Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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, Plaintiff, v. Lear Jet, Model 31A, Serial Number 31A224, U.S. Registration # N224LJ; Defendant. CIV-04-363-PHX-JWS
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERVENING DOCUMENTS

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Abed Claimants seek to file essentially one additional exhibit, an affidavit from Miguel

17 Angel Corrales Aranda, in an effort to prove the authenticity of the two forged documents. 18 Plaintiff relies upon the previously submitted affidavit of Lisa Cacheris Burnett. Based upon 19 these objective facts and inspection of the two exhibits, Lisa Burnett has determined that both 20 documents are false. (Burnett Dec. ¶9) Lisa Cacheris Burnett provided a number of specific 21 reasons why the letter which appeared over her purported signature was a fraud, the most 22 significant of which was that the signature has not hers, the stationery was not correct, the letter 23 was written in very poor Spanish, and the request was not consistent with the procedures used 24 by the Department of Justice in an MLAT request (MLATs are not used to seek arrest.) In 25 addition, Lisa Cacheris Burnett never received the forged response to her purported letter. 26 Nearly by definition, the failure of the PGR letter to be received by the DOJ official to whom 27 it is allegedly addressed is a strong indication that the letter is a forgery. 28

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 160

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 1 of 6

1

The alleged correspondence is between two governmental units neither of which discloses

2 any copies were provided to counsel for claimants. In other words, there can be no question that 3 Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda purports to authenticate the exhibits which he provided, but for 4 which he had no legitimate access, by stating that he received the documents from an official 5 source who he refuses to identify. It is apparent that Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda has taken 6 steps to conceal the identity of the alleged author of the PGR letter which purportedly responds 7 to a non existence letter, first in the creative manner in which the PGR letter was copied so that 8 no official could be identified as the author, and in his declaration in which he declines to 9 identify his source for the counterfeit documents. It is also apparent that Miguel Angel Corrales 10 Aranda continues to represent Alberto Abed Schedkaiban regarding a criminal case which does 11 not exist. That is, the United States has represented to the Court that the criminal investigation 12 is focused on the acts of Jaime Ross Castillo and his associates and co-conspirators. To date, 13 nothing has implicated Alberto Abed Schedkaiban as having been involved in the underlying 14 fraud on the Inverlat Bank. Despite these assurances, Alberto Abed Schedkaiban continues to 15 seek to collect evidence, even fake evidence, to promote the case he seeks to defend. The 16 remarkable fact is Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda and Cynthia E. Orr would continue to assert 17 that there is any legitimacy regarding these exhibits in the face of indisputable evidence that both 18 letters are forgeries. 19 20 21 22 23 Further, please find one affidavit (Exhibit 3) attached, signed by Attorney Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda ("Aranda"), attesting to the validity of the aforementioned documents. Attorney Aranda's affidavit, dated March 9, 2006, states that under penality of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that he obtained the aformentioned documents from both (sic) the Subprocuradduria de Investigacion Especializada en la Delincuencia Organizada de la PGR. This document was also sent immediately to the Assisting (sic) Special Agent in charges (sic) above. These additional documents support the authenticity of the attachments to the Motion For leave to File Intervening Documents, Docket #156.

24 Abed's Motion page 2. 25 Simply stated, Cynthia Orr attempts to rehabilitate her forged exhibits on the basis that

26 Attorney Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda alleged he obtained his exhibits from a legitimate 27 source he refuses to identify on the basis that to do so might harm his source. If the exhibits are 28 considered to be legitimate, the only potential harm to the source would be as the result of the
2 Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS Document 160 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 6

1 unauthorized distribution of privileged governmental correspondence. This fact should cause 2 the Court pause in the consideration of the exhibit because the inescapable conclusion is the two 3 exhibits were obtained as the result of bribery and corruption. In the alternative, if the exhibits 4 are considered to be forgeries, then the potential harm to the source would include not only the 5 unauthorized distribution of privileged governmental correspondence, but the manufacture of 6 false evidence. Again, the inescapable conclusion should cause the Court pause in the 7 consideration of the exhibit. Under this alternative, not only were the two exhibits obtained as 8 the result of bribery and corruption, the only purpose to obtain the fraudulent documents was to 9 deceive and mislead this Court. The affidavit of Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda serves only one 10 purpose, the continued concealment of the source of the fraudulent documents. In no manner 11 can it be said that is affidavit provides any authenticity to support the forged documents. 12 Literally, it provides nothing in the way of corroborating authenticity, and simply seeks to 13 conceal the source of the fraud. This must be apparent to Cynthia E. Orr. This motion cannot 14 be filed in good faith. The only appropriate response to a licensed member of the bar and an 15 officer of the Court is to move to withdraw the forged documents. The failure to perform in an 16 ethical and appropriate manner speaks volumes about the motivation for the underlying motion. 17 This motion is submitted in bad faith and is only interposed for the purpose of continued delay. 18 19 20 21 22 The sole purpose of filing the false exhibits was an attempt to convince the Court that two 1. ARGUMENT Is the filing of the Motion For Leave to file additional documents by claimants relevant to any issue before this Court?

23 AUSAs had been less than truthful about the existence of a criminal case. The governmental 24 response conclusively established that the two exhibits are fakes. What then is relevant in the 25 new exhibits filed by Cynthia E. Orr? Her letter to the FBI is not relevant to the issue of 26 whether the case should be stayed or whether a criminal investigation exists which involves 27 Abed. The affidavit from Miguel Angel Corrales Aranda provides no relevant evidence 28 regarding either issue. Rather, it is a transparent effort to justify what appears to be criminal
3 Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS Document 160 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 3 of 6

1 action on the part of an Abed attorney in Mexico by suggesting that the fake exhibits came from 2 a legitimate government source who he refuses to identify. This lame effort does not contradict 3 in any manner the compelling evidence presented by the government that both of the exhibits 4 tendered by Cynthia E. Orr are fake, and that the quality of the fake exhibits were so poor, that 5 no person should have ever relied upon them. The tendered documents contribute nothing to 6 the consideration of the sole issue presented to the Court, i.e., the impact of foreign citizenship 7 and residence upon the obligation to engage in discovery. The fake exhibits, plus those tendered 8 with this motion should be withdrawn by claimants. If not withdrawn, the exhibits should be 9 stricken by the Court as an attempt to defraud the Court. As a last alternative, the motion to file 10 additional exhibits could be denied. Under no circumstances should any of these exhibits be 11 considered by the Court. 12 13 14 15 2. Does the Motion by the Abed Claimants establish any foundation for legitimacy, accuracy, or credibility regarding the tendered exhibits upon which this Court should rely for any reason?

As previously addressed, counsel for Abed filed four documents for which claimants can

16 provide no foundation. There is no other identification or file number by which the original of 17 the PGR letter can be located. (Burnett Dec. ¶8) However, it is significant that the person to 18 whom the letter is directed, Lisa Burnett, has never received the original of this letter. (Burnett 19 Dec. ¶8) Lisa Burnett also denies writing the original letter, which contains obvious errors, 20 flaws, and is not professionally written in either English or Spanish. The affidavit from Miguel 21 Angel Corrales Aranda provides no foundation for the first exhibits, and itself proves nothing. 22 In short, counsel has provided no reasonable explanation for how they came into possession of 23 allegedly official communications between governmental authorities regarding the alleged 24 request for the arrest of Abed. Indeed, the investigation into the source of these documents and 25 the offer by Cynthia E. Orr to cooperate with an FBI investigation has created a conflict of 26 interest for Claimant Abed's counsel. 27 Based upon this information, the Court should strike all of the exhibits recently tendered by

28 the claimants, if claimants fail to withdraw them. In the alternative, the Court should conduct
4 Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS Document 160 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 6

1 a hearing at which the Claimants would be required authenticate and provide foundation for the 2 exhibits that have been tendered to the Court. 3 4 5 SUMMARY Claimants have failed to provide any basis other than mere speculation to support the request

6 for a stay. Because the records sought to be produced are corporate records involved in the 7 movement of funds to acquire the defendant aircraft, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege 8 available to claimants, and therefore no basis to stay this action. Claimants have taken advantage 9 of a liberal discovery policy and reciprocal promises of production by receiving substantial 10 discovery from plaintiff, but refuse to produce any current, relevant, or material evidence in 11 return. 12 The Plaintiff has provided the Court with uncontradicted evidence that the exhibits which

13 the Claimant has provided to the Court are forged. As such, there has been an attempt to 14 perpetrate a fraud upon this Court. Further investigation into the source of these documents and 15 the knowledge of the nature of the documents by those who have presented them to the Court 16 is required and will be conducted for potential federal criminal violations. In addition, the Court 17 may wish to conduct an inquiry of its own into these documents. 18 The Plaintiff would respectfully request that the Court deny the Claimants' pending motions

19 and order that discovery be produced by Claimant Abed. Alternatively, in the event that the 20 Court is not inclined to deny the motions summarily, the Plaintiff would request that the Court 21 set the matter for an evidentiary hearing at which the Claimant would be required to authenticate 22 and lay a foundation for the documents that it has asked the Court to rely upon. 23 24 25 26 27 28
5 Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS Document 160 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/ Reid C. Pixler REID C. PIXLER Assistant U.S. Attorney

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 Washington 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 March 29, 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 March 29, 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 McDonald, Jr Tiffany & Bosco PA Camelback Esplanade II 2525 E Camelback Rd 3rd Floor Phoenix, AZ 85016

S/

Victoria Tiffany

6 Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS Document 160 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 6 of 6