MountainWest Resources Inc. C.MWR

Steve Holt's Absolution of Positions

[MTStack]

Mr. Holt gave his best impression of Sergeant Schultz giving the excuse that he wasn't in his position of an officer of Mountainstar when the incidents occurred.  I know that JL will complain vorciferously if Mr. Thornton avails himself of the same, if he is served to testify.

However, even though SH did his absolute best to give as little information as possible, I think that his answers to questions 47, 48 and 50 are particularly damning to Mountainstars case.  

He said that the damage caused by Mr. Felipe Ossa and Claro & Co. was that the cease trade order meant that the MSX shares had no value; that he did not know that Mr. Felipe Guzman had made any false statements to the Securities Commission; and that it was the actions and decisions of the Securities Commission that caused harm to MSX.

Taken together, he just absolved Ossa/Claro from any culpability.

Here is the transcript of the Absolution of Positions Hearing:

ABSOLUTION OF POSITIONS HEARING IN THE SECOND CITATION
 
Santiago, May 19, 2023
 
At the day and time indicated with the permission of the Court, the acquittal of positions in the
second, in ordinary trial of greater amount is performed via telematic, with the presence of Attorney
Mr. Juan Guillermo Torres Fuentealba, in representation of the plaintiff, Attorney Mr. Alvaro Jose
Vives Martens and Attorney Joaquin Plaza Rossa, in representation of the defendants.
 
It is recorded that the hearing requires an interpreter by virtue of the fact that the absolvent cited is
native English speaking, the interpreter named is Nuria Guixeras Tera.
 

1.  Explain your relationship with the Canadian company Mountainstar Gold Inc.

1. I am a director of the company

 

2. Was Mountainstar was subject to the supervision of the BCSC?

1. Yes, MSX was governed by the Securities Commission, according to my belief.

 

3. Was Mountainstar was obliged to provide the market with information that was relevant for the purposes of the valuation of its shares.

1. Yes.

4. Did Mountainstar enter into an option contract with Mr. Jorge Loephandia Cortes in 2011?

1. Yes.

 

5. Is it true and you know that Mountainstar entered into the Option Contract without having reviewed its terms and conditions advised by a Chilean lawyer?

1. I don’t know.  I don’t know the answer.

 
Receiver: You don’t know, or you don’t remember?

1. I don’t know.  I wasn’t a director at that time.

 

6. Was the Option Contract Mountstar’s main asset?

1. No.

 

7. Did Mountainstar inform the market of the occurrence of the Option Contract?

1.  I don’t know.

 

8. Under the Option Contract, did Mountainstar have the right to acquire ownership of the mining claims Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur?

1.  I don’t know the specific details in full.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives requests that the absolvent indicate what details he knows.

1. I don’t know specifically about the conclusion of that contract, I don’t know.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives notes that in his opinon the absolvent indicates more than “Not knowing the contract, but not knowing the mining claims affected by the contract or to which the contract refers.”
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres agrees with the defendant’s lawyer.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives asks the translator to confirm the translation with the absolvent.  The translator consults the absolvent if he knows the specific details of the contract.

1. I don’t know the details.

 

9. Did Mountainstar enter into the Option Contract without having received advice from a Chilean lawyer in relation to the mining claims subject to the contract?

1.  I don’t know this information.

 

10. [The question is withdrawn.]
11. Is it true and do you know that if the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims were cancelled, Mountainstar would be entitled to obtain restitution of the funds paid to Mr. Jorge Lopehandia under the Option Contract?

1.  I don’t know that information either.

 

12. [The question is withdrawn.]

 

13. The absolvent is shown paragraph 8 of the “Press Release Clarifying Legal Procedures in Chile – Title of the Pascua Lama Project” and he should indicate whether the mining claims referred to are the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur Claims. (The Press Release was submitted in the trial by presentation on September 15, 2022 in Folio 152.)

1.  I don’t know.  I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

14. Do you know that the Amarillos Norte and Amarillo Sur mining claims were cancelled between 2012 and 2013?

1.  I don’t know.  I don’t know this information.

 

15. Did Mountainstar inform the market that the Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur mining claims were cancelled between 2012 and 2013?

1. I don’t know.

 
The Receiver asks Attorney Alvaro Vives, if questions a), b) and c) should be asked, before the aforementioned lawyer expressly states: “The absolvent has not answered in either the affirmative or the negative, nor in the refusal. If he simply does not know, I would ask him to specify what he does not know.  He doesn’t know if the claims exist?  He doesn’t know if they were cancelled?  He doesn’t know if it was announced to the market?  What does he not know?  Or doesn’t he know any of them?
 
Receiver:  Translator, tell the absolvent that he has to be more precise in attention to the fact that the questions are rather technical with dates, and, if he know, we need a better understand of this hearing that he ultimately from now on is more precise, and if he says he does not know, he should explain what he doesn’t know.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives:  If you can specify in this case whether he does not know if the claims were cancelled or if he does not know if they were reported to the market, or if he does not know when it happened, or if he does not know anything.

1.  I don’t know any of those details.

 
(The translator indicates by request of the Receiver that it is necessary to be more precise because some of the questions bring follow-up questions in the case of answering in the affirmative or negative.)

1.  Yes, however I do not know the details mentioned regarding the cancellation.

 

16. Do you know how the outcome of the trial named “Villar-Company”  held before the 14^th Civil Court of Santiago, Rol C 1912-2001, was relevant for the purposes of the executive of the Option Contract?

1.  I don’t know that information.

 

1. In the negative, examine the Press Release and explain the meaning of the paragraph numbered 3.

1. You want me to explain the meaning of paragraph three?

 
Receiver:  Yes, the meaning.

1.  It means that the value is dependent on the law of the existing legal procedures in Chile.

 
Receiver:  Any clarification, attorney?
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives: If the absolvent knows anything, what would be those legal procedures in Chile on which the option depended?
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres objects, indicating that the question is not directed to what the legal procedures were.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives:  The paragraph that he was being asked to explain, the absolvent speaks of … (both attorneys speak together making what was said incomprehensible).
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres:  Okay.
 
Receiver:  I want to know which procedure you mean?

1. No, I don’t know the details.

 

17. Do you know in which year the Villar Process ended and its result?

1. No, I am not aware.

 

18. Was the market informed that the lawsuit of Mr. Rodolfo Villar in the Villar Process was rejected in its entirety?

1. No, I don’t know. I don’t know.

 

19. Is it true and are you aware that the result of the trial called “Lopehandia v. Company Minera Nevada” held in the 2^nd Court of Letters of Vallenar, Rol C 719-2011, was relevant for the purposed of the execution of the Option Contract?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

20. Do you know which year the Lopehandia Process ended and its result?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

21. Was the market informed that the lawsuit of Mr. Cristobal Lopehandia in the Lopehandia Process was rejected in its entirety?

1. No, I didn’t know.

 

22. Is it true and are you aware that the result of the trial named “Torres v. Company Minera Nevada” held in the 1^st Court of Letters of Vallenar, Rol C 560-2012, was relevant for the purposes of the execution of the Option Contract?

1.  No, I don’t know.

 

23. Do you know in which year the Torres Process ended and its result?

1. No, I don’t know.

 

24. Was the market informed that the trial of Mr. Jorge Lopehandia in the Torres Process was rejected in its entirety?

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives indicates regarding translation clarification as to whether “it was informed of the rejection of the lawsuit”, he believes that in the question he referred twice to the rejection of the market and the rejection of the lawsuit.
 
The translator requests to repeat the question to clarify antecedents indicated to the absolvent.

1.  No, I don’t know this information.

 

25. What information regarding the Villar, Lopehandia, Torres Processes and the procedures derived from the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur mining claims were disclosed to the market?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

26. Was the advice from a person with knowledge of Chilean law required for the purpose of informing about the status of the relevant processes?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

27. How was the information from the relevant processes obtained that was delivered to the market?

1. All those things happened before I was involved in the company.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives indicates that the response from the absolvent is understood, but “in this case the absolvent represents and is absolving on behalf of Mountainstar, then if the absolvent can tell us what he knows about how the information was delivered to the market before he was and officer, if he does not know, well we have his answer.  But I need you to clarify whether you have knowledge of how that information was obtained or how the information was previously obtained.

1. No, I did’nt know that was done or how.

 

28. Question was withdrawn.

 

29. Question was withdrawn.

 

30. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountainstar for disclosing false, misleading or erroneous information to the market.

 
The translator doesn’t understand what was indicated nor indicated by the absolvent.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives indicates that the absolvent refers to a “resolution or decision to order the cessation of transactions”.

1.  Yes, I know there is an order to stop transactions, that is what I know.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives asks that the absolvent could clarify whether he knows whether the order to cease transactions was the sanction for disclosing false, misleading or erroneous information.

1.  I don’t know specifically.  I don’t know that information.

 

1. In the negative, show the absolvent paragraph 2 of the Sanctions Judgment and he should give the reason for the judgment.

1.  That is what it says in the document.

 
Receiver:  You need to answer if it is true, if you know.

1. No, I don’t know the details.

 

31. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountainstar for disclosing false, misleading or erroneous information to the market regarding the status of the Lopehandia and Torres processes.

1. Yes, I have seen everything he has shown me on the screen, but I don’t remember all the details of that.

 

32. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountainstar for disclosing false, misleading and erroneous information to the market by indicating that Mr. Jorge Lopehandia was the owner or holder of the Tesoro Mining concessions.

1.  I don’t recall the details of the order.

 

33. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountainstar for disclosing false, misleading and erroneous information to the market regarding the status of the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur claims and the rights they granted.

1.  I don’t know this information.

 

34. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Mountainstar for disclosing false, misleading or erroneous information to the market regarding the status of the Villar Process.

1. I don’t know this information.

 

35. Is it true and are you aware that to reach its decision, the Securities Commission did not consider the trials by which the Amarillos Norte and Amarillos Sur claims were cancelled to be relevant?

1. No, I don’t know the answer to this question.

 

36. Is it true and are you aware that to reach its decision the Securities Commission did not consider the exceptions and defenses that Mr. Hector Unda offered in the Villar process in his contestation and rejoinder to the lawsuit to be relevant?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

37. Is it true and are you aware to reach its decision the Securities Commission did not consider  the specific identity of the owner of the Tesoro mining concessions to be relevant, only that Mr. Jorge Lopehandia was not the owner of them?

1. No, I don’t know this information.

 

38. Is it true and are you aware that to reach its decision the Securities Commission did not consider whether the final judgment of the first instance of the Lopehandia Process was available or not in the electronic file of the court of first instance to be relevant?

1. No, I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

39. Is it true and are you aware that in order to reach its decision the Securities and Exchange Commission did not consider the specific reason why the final judgment issued in the Villar Process was annulled to be relevant?

1. No, I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

40. Is it true and are you aware that in order to reach its decision the Securities Commission did not consider the specific powers granted by a mining claim in accordance with Chilean legislation to be relevant?

1.  I don’t know this information, I don’t know.

 

41. Is it true and are you aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission considered that the source of the information that Mountainstar delivered to the market in relations to the Relevant Processes was not independent and had a conflict of interest?

1. I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

42. Is it true and are you aware that under the Option Contract, Mountainstar had to make payments to Mr. Jorge Lopehandia?

1. No, I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

43. The question is withdrawn.

 

44. The question is withdrawn.

 

45. Does the Option Agreement remain in effect or was it terminated?

1. I don’t know the answer to that question.

 

46. The question is withdrawn.

 

47. What specifically are the damages that Mr. Felipe Ossa and Claro & Co. would have caused Mountainstar?

1. I don’t know how to calculate the specific damages caused.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives indicates that the question does not relate to the quantification of the damages, but to the identification of what those damages would be.
 
Reciever:  What were those damages, identify them, if you know?

1. I know that with this order to cease trading, the shares have no value.  That is what I know.

 

48. Did Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman issue false statements before the Securities Commission?

1. I don’t know.

 

49. The question is withdrawn.

 

50. Did the actions and decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission cause harm to Mountainstar?

 

1. Yes.

 
Attorney Alvaro Vives requests that the absolvent provide further details to his reply.
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres, objects, by virtue of the fact that the absolvent has already given an affirmative answer.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives asks for clarification of questions at the end of the hearing.
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres, indicated that the question was answered “yes”, the question is whether it is true or not? Not that it should be explained.  If he says it is true …
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives:  Agreed, but I have a right under Rule 392 to ask for clarification of his answer.  I can ask him to give more details.
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres: Yes, but clarifying, well we value the opinion of the Judge.
 
Attorney Alvaro Vives:  We will formulate it at the end for the judge to decide.
 
Receiver:  But let’s do it right away, so as not to lose the thread, remember that we are going to clarify the questions immediately.
 
Attorney Juan Guillermo Torres:  No, in this case rather than clarifying, I am objecting to it because he responded and was categorical in saying yes, that it was true.
 
Receiver:  Yes, but this is an absolution of positions, you cannot object to the questions, they are only clarifying.
 
Attorney Alavar Vives:  Don’t worry, Mr. Receiver, I’m going to withdraw the request for clarification.
 

51. Is it true and are you aware that the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission was appealed by Mountainstar.

1. Yes, it was appealed.

 

52. Explain the status of the appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision.

1. As far as I know, the appeal was lost.

 
The hearing of absolution of positions via telematics is terminated.
 
The hearing was conducted in the presence of Minister of Faith Mr. Francision Ruiz Lazcano, the attorneys of the parties and the translator.