JL deposition Chapter 6 ... in which JL admits that he had no intention of paying for the surveys. Since the surveys are an absolute requirement to establishing a concession, he never intended for the claims to become concessions. So why would one file mining claims that would never be constituted as concessions? I think we all know the answer to that one.
To continue .....
The Hearing was attended by Joaquin Plaza, Alvaro Vives and Nicolas Luco, attorneys for the defense, Juan Guillermo Torres, attorney for the plaintiff, Jorge Lopehandia, absolvent, and Fernando Narbona, Judicial Receiver
Questions by Fernando Narbona. Answers by Jorge Lopehandia
FN: We go ahead to the next question
NL: Yes.
FN: Another question: To tell if it is true and you know that the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur mining claims are canceled or expired.
- It is not true in its generality, and I know that it is true that many of the Amarillo Sur and Norte concessions were cancelled due to the obstruction of justice carried out by the Securities Commission and the constant scam that we have been victims of since 2018 when Claro & Co. and Felipe Ossa decided to validate the scams that were made in Chile and Canada.
FN: Good. Another question: To tell how it is true and you know that the following mining claims were declared expired by the First Court of Vallenar, because Mr. Jorge Lopehandia did not timely correct the objections formulated by SERNAGEOMIN: 1. Amarillo Sur 1, 1 al 30; 2. Amarillos Sur 2, 1 al 30; 3. Amarillo Sur 3, 1 al 30 ; 4. Amarillo Sur 7, 1 al 10; 5.º Amarillo Sur 9, 1 al 30; 6.º Amarillo Sur 10, 1 al 30; 7.º Amarillo Sur 12, 1 al 10; 8.º Amarillo Sur 13, 1 al 30; 9.º Amarillo Norte 1, 1 al 20; 10.º Amarillo Norte 2, 1 al 10; 11.º Amarillo Norte 6, 1 al 30; 12.º Amarillo Norte 7, 1 al 30; 13.º Amarillo Norte 8, 1 al 30; 14.º Amarillo Norte 15,1 al 30; 15.º Amarillo Norte 16, 1 al 30; 16.º Amarillo Norte 3, 1 al 30; 17.º Amarillo Norte 4, 1 al 30; 18.º Amarillo Norte 5, 1 al 30; 19.º Amarillo Norte 9, 1 al 30; 20.ºAmarillo Norte 17, 1 al 30; y 21.º Amarillo Norte 20, 1 al 30".
- It is true that many of those properties, and not all the ones he mentioned, may have been expired or may have been deleted from the mining registry, but where there is falsehood and misrepresentation of the question is where the cause of those properties having been lost is attributable to Jorge Lopehandia. Jorge Lopehandia has no responsibility. The responsibility falls absolutely on the employer of Claro & Co. and the employer of Felipe Ossa. They committed the fraud so that those properties did not prosper; they committed the fraud of the stock exchange to take away the privilege of trading from my client; they committed the fraud of demanding in writing by my client, “Don’t give money to Jorge Lopehandia.” Claro & Co. cannot afford to throw my name around as if I and my negligence was responsible for the properties when the negligence, malice, fraud, criminal scam is from their employer, the British Columbia Securities Commission. They are the scammers who did not pay for those mining claims; they are the ones who defrauded Chile; they are the ones who defrauded the miners; they are the ones who defrauded my clients. The employers of Claro & Co. and Felipe Ossa stole the money for themselves, for their own pockets. They stole mining property in Chile.
FN: Good. The letter A of the question is withdrawn, or not?
NL: Correct
FN: We go ahead to question 17: To tell if it is true and you know that the following mining claims were declared expired by the 1
st Civil Court of Vallenar, because Mr. Jorge Lopehandia did not timely present the minutes and plan of survey within the legal deadline. 1.° Amarillo Sur 11, del 1 al 10; 2.° Amarillo Norte 10, 1 al 30; 3.° Amarillo Norte 11, 1 al 30; 4.º Amarillo Norte 12, 1 al 30; 5.º Amarillo Norte 13, 1 al 30; y 6.º Amarillo Norte 14, 1 al 30".
- The question is maliciously asked. The intent is that they hold me accountable when I am the Optionor. When the miner options, the only person responsible for the payment of the mineral property and the maintenance thereof in the manner in which the miner delivers it, is the contracting company and, in the case of the contracting company being public and being regulated by the Canadian Stock Exchange, the responsibility for the lost securities is solely and exclusively of the Canadian Stock Exchange, who are the employers of Ossa and Claro. They conspired to lose the mining property. When the contracting company loses the mining property of the miner, the miner has to collect damages because the miner cannot be responsible for the works and financial responsibilities of the contracting miner. So the question is not only poorly formulated, but it is ill-intentioned and my character is murdered by implying it was I who dropped the titles, it was I who did not pay for the surveys, it was I who did not pay the requests of measurement. It is a scam. Did you hear, Claro & Co.? Did you hear, Felipe Ossa? Do not defraud me before the Chilean Judiciary. The miner does not pay these costs. It is the optioning company and if the option company is public, the responsibility lies with the Stock Exchange, which are your employers. Do not blame me for what your employers have done in fraud. Next.
FN: The letter A …
NL: Mr. Fernando, I’m going to clarify question 17.
FN: Carry on.
NL: To say if it is true that those mining claim that were named were declared expired by the 1
st Civil Court of Vallenar because you, Mr. Jorge Lopehandia or Mountainstar did not timely present the minutes and plan of the survey within the legal deadline.
- I note that they stopped carrying out mining property work due to the State and Stock Exchange fraud that was happening with our project and I personally had no intention of paying the mining surveys to scamming politicians to whom I already have fully identified, nor do I or Mountainstar Gold have to be directly responsible for the decisions by the Stock Exchange to take it off the Stock Exchange to protect Barrick Gold Corporation and the fraud and Claro & Co. and Felipe Ossa came to clean up, to launder, to criminally support and verify that everything was super good in Chile and that the bad guy is Jorge Lopehandia, and by the tone of your questions, I object to the malicious for of the question. I have no responsibility whatsoever for the company that contracted with me not complying with its contract, do you listen to me? The contract has to be fulfilled by the company and the company is exempt from contractual responsibilities since it was defrauded by the Stock Exchange. So, be very careful the way you attack me because I don’t like to be attacked unnecessarily. If they don’t know about mining, study it before handing out falsehoods in a law court through your questions. Malicious question. I did not commit any fraud. The fraud was committed on me. I contracted, they failed me. The company had to protect the properties with the money it raised on the Stock Exchange, the Stock Exchange forbade it to raise the money in fraud. In fraud, in crime. The only criminals are the employers of Claro & Co. and Felipe Ossa Guzman.
NL: Mr. Fernando, I would insist on the question to indicate whether the mining claims that have already been names were declared expired because Mr. Jorge Lopehandia or Mountainstar did not present the minutes in a timely manner …
JL: I don’t know.
NL: … [unintelligible] the survey of
JL: I don’t know. I don’t know.
FN: Very well. Should I ask the question referred to in letter C?
NL: No, Mr. Fernando [unintelligible]
FN: Okay. We move on to the next question. To tell if it is true and you know that with respect to the following mining claims, oppositions were filed by pre-existing holders of mining rights, which were accepted by the 1
st Civil Court of Vallenar. 1. Amarillo 6, 1 al 10; 2.° Amarillo..."
- Are they Amarillo Norte or Amarillo Sur?
FN: It starts at Amarillo Sur 6; then Amarillo Norte 21; in third place, Amarillo Norte 18, fourth place, Amarillo Norte 19; fifth place, Amarillo Sur 4; sixth place, Amarillo Sur 5; and seventh place, Amarillo Sur 8.
- And when were these particular pre-existing claims? What year?
FN: I read the question as it is. There is no more data than what I am going to refer to you again.
- The question is incomplete.
FN. You respond as you deem appropriate.
- If they tell me that there are pre-existing claims, then tell me what year the claims are pre-existing. Do not come to throw cats for hare. If not, it is wrong to ask the question and they have to withdraw it.
FN: That is the question.
- No, the question is poorly formulated and second, there is no one who had had the real or imaginary plenipotentiary right to throw mining concessions on areas that I had under a precautionary prejudicial ruling.
FN. Very well.
- So if they tell me that the Xstrata Magnum came and superimposed on my claims when the properties were under preliminary precautionary ruling, they did it against the law because they do not respect the law, and if they want to leave me like a trendy vest[?] pulling illegal property to take away my right, it is a fraud on a fraud especially if the fraud was done by New Gold, the company that is a merger between Newmont and Barrick Gold Corporation, in which the chief executive is Randall Oliphant, who was CEO of Barrick, who said here in Canada and Chile that my properties had no value and it turns out that I have Pascua Lama in an appropriate Pascua, because Lama is a coarse Argentine fraud, and I have Amarillo Norte to Morro Gold, two world-class projects on my property and that my properties were worth nothing or had anything and were worth 10,000 pesos.
Here you have that the lawyer, please, his question was clear, “Mr. Lopehandia, were there or were there not previous claims where your Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur were located?” They may have existed. This makes for useful fools such as Gonzolo Nieto Valdes, a lawyer of CMN SpA, who two days before I initiate the Amarillo Sur, Amarillo Norte claims, the lawyer with his firm and a Crystal lawyer initiate claims and concessions fully blanketing what I was initiating three days later. First, they spied on my phones, they spied on my computers. Second, if Barrick owned all those areas, why would they make the lawyer initiate claims over mine again? They did not prosper, but there were other companies that initiated claims themselves on my properties while there was a preliminary precautionary ruling on all the UTMs of the area and the areas were precautionary. So I would have to check on what date they were initiated and if they broke the law of initiating themselves on a precautionary area, so they lose the full right, not only the right of the area where they were located, but also lose the right of excess, which means if they pass through my area with a mining property, I take away mine and theirs because it is the law of too much mining. So, please be very careful what you are talking about and give me the dates of when those claims were constituted to tell you if it is in the legal mining law, they had or did not have the right to exist.
NL: Mr. Jorge, the questions are clear and precise.
- They are not clear, respectfully. It is not clear that you tell me that there are claims and you do not tell me the date.
NL: Mr. Jorge, no …
- I can’t hit at a pinata. I exempt myself from the question and declare it poorly delivered.
NL: Mr. Jorge, please don’t interrupt me. The questions are clear and precise. Your attorney has every right to object to questions if they are no clear and precise. You do not have the right to exempt yourself from the question or declare it fraudulent. If you do, your answer can be declared evasive for not having answered the question and you will be considered confessed. If your lawyer considers that the question is not clear and precise, he can object, as long as the question is not objected to, you have a legal obligation to answer it …
- Now, I will answer you as follows. Anything that happened on mining property within my areas happened. Anything that has happened legally or illegally within my areas happened. Whatever state in which the mining property is up to date is the state in which it is. I’m not going to lift a finger to say it’s something it is not, nor to corroborate something I don’t know. That’s why I explain again. I would need to know what the mining concessions are and in what year the ones you say were initiated so I can tell you, “Look, this mining concession is invalid because it was claimed over some area that were under preliminary precautionary ruling.” Do you understand me? So, it is possible for me to hit the pinata blindfolded and turn me around three times, and that is what I consider your question.
NL: If you want, we will repeat the question, but the question …
- Please.
NL: … is not intended to determine whether the oppositions were in accordance with the law or not in accordance with the law. The question is only whether these claims were opposed by pre-existing owners of mining rights, only if there were opposition to …
- In my project, in my hectares, there were oppositions, there were many. There were oppositions from all sides that I don’t have in sight or know where they came from, if they prospered or if they were legal. I have no idea, but it is true that there were allegations against certain properties in the area. It’s true.