1036-2021, second summons).
[The answers referred to above are from the Ossa Absolution of Positions Hearings. JT submitted the Questions and Answers from Ossa’s Hearing in trial C 1036-2021 with this document. Which begs the question: if Ossa/Claro cannot submit evidence at this time (the basis of JT’s request for reposition – see first paragraph), why can JT submit evidence?]
FOURTH ADDENDUM: I ASK THE COURT, to have submitted, a copy of the two transcripts (with their respective statements of positions) of the hearings of Acquittal of Positions of Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman, defendant in the trial, carried out in trial C 1036-2021, of the 1st Civil Court of Santiago.
FIFTH ADDENDUM: I ASK THE COURT, in the event that the present incident is received to evidence, I come to make clear that I will use each and every one of the means of proof that the law provides.
SIXTH ADDENDUM: I ASK THE COURT, in order to result in the evidence provided in the file that Felipe Ossa Guzman never had nor has had the quality of expert lawyer in mining law that would have allowed him to appear abroad as an expert in this matter, which will be present before international organizations, it is useful to set a day and time for a document exhibition hearing, and it is required that Felipe Ossa Guzman, exhibit the post-graduate degree he received at Oxford University and that this party supposes not even in Law, but in Philosophy. Philosophy, therefore, would further invalidate his alleged credentials he received abroad, the ignorance of which on the part of the foreign court could be due to the fact that he did not attach his CV and therefore, my clients could not challenge his supposed quality of expert.