40.Is it true that Mr. Shawn McColm, attorney for the BCSC, hired the absolvent and instructed him to issue this affidavit in order to harm the interests of Brent Johnson and of MSX (Mountainstar Gold Inc.)?
No, that’s false, no one contacted me to harm anyone else. If I remember, a lawyer from the BCSC contacted me to prepare a statement whose purpose, as I said before, was to relate certain legal proceedings and the status of certain mining claims.
41. Is it true that Mr. Shawn McColm, attorney for the BSCS, contacted you and instructed you to issue this affidavit because of your professional prestige, your mastery of English and your partnership in the Claro & Co. Law Firm?
It is true, except as far as instructing me is concerned. He asked me for a report.
42. Is it true that Mr. Shawn McColm, attorney for the BCSC, contacted you and instructed you to issue this affidavit in your capacity as a partner or employee of Claro & Co.and/or your co-author. In the negative, explain the contractual link you have with Claro & Co.?
I still do not understand the last part because it seems to me that it is not intelligible. But I must be contacted by the lawyer of the BCSC, he did not instruct me since he asked me, as I said, for a report. Nor was it as a partner of Claro & Co. and, in fact, if you review the affidavit, it does not have the Claro & Co logo and only indicates as part of my background that I am a part of that firm and I am part of that firm as a partner and not as an employee.
My contractual link is that I am a partner in the firm.
43. Is it true that Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes through his mining property manager, Mr. Villar, had a precautionary measure of prohibition of conducting acts and contracts with respect to the mining concessions named “TESORO ONE 1-30 to TESORO TWELVE 1-5”, according to the resolution issued in the trial Rol C 1912-2001 in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago?
I do not remember the details, if I remember that there was a precautionary measure that had been decreed in a trial and that had subsequently been annulled.
44. Is it true that Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes through his mining property manager, Mr. Villar, had a precautionary measure of prohibition of conducting acts and contracts with respect to the mining concessions named “TESORO ONE 1-30 to TESORO TWELVE 1-5”, that was duly registered by the Conservator of Mines of Vallenar, since 2001 to 2017, inclusive.
I refer to the previous answer.
45. Is it true that the mining concessions named LOS AMARILLOS 1-3000, owned by CMN or any subsidiary of Barrick Gold Company, only allow that company to exploit mining substances of salts and nitrates, exclusively.
I don’t know.
46. Is it true that after giving his affidavit before the BCSC of Vancouver, Canada, the absolvent said in the elevator to Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes: “... Please forgive me, the BCSC pays me to read what they put in front of me in English.”?
No, that is absolutely false. What is true is that Mr. Lopehandia faced me at the exit from the hearing.
47. Is it true that the absolvent does not have a degree in Chilean mining law from the University of Oxford?
No, Oxford University does not offer master’s degrees in Chilean mining law. Consequently, I did not take it, instead I do have a master’s degree from that university.
48. Is it true that the absolvent has not taught classes in Chilean mining law in the universities of Chile?
It is true.
49. Is it true that the absolvent did not have a professorship in Chilean mining law at the University of Harvard nor from the University of Georgetown?
I have taught at those universities, but not Chilean mining law.
50. Is it true that the absolvent has not conducted expert reports on Chilean mining law matters before the courts of law in the United State, in the United Kingdom, in Israel, much less in Canada?
No, that is false, in fact, I am involved as an expert in one of the largest mining lawsuits that has ever taken place on a project in Chile that was the El Morro project, and in which the ownership of that project was disputed among the companies Goldcorp, New Gold and Xstrata and in a dispute that was held before the Supreme Court of Ontario. It was under Chilean law.
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff:
No.30, regarding position 30, in which the absolvent says at the time of asking him about a case, which is stated in his affidavit, which is in the 18th Civil Court of Santiago, Rol 3784-2016, at the time of asking him the question, he says he does not know since it was not a matter, I do not remember well the word he used, report or whatever, then I do not know if he was referring to the process in general or only with respect to the hearing of acquittal of positions, to clarify what he was referring to.
Response:
No, as I said clearly and answering the question precisely, I am not aware of the specific procedures and, in particular, of what the answers may have been in the acquittal of positions.
No further questions.
The present virtual hearing held via zoom platform is terminated, as ordered by resolution dated July 6, 2021. It was recorded in audio and after transcription, ratified and signed only by the minister of faith who receives the proof and authorizes, Don Marco Cataln Holuigue, Judicial Receiver, according to instructions from the Court.