SH Evasive AnswersAlvaro Vives Martens, attorney in conventional representation of Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman and Claro & Co. … Rol C 2418-2021, to this Court respectfully states:
In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I request that Mountainstar Gold Inc. be deemed to have confessed with respect to the question formulated in assertive terms of the statement of positions submitted in Folio 166, as indicated in Table 1, for having answered by their legal representative in a clearly evasive manner.
Mr. Stephen Holt holds the highest possible position in the management of Mountainstar, which corresponds to that of the Chief Executive Officer, equivalent to that of General Manager in our legislation. As demonstrated by the transcript of Mountainstar’s Absolution of Positions Hearing, its representative Mr. Stephen Holt tried to make this Court believe that he ignores an overwhelming majority of the facts regarding the lawsuit which he filed and about which he was questioned, limiting himself to answering that he “does not know” or “does not remember” basic matters related to : (i) Mountainstar’s business relations, (ii) compliance with Mountainstar’s legal obligations and (iii) the sanctions imposed on Mountainstar. In total, Mr. Stephen Holt pleaded ignorance when answering 36 of the 44 questions of the Statement that were asked, which is equivalent to 82%.
Although Article 394 of the CPC empowers this party to request warnings in relation to questions formulated in an interrogative manner, Mountainstar will hereby only be asked to confess with respect to the evasive answers he gave to the assertively formulated questions of the Specifications which are indicated in Table No. 1.
[Table 1, which is not reproduced here, repeats the questions and the answers that SH evasively answered: Questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.]
Not only did the absolvent answer assertive questions in a manifestly evasive manner, but also: (i) he failed to provide credible and notoriously acceptable reasons for his sudden lack of knowledge or forgetfulness of the basic facts on which Mountainstar based its own lawsuit, as required by the second paragraph of Article 391, (ii) nor did he request, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 394, to review documents in order to adequately answer the questions asked, knowing or having to know, that the evasive answers he was delivering could lead to him being considered confessed. Consequently, it is appropriate that he be considered confessed with respect to such questions.
THEREFORE,
I respectfully request Your Honor: to apply the warning established in the first paragraph of Article 394 of the CPC and, consequently, to consider Mountainstar Gold Inc. confessed, regarding all the questions assertively formulated contained in the Statement of Positions in Folio 166 due to the evasive answers given by the absolvent Mr. Stephen Hold at the absolution hearing whose transcript appears in Folio 231.