Second half of BJ deposition C 2418-2021The 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; JP: Joaquin Plaza; JT: Juan Torres; I: Interpreter.
~
R: Question 32: To indicate what information please related to the Villar, Lopehanda, Torres processes and the procedures derived from the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims called the relevant processes were delivered to the market.
BJ: How were they delivered to the market? Is that the question?
R: The question is what information? Let me repeat the question. Please indicate what information related to the Villar, Lopehanda, Torres processes and the procedures derived from the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims, called 'the relevant processes', were delivered to the market.
BJ: I cannot remember exactly, we put out almost hundreds of news releases, the better part of 100, and we did our quarterly report where that section 8 that you had me read that was effectively a disclaimer by our chief financial officer of Mountain Star. And those are going in every quarterly financial statement to apprise warn the reading public that there could be some risk here. So...
R: Question 33: To indicate please if Mountain Star required advice from a person with knowledge of the Chilean law for the purpose of finding out about the status of the relevant processes.
I: Let me rephrase the question. If you or Mountain Star required advice from a person with knowledge of the Chilean law for the purpose of finding out about the results of the relevant processes.
BJ: We were getting advice regarding the Chilean law, it's sitting right on the screen. Mr. Lopehanda also has huge knowledge of Chilean mining law and I'd better add in about 1,000% more than Mr. Felipe Ossa.
I: Could you please clarify when you mean on the screen ''there's help of the Chilean law or any law''? What do you mean by that?
BJ: Meaning point 8 in the clarification that you put up on the screen.
I: You said before that there was some sort of a help of Chilean law on the screen.
BJ: No, it wasn't help of Chilean law. It was disclaimer information from our head accountant of the corporation who knows intimately what's going on, just to put any risk factors out to the public so that they know this is a risky venture to whatever degree.
I: Can you tell us please the name of the people or person that gave you a legal Chilean advice?
BJ: Yes, Juan Guillermo Torres.
[Questions 34, 35, and 36 are withdrawn.]
R: Question 37: So that you say how effective it is and if you know that Mountain Star did not hire an independent professional to prepare the information reports that you sent to the market.
BJ: I'm very relevant of that and I addressed that earlier that the law firm in Chile wanted USD $175,000 before they would even start. They would finish their part on ownership and then they would not continue to represent us.
I: So the question would be yes or no if you hired an independent professional. What is the question?
BJ: We did not hire an independent lawyer. We didn't need one.
R: Question 38: How it is effective and if you know that the Securities and Exchange Commission penalized Mountain Star for disclosing false, misleading or misleading information to the market.
BJ: Yes, they claimed it to be false and misleading, it absolutely was the opposite.
I: Do you know if there was any type of sanction on that, for Mountain Star?
BJ: Yes, April 9, 2019, we received a permanent closure forever and I received a permanent removal from the markets for my false and misleading publications to the public and they effectively shut us down completely.
I: You said, “for my false publications to the market”, right?
BJ: Yes
R: Question 39: To state please how effective it is and if you know that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountain Star for disclosing to the market false, misleading or misleading information concerning the status of Lopehanda and Torres processes.
BJ: That is exactly what they did, but we delivered no false and misleading information to the markets. It's an absolute fraud and it's still being unfolded this day.
[Questions 40 through 44 were withdrawn.]
R: Question 45: To say how effective it is and if you know, to arrive at this decision, that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider relevant the reasons why the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining demonstrations were cancelled.
BJ: I guess I will have to say I don't know to that. It's bewildering on how they came up with their decision, which will be reversed.
R: Question 46: So you can say please how effective it is and if you are aware that to arrive at your decision, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider relevant the exceptions and defenses that Mr. Hector Unda submitted in the Villar process in his contestation and rejoinder.
BJ: Did you say jury decision? Sorry?
I: Your decisions. [Note: the actual question in Spanish is “its decisions” not “your decisions”.]
BJ: My decisions. I can't answer that question. I don't exactly know. I don't remember. The hearing took place on January 30, 31, February 1st and 2nd, 2018, it's five years ago.
[AV: Just one point, as I do not know if it was clear to the absolvent when he answered: he was asking about the decision of the Securities Commission of British Columbia. I think it is “Its decision” in that context. Not because of a decision by Mr. Johnson. Then I don’t know if the answer … If he understood well enough the question he was answering. Maybe we can repeat it to him.]
I: I'm going to repeat the question, we're talking about the decision of the Securities Commission, not your decision. The decision taken by the Securities Commission.
So if you know and if it is effective and you are aware that to get to this decision the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider to be relevant the exceptions and defenses that Mr. Hector Unda submitted in the Villar process in his contestation and rejoinder.
BJ: British Columbia's Securities Commission panel did not consider a lot of things, including many documents Jorge Lopehanda was submitting to the commission, and also they would not submit
–or sorry, they would not admit– that Jorge Lopehanda is really a mining expert and Mr. Ossa... The word doesn't appear in his websites. I believe two websites, the word "mining" does not appear. Mr. Ossa is not an expert, period. Lopehanda is. That's all I can say to that.
R: Question 47: So if you know, and if it is effective and if it is clear to arrive at its decision, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider the specific identity of the person who owns the Tesoro mining concessions, but only that Mr. Jorge Lopehanda did not own them.
BJ: That was dealt with clearly... I dealt with Roy Leon, who was one of the other experts, the in-house expert from the commission. I brought that up. It says on the side of the Tesoros claims that Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehanda Corts holds the litigious rights to the Tesoro's claims. I pointed that out to Mr. Ossa, I pointed it out to Mr. Leon and that is the person, period. If anyone in that room was to research. As well as SERNAGENOMIN ... Mr. Lopehanda controls these claims. No one else. So yes, it was dealt with, believe me.
R: Question 48: If you can say how it is effective and it is clear that, to arrive to it at its decision, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider the availability or not of the final judgment or the first instance of the Lopehanda process relevant in the electronic file of the first instance.
BJ: I can't answer if they did, but I can answer that the period that they chose that we put out fraudulent misleading press releases and disclosure to the market was a period where Mr. Lopehanda had absolute title and that is going to be proven very shortly.
R: Question 49: So that you can say how effective it is and if you're aware of that, to arrive at its decision, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider relevant the specific reason for which the final judgment that was initially issued in the Villar process was annulled.
BJ: It would appear they didn't. Based on the final decision coming in the beginning of October 2014, it would appear that they didn't even read it. In my opinion, only because I can't get into their head and say what they did or didn't do. But if they had adequate IQ, they would have considered it and decided differently.
[Long discussion about who the “they” refers to. The “they” is the BCSC panel.]
R: Question 50: So if you can say and how it is effective and it is clear, that in order to arrive at its decision, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider relevant the specific powers that a mining claim grants in accordance with the Chilean legislation.
BJ: My opinion is that they did not determine that. My opinion, also, is they didn't want to determine that.
R: Question 51: To say please, to state, how effective it is and if you are aware that the reason for which you allowed, authorized, or accepted the disclosure to the market of false, misleading or misleading information by Mountain Star was that in your opinion, the decisions of the Chilean courts were wrong.
BJ: Could I hear the whole question again, please?
[Question is repeated.]
BJ: No, I don't place any blame on all of this. Believe me, I was intimately involved from the time Jorge Lopehanda and I met on December 28th, 2009, until now. I have been heavily involved with him. The Chilean courts overall have acted extremely honorably. The courts in Canada have acted the opposite, including the inspector general would better name them now Inspector of the Public Markets for British Columbia, namely Curt Bedford. Mr. Lopehanda and I talked to him a couple of days ago. And anyway, Canada has acted disgustingly on this file and we're dealing with it, so...
R: Question 52: To state please and say if it is effective or not and for the record that by virtue of the option agreement Mountain Star had to make payments to Mr. Jorge Lopehanda.
BJ: Yes, Mountain Star made payments to Jorge Lopehanda and still makes payments to Mr. Lopehanda because the option agreement is still open and continuing.
R: Question 53: Please do indicate how much money Mountain Star paid under the option agreement since 2011.
BJ: I don't know exactly. Mr. Albert Wu is our chief financial officer, he keeps those records. And 3 while the company has been fraudulently ceased trading since approximately September 10,, 2015, there's no reason to get financial statements done. The bank closed down our bank account. So I don't think you need to file financials when your bank account is closed. Anyway, that's all I'll say.
R: Question 54: To indicate, please how effective it is that Mountain Star obtained funds to make those payments through the investors and the amount of such income.
BJ: That's private information that Mountain Star was taken off the market, market fraudulently by the British Columbia Securities Commission and does not have a bank account. I've just said that so how we get things done now? The only person's business that is in that room is Juan Guillermo.
[JT: Question 54 is not how Mountainstar does it now, but whether Mountainstar in the past has raised funds through investors to pay Mr. Jorge Lopehandia and what is the amount of funds it raised in the past. It is not how it does it now. I would like you to repeat the question.]
I: The question is not how you do it now, is how Mountain Star obtain funds through the investor. This is a question in the past, how was it done in the past?
BJ: In the past we raised money on the public markets, put out a news release, processed them through our paralegal and filed them with whatever authoritative bodies required. Absolute all done legally. And that's when we're back trading again, which we will be. That's how we'll do it again.
I: Could you please repeat the answer, Mr. Brent?
BJ: I said when we raised funds prior to September 10th, 2015, we did them by issuing a news release, receiving the money. When you receive the money, you must spend the money on what the investor tells you to spend it on and you file it. We have a paralegal, which she is still on board with us very part time, because we don't file anything now. We're not allowed to and so when we get back trading again, which we will, then we'll do it exactly the same way we did it before, all of it done legally. This whole thing that's going on now and has gone on is an extreme travesty of justice and that's the end of what I'll say at the moment.
[Questions 55 and 56 are withdrawn.]
R: Question 57: To explain the facts for which Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountain Star 1 and you.
BJ: What aspect of them sanctioning Mountain Star and me? I didn't understand that.
I: The facts for which the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountain Star and you.
BJ: Well, the facts are all of the fraudulent disclosure that Roy Leon tirelessly presented to the commission hearing on the 30th of January, that had no truth to it at all. And then once he finished his laborious repeating of things, then I guess it was the next afternoon, whatever, they handed the ball to Mr. Ossa and he continued the narrative. The whole thing was fraud. I don't need to say any more. It's about to be proven.
[Question 58 is withdrawn.]
R: [Question 59: To be shown the affidavit of Mr. Felipe Ossa and specify what are the false statements issued by Mr. Felipe Ossa before the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
[JT: Sorry, but it’s a topic because … that is, if it is the document that we allege was false, it is in the lawsuit. Brent does not handle that information to be able to say “this paragraph, yes, this paragraph, no.]
[AV: But he is the plaintiff and the lawsuit for falsehood is contained in the document that is going to be exhibited to him, therefore …]
[JT: But it is a legal issue …]
[AV: It’s not a legal issue, it is the accusation he makes.]
[JT: In the lawsuit in which he acts as a party, he says there are specific sections that would be false. That is not a legal issue. The legal consequences … Yes, but there is still allegation … it is the work of the lawyer, so there I also ask for the intervention of the magistrate and forgiveness for the incident.]
[AV: Let’s do things right. Formulate your opposition to the question.]
[JT: I shall formulate it.]
[AV: I give my notice and we will contact the Court.]
[JT: OK. I object to the position made on the grounds that it refers to the background laid down in the lawsuit, whose knowledge is already recorded in the file, which has even been reiterated in the arguments in the reply and my client, Mr. Brent Johnson, does not have the necessary knowledge to be able to precisely indicate, in the reading of the document, what specific facts are the false ones since these falsehoods allude to the judicial proceeding before Chilean courts and, because of this, I request that the position of the counterparty be rejected and that costs be ordered.]
[AV: Thank you very much, Mr. Fernando. I request that the objection be rejected and consequently, the exhibition of the document be allowed. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Johnson accuses Mr. Felipe Ossa of having falsehoods in the affidavit that we asked to be shown. Therefore, it is perfectly pertinent to the facts of the case that Mr. Johnson can identify specific sections of the affidavit that would contain the allegations or falsehoods that he alleges. It is an issue that goes to the heart of the facts that are under discussion. The legal qualification that should or should not be given to the courts of justice, in particular the court of the case, is somewhat later, but Mr. Johnson must be in a position to identify those sections or those facts that he considers where Mr. Ossa would have committed or incurred falsehood, and for the same reason, I request that the objection be rejected and I had not seen that the orders were requested in costs on the occasion of the formulation of the question of acquittal of positions, for the same I also ask that this be rejected. I would ask you to contact the Court for purposes of exhibiting the document.]
I: Just to summarize, they are objecting one question, the counterpart is not, so we will go to court.
BJ: Is that a question to me?
I: No, I was just saying that there's a question that won't be asked.
[R: I contacted the Deputy Secretary because the Secretary is not in at this time. They are going to communicate with the Magistrate, so please a few minutes. They are going to call me. I do not know if they will connect, but something is going to come out here.]
[Brent goes to the bathroom while waiting for the judge’s decision.]
[R: We are. Are we all here? Yes, I already talked to the judge. He tells me that the objection is rejected, and that the affidavit of Mr. Felipe will be exhibited, and the other thing is that if there are any other incidents, the hearing will be suspended because we are already past 4:00. That is it. We are going to repeat the question because it must be answered.
I: So in order to exhibit a sworn statement of Mr. Felipe Ossa and to specify the facts declared before the Securities Commission.
[AV: It is not “full statements”? Nuria? What are the false statement that he would have submitted to the Securities Commission?]
I: And you need to indicate the false statements that you delivered facing the Securities Commission.
[AV: No, that Mr. Felipe Ossa had submitted.]
I: That Mr. Felipe Ossa did indicate.
[JP: Alright. I’m going to exhibit now, a second. I don’t know if you can see the screen; the virtual judicial office? This is the affidavit in English. I think it is better than the one in Spanish and here well, it is asked … We will go page by page and Mr. Brent will say what is the false statement if there is one. I don’t know if I can convey that to him.]
[JT: Excuse me. First, state the document and he will answer what the statements are. It is not a paragraph by paragraph issue. He does it … but …]
[JP: Page by page, I mean, not to do…]
[AV: No. Joaquin, I agree with Juan Guillermo, that he can see the document and he then indicates what the statements are. Let him freely review the document and then let him answer the question how he can answer it.]
I: Please, if you can review the document freely and then with that information, answer the question.
BJ: Yes. OK and I'm not sure what the question is at this point.
I: If you can specify, please, now with the view of this document that you have on the screen, which are the false declarations made by Mr. Felipe Ossa facing the Securities Commission.
BJ: What are the false accusations made by Mr. Felipe Ossa?
I: Looking at this document.
BJ: Yeah, well, he is a declared mining expert or he was there at the commission hearing as a Chilean mining expert and from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2015, Jorge Lopehanda here and we have it certified by one of the courts recently had title in his name to the Amarillos Sur, Amarillos Norte and litigious rights to the Tesoros which gives him again, as I was informing you earlier, the rights way above Unda Llanos who fraudulently stated the Tesoros claims and therefore he was basing everything he said in this affidavit on the fact that Barrick had title (there in Nevada that is) They didn't have 1% of title. So I don't really think there's another thing I need to say about this. If Mr. Ossa is so knowledgeable on all of this, then I'm not sure how he didn't determine that or he had another choice, lie. So that's all I think I need to say.
[AV: Sorry, but I am going to ask you to clarify, because the question is clear that you specify what the false statements are and you have not specified.
[JP: Therefore, tell Mr. Brent that if you want me to move the document and change pages, let me know and I can show him the statement in more detail.]
I: If you want to take a look at the document please let me know and I can scroll down the mouse so you can take a look and see what you need to look at.
BJ: Meaning me look at the document? Brent Johnson?
I: Yes.
BJ: I've read this document over numerous times in the last few years.
I: So please you have to indicate the parts in the document that are false statements.
BJ: Okay, well, let's start that process. Anyway, it's all in the first paragraph, that's Mr. Ossa´s credentials. ''I have personal knowledge of the facts deposed in this affidavit except where stated to be on information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true.'' Can't debate that. ''I have been asked by the staff of the British Columbia Securities Commission to describe the nature of status of certain legal procedure, proceedings and mining claims in Chile.'' Anyway, I've read number 3, he's expressing what the commission has asked him to do. I can't argue that.
Ok. So Brent Johnson speaking number 4. ''For the first part of this affidavit dealing with the legal proceedings against CMN I reviewed the court decisions and filings in the proceedings cited herein,...''. I will stop there. If he did review the decisions, he got them from another party, either the B.C. Securities Commission or Barrick Gold Corporation, because those decisions were sealed away in the courts after two years or one year. Two years, I'll call it. For instance C1912 12 2001 would have been filed away in 2003, minimum. And many of the decisions, the 2014 decision you talk about by the Supreme Court, the Cristbal one which I think was 2014 or 15 that would have been filed away. The only way Mr. Ossa could have got those and he should have known those the minute he walked into that room way before he did his research is he had to apply to the clerk at the court.
He had to then get permission from that clerk who then put it to a judge. The judge would say you're not the... I'm sorry, I'm tired. ''You're not the one who filed this lawsuit and you're not the one being sued, the plaintiff or the defendant. So the judge would decide. ''Yes, we'll give it to you or no, we will not give it.'' I will not give it to you. The judge reports to the Clerk. The Clerk, then reports the results to the person applying which would have been Felipe Ossa and its all on record. Well, Mr. Ossa didn't do that.
So number one. Where did he get the material? Because he didn't get it from a Lopehanda and the defendant in those cases were Minera Nevada or one of their subsidiaries. So if he got them from Minera Nevada I believe –Juan Guillermo can confirm that sometime– it's illegal. They're not a sealed decision, a sealed judgment and or with my knowledge of Barrick, Barrick maybe provided them so, that's number 4. We can move on to 5. Anyway, what is doing there on number 5? And then he's starting to effectively...
[The interpreter need more time to translate the answer, and asks BJ to repeat the answer to #4.]
BJ: Ok. Mr. Ossa says for the first part of this affidavit dealing with the legal proceedings against CMN, I reviewed the court decisions and filings in the proceedings cited herein. So I'm stopping there. There's a bit more.
So filings in the proceedings in the middle of the line, the two lines. Three lines [Palma], which are available to the public at the courts in the Chilean judiciary's website Poder Judicial and then the website address, all of these addresses, all of these court filings from the plaintiff and the defendant stay on that website for two years, I am told, maximum. They go then into archives.
[JT: Then he tells us what is false. I do not know, if Alvaro, you have a modality. What is the false and I do not know there, we will look for it because if he goes paragraph by paragraph … I don’t know, it’s a suggestion because otherwise it is going to be eternal.]
[AV: I would propose the following: Let him finish this point 4. Let Nuria translate for the record and then we can tell Mr. Johnson that he does not have to go point by point, that it is enough to tell us where the false statements are and what they are if he knows them or not.]
[JT: Perfect.]
JT: You may continue, Mr. Johnson.
BJ: OK. So, Mr. Ossa says he has gotten the documents, the decisions and filings, they had gone into archives after two years. To get them he had to go to the clerk of the court. He had to get the clerk to go to the judge, get the judge to decide, the judge then to let the clerk know again, then the clerk to inform Mr. Ossa as to whether he could have them or not. He could only get them clean simply from Jorge Lopehanda in the beginning, if Lopehanda was willing to provide them, which we know he wouldn't have. So then they had to be only provided by the B.C. Securities Commission or Barrick Gold Corporation. Those were not sealed decisions. Any alterations could have happened on them. And so he's lied there. What he's done? Simple.
I: Our question here is if you know the sections of the full document that are false, that doesn't mean that you have to go each part per part and stating the false parts and explaining everything. You know in the whole document, the parts that are false, you can name them, please.
BJ: I cannot do that. The question, of course, is not coming from you, but the question to me is ludicrous because it's the whole court decision that's filed in the archives and yet Mr. Ossa mysteriously was able to acquire them without going to the courthouse. Mr. Lopehanda would have been told of the application to pull it from the courthouse and never was. So there's a clear and simple lie there, and I think maybe we should stop playing games here.
I: Ok, the thing is that you don't have to explain each part, that is false with the full details all we're asking you to is to point, to mark, the parts of the document that are false. If you know them, the sections that are false, just mark them, tell us which are the sections that are false, tell us the section that are false.
BJ: Paragraph 4 is totally false.
BJ: Number 5 and number 6 are quotes of what happened in the cases; I'm not qualified to critique them, I don't believe. Number 6, 14 Civil Court issued a decision in June of 2006 that was in Mr. Villar's favor and the Santiago Court of Appeals annulled that decision in 2007.
When he says they annulled that decision, that initial decision, they did not annul that decision. The clerk in the court, the decision of 2006 was delivered timely in 14 days to Jorge Lopehanda, but it was delivered late to Minera Nevada Barrick. It took 15 or more days for them to get it and the clerk in the court ended up getting penalized in some way for some wrongdoing or some incompetence.
So there was the appeal October 1st, I believe, of 2007 before the initial 2006 decision was before Judge Kokish then there was the appeal on October 1st, 2007. And what the judges there decided was put the decision ahead.
I: Sorry, Mr. Brent I'm going to have to interrupt you. Let's go back to the paragraphs 5 and 6, please.
BJ: Yeah, I don't...I can't give any critique on number 5.
BJ: Okay, so on number 6 what happened... which Mr. Ossa reported this wrong on number 6, he said 20 the decision of June 2006 was in Mr. Villar's favor. That's correct.
Correct. So however, in the second line, however, the Santiago Court of Appeals annulled that initial decision in October 2007 and remitted the matter back to the civil court. Then I can tell you what went on there unless you want to read that to the all the Spanish gentlemen.
Okay so number 6, again, the first two lines. Yes, he June 2006, decision was in favor of the Villar proceedings, but then, however, the Santiago Court of Appeals annulled that decision. No, they did not annul that decision. The clerk in the court in June of 2006 did not deliver that decision within the 14 day Chilean law time limit. Lopehanda got it in the 14...but...
Okay, so Barrick got that decision in excess more than 14 days time limit. And so on October 1st, the Court of Appeals ruled it was a procedural error. Put the case back to the Court of Appeals, which it went back there I think it was seven days, six days later, on October 7th of 2007, and the court of Appeals ruled carry out the decision as ruled in June 2006.
Okay. So moving OK, number 7.
[JT: There is no possibility – I know it is perhaps complicated – what is mentioned in the lawsuit, where it indicates precisely the falsehood and the section that finally was sued and that ….]
[AV: No.]
[JT: This is absurd.]
[AV: This is how he is choosing to respond. I have tried to convey several times that he doesn’t need to answer like this, but …]
[JT: Paragraph by paragraph [inaudible.]]
[AV: Yes, I agree that we can give him that instruction, but you cannot refer to the lawsuit. He has to indicate which of the affidavit is specifically false. He doesn’t have to be commenting line by line.]
[JT: Of course, because finally even the dates he gives are wrong, obviously. If he does not have the documents in sight.]
[AV: No. okay, and we are not asking you to give an alternative explanation that tells us what is right.]
[JT: [inaudible] Therefore, I don’t know if we can give Mr. Johnson a message.]
[AV: I’m going to be very slow, and we are going to translate it little by little. What do you think, Nuria? So you can digest it.]
[I: Thank you.]
[AV: I will communicate to him myself in English]
AV: Mister Johnson you don't have to go line by line, paragraph by paragraph. If you want to do so, you can do it, but we are not forcing you to do that. The question that we are asking you is to point out, which would be the false statements made by Mr. Felipe Ossa before the British Columbia Securities Commission. If you can point those out and indicate those to us, there is no need to go paragraph by paragraph. We are not asking you to indicate what would be the correct answer or the correct statement. We are just asking you to point out which would be Mr. Ossa's alleged false statements.
BJ: Ok, I fully understand that we're talking here Juan Guillermo. This is a 34 pages affidavit. I've pointed out some very serious flaws in this affidavit right at the beginning of it. Now, I'm not qualified to go through 32 more pages of this affidavit and say what was false and what wasn't. I'm going to have to give the answer: I don't know.
I: Ok. Let's go to the next question then.
R: Question 60: Please to say whether the actions and decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission caused any harm to you and Mountain Star.
BJ: I am the biggest shareholder in Mountain Star, owning 15 million shares of the company. I also right this minute, to April 9th, 2019 I'm owed $1.7 million dollars. The B.C. Securities Commission fraudulently fined me $150,000, of which they put me through an interrogation under oath with Lawson Lindell, the law firm.
So I haven't paid 5 cents on that fine and they've banned me from being an officer director of any public or private company. By the way, they said on April 9th, 2019, ''oh, Mr. Johnson hasn't had any regulatory problems in the first 20 years of his term as CEO, director and president. And all of a sudden chasm here, the leopard changed his spots, knowing the leopard didn't change his spots. The decision is completely corrupt. I'm not even allowed to be part of a private company.
I'm even banned from being allowed to own a stock market trading account anywhere. I guess as in Canada, I cannot buy and sell stocks. So any stocks I own now, I'm not allowed to sell them.
As our lawyer said in 2019 in the setting in court, this is the most egregious decision he's ever seen come out of the BC Securities Commission in his 34 years of acting as a major constitutional lawyer in this country, Canada, Toronto. So that's all I need to say right now.
I: The specific question is if these decisions have caused you any trouble or harm specifically to you and Mountain Star.
BJ: They've destroyed Mountain Star completely, a company that was formed on December 28th, 1951 and they destroyed me financially completely, period.
R: Question 61: So you can say how it is effective that you or you know that the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission was appealed by you and Mountain Star.
BJ: What do I know about that? I know. I hired Rocco Gulati with the assistance of mainly... Our two directors and I hired him and Mike Van Zandt and I have been in Toronto, I've been there once, he's been there twice and he had a really solid decision on September 11th, 2020, or think it was September 3rd, 2020. And then when the case went on September 29th of this year to the Court of Appeal, something seemed to go very off rail of the three judges, I and several 20 other people roughly were sitting in the courtroom and...
I: I'm 10 sorry, Brent, can you repeat the whole thing? I totally got lost.
BJ: No, that's ok. So Rocco Golatti got his best leave to appeal decision in his 32 year at the time career on September 11th, 2020 and then when the case was heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal or Court of Appeal. The decision, of course, was against us and I won't say who said it was corrupt, but somebody heavyweight said it's corrupt and it was corrupt. And I would suggest that's probably going to get dealt with that one too. So...
I will quote this. Mr. Galati stated back in 2019 when Mike Van Zandt and I were in Toronto, he says "we're going to sue the Court of Appeal Judges personally". His idea, not mine, not Mike's.
[Interpreter has BJ repeat his answer.]
BJ: Ok, so after April 9, 2019, Mike Van Zandt and Steve Holt and myself hired Rocco Galati to represent us. Mr. Galati filed in time on the application for leave to appeal. I don't remember the lady judge's name, but she dealt with it on September 3rd. She provided a written decision in favor of everything he asked for on September 11th and then the next step really was on September 29th. Do you want me to stop there for a moment?
I: Yes. Can you repeat that, please?
BJ: Mr. Galati filed in the spring of 2022 for leave to appeal. It was filed and it was dealt with by the Judge and Zoning Commission and Rocco Galati on September 3rd, 2020, the same year of which I'm going to add this because I'm not a nice guy. Zolnay called Rocco a liar three times. So anyway, then the decision came down on.
The appeal was heard on September 29, 2022, I can add a bit more Nuria. Of course, there was three judges and we had almost 20 shareholders in the courtroom. So the decision came out – I don't know the exact date, but we know the date today – I think it was in early December, against us.
Ok. So the decision came out and was against us, as I said um, and that was on, well, early December, I don't have the date and no, I think actually I think it was January of this year. It was and we're appealing it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I'll say one more thing about this process and then if Juan Guillermo agrees with me, I will stop it because we're not going to reveal to our enemies what we're doing because we're doing it. But Mr. John Thornton, the chairman of Barrick, has been ordered to come before –I think it's Supreme Court in Ontario– and provide title for the Pascua properties. Rocco Galati, I'll stop there.
Rocco Galati has agreed to depose interview John Thornton. Chairman of Barrick
All we want them to do is bring the titles and the permits before the court and it will be a very simple interview. Very problematic. Very problematic also, not for us
If Mr. Thornton doesn't show up the PDI, will ask that he be brought to Chile to be brought before the court there. And that's all I'll say. Under any order, I don't believe to reveal any further strategy. But so I'm short track.
[Question 62 is withdrawn.]
AV: Thank you very much, Mister Johnson for your patience. We are finishing the hearing.
BJ: Thank you, have a good weekend.