Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona Reid C. Pixler Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 12850 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. On or about April 17, 2006, claimants filed a Motion To Determine The Existence of a Conflict. This motion had less to do with the existence of a conflict and more to do about arguing whether the documents submitted by claimants were forgeries. In essence, the motion is based upon false statements which lack support in the record and which misrepresent the evidence provided by plaintiff. Claimant fails to address the two undisputed facts before the Court: (1) The exhibit which purports to be an official communication from Lisa Cacheris Burnett, which was supplied by an attorney for claimant in Mexico, is a forgery; (2) When confronted with this fact, Cynthia E. Orr wrote a letter to the FBI in Phoenix, Arizona, dated March 9, 2006, a copy of which is attached to an additional pleading found at doc # 159, and offered to cooperate in the investigation regarding the filing of false documents in this action. The attorney and her firm are now obligated to cooperate and potentially give evidence regarding an investigation which she reported to the FBI, while she and the firm seek to continue to represent the same interest which generated the fake documents. Plaintiff has also requested additional information from the Republic of Mexico regarding the authenticity of the alleged response to Ms Burnett. The government is confident that the v. Lear Jet, Model 31A, Serial Number 31A224, U.S. Registration # N224LJ; CIV-04-363-PHX-JWS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO CLAIMANT'S MOTION RE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (First Request)

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 165

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

letter is fake because the person to whom it is addressed did not receive it. It should also be noted that Ms Burnett is not located at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, the address to which the Mexican document is addressed is not the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, and if the document is a fraud it would be expected to also display other false badges of authenticity upon which those seeking to take advantage of the forgery would expect to rely. As a result of the requests, plaintiff has received two detailed communications regarding the alleged Mexican response to Lisa Burnett which clearly establish that the second document filed by claimants in the pleading at doc #156 is without question a fake, and the subsequent affidavits submitted by the Mexican counsel for claimants are also false. However, the documents, dated April 28, 2006, and received by fax on May 1, 2006, are in Spanish only and must be translated. These materials are directly related to the baseless allegations made by counsel for claimants in the motion to determine whether a conflict exists. Plaintiff requires a short extension of time to obtain translations of these exhibits and to draft an appropriate response to the motion. In short, if a conflict exists it is due to the action of counsel filing false, forged, and obviously defective documents; insisting that the documents are not fake, absent any legitimate evidence to the contrary; and then offering to cooperate and give testimony to the FBI about the fake documents. This issue is created by the action of counsel for claimants and the issue of whether a conflict exists is obvious, supported in the record, and exists independent of the fact that plaintiff commented upon the conflict, apparently unaddressed by counsel for claimants. To the extent that any of these documents are relevant to the motion, the Court would benefit from the translated documents from Mexico. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to May 17, 2006, within which it may file a response supported by the communication from the PGR regarding the documents presented by claimants. Respectfully submitted this 1 st day of May, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/ Reid C. Pixler REID C. PIXLER Assistant U.S. Attorney Document 165 2 Filed 05/01/2006

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
K Lawson Pedigo Miller Keffer & Pedigo 8401 N Central Expressway , Ste 630 Dallas, TX 75225 [email protected] Douglas F Behm Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC Collier Ctr 201 E W ashington St, Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385 [email protected] Cynthia Eva Hujar Orr Goldstein Goldstein & Hilley 2900 Tower Life Bldg 310 S St Mary's St, Ste 2900 San Antonio, TX 78205 [email protected] Allen B Bickart Law Office of Allen B Bickart PO Box 44005 Phoenix, AZ 85064 [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I.I hereby certify that on M ay 1, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

9I hereby certify that on May 1, 2006, I served the attached document by U.S. mail, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Marc S. Nurik Ruden McClosky Smith Schuster & Russell, PA PO Box 1900 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33302 Leonard J M cDonald, Jr Tiffany & Bosco PA Camelback Esplanade II 2525 E Camelback Rd 3rd Floor Phoenix, AZ 85016

S/

Reid C. Pixler

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 165 3 Filed 05/01/2006

Page 3 of 3