Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSLATION FROM SPANISH COMPLAINT: 130/2005. MATTER: ADMINISTRATIVE PLAINTIFFS: HARTSLOPE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND CASAFIN LIMITED APPELLANTS: THE SAME

JUDGE WRITING THE COURT'S DECISION: JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ PUERTO. COURT CLERK: JOSE FRANCISCO ALBARRAN MENDOZA.

Cancun, Quintana Roo. Decision of the Three-Judge Court of the Twentyseventh Circuit, corresponding to the twenty-first day of September two thousand and five. HAVING EXAMINED the case files of complaint number 130/2005 in order to pass judgment; and

T H E

F A C T S :

FIRST.- Through brief dated the seventh of September, Hartslope Holdings Limited and Casafin Limited, through their legal representatives Marco Antonio Corrales Murillo and Oscar Eduardo Fernandez Banda, appeared before, due to questions of shift, the Third District Court in the State, residing in this city of

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

1 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 1 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Cancun, filing for the protective order and protection of the Federal Courts against the acts and authorities transcribed in continuation: "III.RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES: A).FROM THE FEDERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, we indicate, in their status as issuing and enforcing authorities: The Federal Attorney General.- - - The General Director For The Control And Registration Of Provisional Securing By The Attorney General's Office.- - - The Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. - - - The Regional Delegate of the Federal Attorney General's Office in Cancun, Quintana Roo. - - The Director Of The Federal Investigation Agency. - - The General Integration and Supervision Coordinator of the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. - - - The Legal Property Coordinator attached to the Property Administration and Sale Service. - - - B).FROM THE MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE, as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The Minister. - - - The Director of the Property Administration and Sale Service. - - - C).- FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT, in their status as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The General Civil Aviation Director. - - - The Director of the Mexican Aviation Registry dependent on the General Civil Aviation Department. - - - The General Airports and Auxiliary Services Director. - - - D).- FROM THE MINISTRY

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

2 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 2 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in their status as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The Minister. - - - The Commissioner of the Federal Preventive Police. - - IV.CHALLENGED ACTS: OF THE AUTHORITIES INDICATED AS RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I CLAIM: 1) The Provisional Securing Order of the Aircraft passed in preliminary inquiry A.P. PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004 by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. By means of which the following aircraft were provisionally secured: 1) CESSNA 208B, with serial number 208B0941, Civil Registration XA-TUF, and 2) HELICOPTER REGISTRATION XA-TSR, MANUFACTURER AND MODEL AGUSTA A-109E, SERIAL NUMBER 116, which under penalty of perjury, was not notified in writing. - - 2) The procedure dated the 4th of July this year, carried out by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration, by means of which he took possession of the aircraft covered by these protective order proceedings. - - - 3) The physical delivery of such aircraft by the Public Prosecutor in favor of the Property Administration and Sale Service, dependent of the Ministry of the Treasury and Public Finance, so that this agency could proceed to sell the aforementioned aircraft. - - - 4) The effects and consequences derived from the aforementioned provisional securing. - - - FROM THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE;

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

3 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 3 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE FROM THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT, I claim the physical enforcement of the acts attributed to the issuing authorities dependent on the Federal Attorney General's Office in order to be deprived of the property through the sale of the aircraft that the Property Administration and Sale Service attempts to carry out." SECOND.- After the complaint was admitted under the number 1355/2005 and the respective motion for suspension was processed, the Third District Judge in the State, residing in this city of Cancun, by ruling dated the ninth of September this year, indicated that it was admissible to deny the requested provisional suspension. THIRD.- In disagreement with the aforementioned ruling, the plaintiffs filed this complaint, to which the Chief Justice of this Three-judge Court admitted by means of ruling dated the twentieth of September this year, in virtue of the fact that the Federal Judge sent certified copies of the respective case records, and which provide the basis for this complaint; in the terms of Article 99, fourth paragraph, of the Protective Orders Act, this case was ordered to be handed over to the Magistrate Jose Manuel Rodriguez Puerto, for the preparation of the corresponding draft of the final judgment. C O N C L U S I O N S O F L A W :

FIRST: This Court has competent jurisdiction to judge and decide on this motion, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 95, section XI, 97 section IV, 99, last paragraph, of the Protective Orders Act; 37, section III, 144 and 145 of the Internal Regulations of the Federal Judicial Branch; in virtue of the fact that this complaint

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

4 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 4 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE was filed against the ruling that denied the provisional suspension of the challenged acts, passed by the Third District Judge in the State, residing in this city, territory over which this Three-judge Court has jurisdiction. SECOND.considerations: "Cancun, Quintana Roo, on the ninth of September two thousand and five.... in the records on this date, passed in the protective order proceedings from which this motion is derived, filed by HARTSLOPE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND CASAFIN LIMITED, through their legal representatives MARCO ANTONIO CORRALES MURILLO AND OSCAR EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, BANDA, against the acts of the Federal Attorney General, the General Director for the Control and Registration of Provisional Securing by the Attorney General's Office, the Federal Public Prosecutor attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office, the Director of the Federal Investigation Agency, the General Integration and Supervision Coordinator of the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office, the Legal Property Coordinator attached to the Property Administration and Sale Service, the Minister of the Treasury and Public Finance, the Director of the Property Administration and Sale Service, the Director of the Mexican Aviation Registry dependent on the General Civil Aviation Department, the General Airports and The challenged ruling was based on the following

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

5 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 5 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Auxiliary Services Director, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Director of the Federal Preventive Police, all residing in Mexico City, Federal District, and the Regional Delegate of the Federal Attorney General's Office, residing in Cancun, Quintana Roo, based on the provisions of Articles 130, 131, 132 and 136 of the Protective Orders Act, processing the motion for suspension in a separate file and in duplicate. By means of the official letter sent to this effect and by telegram, ask the respondent authorities for their preliminary reports, which should be submitted within twenty-four hours following the notification of this ruling. NINE HOURS FIFTY-FIVE MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE is indicated for the holding of the hearing on the motion. In this case, the plaintiffs claim from the authorities indicated as the respondent authorities, basically: a) the ruling passed issued in preliminary inquiry A.P. PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, which ordered the provisional securing of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, b) the procedure dated the 4th of July two thousand and five, by means of which the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office, took possession of the aforementioned aircraft, and c) the physical delivery of such aircraft by the Public Prosecutor in favor of the Property Administration and Sale Service, so that this agency could proceed to sell the aforementioned aircraft. - - - This ruling deems that regarding such acts the

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

6 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 6 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE requested provisional suspension should be denied, given that they possess the status of consummated acts, as they were exhausted with their issuance and enforcement, respectively, and therefore it is unfeasible to change them as this would be the same as giving the suspension restoring effects, which pertain to the judgment on the merits passed on the Protective Order Proceedings from which this motion is derived. - - - This consideration is supported by caselaw number II.3o.J/37, sustained by the Third Three-judge Court of the Second Circuit, which can be consulted on page 51 of Volume 60 of the month of December nineteen hundred and ninety-two, published in the Gazette of the Supreme Court Reports, Eighth Series, which verbatim reads as follows: "CONSUMMATED ACTS. SUSPENSION INADMISSIBLE.- (Transcribed)."- - - Regarding the effects and consequences produced by the challenged acts, which translate into the sale of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, it is admissible to state that the requested protective measure should also be denied, due to the fact that the requirement contemplated in section II of Article 124 is not met for the granting thereof. - - - In effect, section II of the invoked legal precept states that the suspension will be inadmissible when, in the case of being granted, public interests are affected or public order provisions are contravened and in this sense, it establishes, but in no way limits itself to the cases in which public interests are affected or public order provisions are contravened and in which the refusal of the preventive measure is a necessary consequence; but the suspension should also be denied when the judge clearly sees that the

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

7 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 7 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE granting thereof would contravene public order provisions and public interests, as occurs in this case. - - - In the case in question, it is deemed that regarding the act challenged by, the protective order petitioners and to be carried out by the Property Administration and Sale Service, consisting of the sale of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, which were provisionally secured in the records of Preliminary Inquiry PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, the suspension is inadmissible, taking into account the fact that such authority is authorized by express provision of the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, specifically in Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38, to sell the property transferred thereto, when so deemed appropriate, by means of the sales procedures described in such Act. - - - It is true that Article 31 of the invoked legal ordinance states that the sales procedures are related to public order and have the purpose of economically, effectively, impartially and transparently selling the property transferred to such agency, in order to ensure the best possible conditions in the sale thereof, to obtain the highest possible recovery value and the best opportunity conditions, as well as the reduction of the management and custody costs of the transferor entities, such sale procedures contained in the aforementioned article containing, among others, the purchase-sale; consequently, it is undeniable that the requested suspension defended by the protective order petitioners in these proceedings becomes inadmissible, given that the granting thereof would contravene public order provisions, such as those that authorize the Property Administration and Sale

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

8 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 8 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Service to carry out the sale of such property, by means of the procedures established by the invoked legal ordinance. - - - For the foregoing reasons, this Federal Judge has the conviction that in this case it is not legally feasible to grant the preventive measure requested, given that the observance of the Law is related to public order, and therefore the granting of such measure is not admissible, due to the fact that it fails to meet the requirements stated in section II of Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act. - - - The foregoing considerations are supported by the caselaw sustained by the Third Three-judge Administrative Court of the First Circuit, visible on page 383, of Volume V, corresponding to the month of January 1997, published in the Supreme Court Reports and their Gazette, ninth series, which verbatim reads as follows: "SUSPENSION, NOTIONS OF PUBLIC ORDER AND PUBLIC INTERESTS FOR THE EFFECTS OF THE. (Transcribed)."- - - Issue a certified copy in triplicate of this decision and deliver to MIGUEL ANGEL CORRALES ARANDA, MARIA DE LOURDES MIRIAM MENDOZA MARTINEZ, DAVID ARTURO PACHECO PACHECO OR ALFREDO SANCHEZ BAUTISTA, persons authorized to receive them, following their signature as receipt in the record. - - - LET IT BE KNOWN TO THE PARTIES." THIRD.- The plaintiff companies stated the following causes of action: "FIRST.- The judge hearing the case denies the provisional suspension in virtue of the fact that she deems that the acts have consummated status as they were exhausted with their issuance and enforcement respectively, and therefore it is impossible to change them as this would be the same as giving the suspension restoring effects, which pertain to the judgment on the merits, and given such

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

9 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 9 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE consideration it is clear that the petitioner has made an inexact study of the case file, as the suspension requested by the companies I represent was with the aim OF MAINTAINING THINGS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE AND SO THAT SUCH AIRCRAFT ARE NOT SOLD, UNTIL THE BASIS OF THESE PROTECTIVE ORDER PROCEEDINGS IS DECIDED. - - - Consequently, it is an attribute of the Judge to exceptionally grant the provisional suspension, anticipating the possible results that may be obtained with the judgment on merits passed, and when the specific aspects of this case that the aircraft are not sold, have an appearance of legality and abide by the law, i.e. that the sale thereof is evident, as was mentioned in the initial protective order complaint, until TODAY, THE COMPANIES I REPRESENT ARE UNAWARE OF THE MOTIVES AND BASIS ON WHICH THE JUDGE BASED HERSELF TO ORDER THE PROVISIONAL SECURING OF THE AIRCRAFT AND HAND THEM OVER TO THE PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION AND SALE SERVICE, as it is clear that the Judge should take into account the specific circumstances and characteristics of the case, which implies that the Judge should have made a detailed and careful study of the probability and verisimilitude of the right requested by my clients, irrespective of whether such measure may change the decision on the basis of the case, but rather, on the contrary, the Judge should consider that if the requested measure is not granted and during the process the aircraft are sold, then the basis of this case would be left without substance. - - - Therefore, it is clear that the granting of the measure complies with the appearance of good law in the firm of the objective and serious credibility that rules out any groundless, unquestionable and temerarious

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

10 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 10 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE pretension, which is achieved through superficial knowledge, aimed at achieving a decision of mere probability regarding the existence of the right discussed in the initial complaint and which will be corroborated when the authorities submit their respective reports, in virtue of which the Judge should analyze such elements and reach a decision regarding a provisional suspension, according to the powers thereof, which does not imply the invalidation of the consummated act per se, but rather maintaining things in their current state so that the aircraft are not sold until the basis of the case in question is resolved, and it is clear that the granting of the measure at no time affects any legal rule and, on the contrary, the property is preserved until the basis of the case is decided. On the other hand, regarding the statement of the appellant authority in the sense that by granting the provisional suspension, restoring effects were being given to the suspension, this is groundless, given that the preventive measure in question only has the aim of paralyzing the performance of the act until the definitive suspension is decided, and therefore the basis of the case.- - - Furthermore, it should be indicated that the decision of the Federal Judge was not law-abiding, as it infringes the provisions of Article 130 of the Protective Orders Act, which establishes: "In the cases in which the suspension is admissible pursuant to Article 124 of this Act, if there is an imminent danger that the challenged act is enforced clearly affecting the plaintiff, the District Judge, with just the filing of the protective order proceedings, may order that things be maintained in their current state until the respondent authority is notified of the ruling passed regarding the definitive suspension..."; consequently, given the admissibility of the suspension of the challenged acts for the effects of

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

11 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 11 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE the provisional one and in accordance with the contents of the transcribed article, the District Judge may pass the preventive measure with just the filing of the complaint and after analyzing the challenged acts stated by my clients, grant the suspension so that things are maintained in their current state, i.e. applied to the concrete case in which such aircraft remain in the possession of the Property Administration and Sale Service and that such authority may not at any time sell them or squander them until final judgment is passed in these proceedings. - - SECOND.- As a cause of action, the second part of the challenged ruling, which basically mentions that regarding the effects and consequences produced by the challenged acts, which translate into the sale of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, it is admissible to state that the requested protective measure should also be denied, due to the fact that the requirement contemplated in section II of Article 124 is not met for the granting thereof. In effect, section II of the invoked legal precept states that the suspension will be inadmissible when, in the case of being granted, public interests are affected or public order provisions are contravened and in this sense, it establishes, but in no way limits itself to the cases in which public interests are affected or public order provisions are contravened and in which the refusal of the preventive measure is a necessary consequence; but the suspension should also be denied when the judge clearly sees that the granting thereof would contravene public order provisions and public interests, as occurs in this case. In the case in question, it is deemed that regarding the act challenged by the protective order

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

12 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 12 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE petitioners and to be carried out by the Property Administration and Sale Service, consisting of the sale of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, which were provisionally secured in the records of Preliminary Inquiry PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, the respective measure is inadmissible, taking into account the fact that such authority is authorized by express provision of the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, specifically in Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38, to sell the property transferred thereto, when so deemed appropriate, by means of the sales procedures described in such Act. It is true that Article 31 of the invoked legal ordinance states that the sales procedures are related to public order and have the purpose of economically, effectively, impartially and transparently selling the property transferred to such agency, in order to ensure the best possible conditions in the sale thereof, to obtain the highest possible recovery value and the best opportunity conditions, as well as the reduction of the management and custody costs of the transferor entities, such sale procedures contained in the aforementioned article containing, among others, the purchase-sale; consequently, it is undeniable that the requested suspension defended by the protective order petitioners in these proceedings becomes inadmissible, given that the granting thereof would contravene public order provisions, such as those that authorize the Property Administration and Sale Service to carry out the sale of such property, by means of the procedures established by the invoked legal ordinance. For the foregoing reasons, this Federal Judge has the conviction that in this case it is not

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

13 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 13 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE legally feasible to grant the preventive measure requested, given that the observance of the Law is related to public order, and therefore the granting of such measure is not admissible, due to the fact that it fails to meet the requirements stated in section II of Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act.- - - The considerations in virtue of which the District Judge denies the suspension infringe Article 124 section II of the Protective Orders Act and its correct application, as at no time does the suspension requested by my clients contravene public order provisions and public interests. - - - In effect, Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act indicates that other than the cases in which the suspension is admissible by operation of law, the suspension of the challenged act will be decreed as long as the following requirements are met: I.- That it is requested by the petitioner; II.That no affect to public interests are pursued or public order provisions are infringed; and III.- That the damages and losses caused with the enforcement of the act are difficult to repair.- - - In this case, through brief dated the 7th of September 2005, the plaintiffs HARTSLOPE LTD and CASAFIN LTD filed PROTECTIVE ORDER PROCEEDINGS against the following challenged acts: OF THE AUTHORITIES INDICATED AS RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES

DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I CLAIM: 1) The Provisional Securing Order of the Aircraft passed in preliminary inquiry A.P. PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004 by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. By means of which the following

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

14 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 14 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE aircraft were provisionally secured: 1) CESSNA 208B, with serial number 208B0941, Civil Registration XA-TUF, and 2) HELICOPTER REGISTRATION XATSR, MANUFACTURER AND MODEL AGUSTA A-109E, SERIAL NUMBER 116, which under penalty of perjury, was not notified in writing. - - - 2) The procedure dated the 4th of July this year, carried out by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration, by means of which he took possession of the aircraft covered by these protective order proceedings. - - - 3) The physical delivery of such aircraft by the Public Prosecutor in favor of the Property Administration and Sale Service, dependent of the Ministry of the Treasury and Public Finance, so that this agency could proceed to sell the aforementioned aircraft. - - - 4) The effects and consequences derived from the aforementioned provisional securing. FROM THE RESPONDENT

AUTHORITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE; FROM THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT, I claim the physical enforcement of the acts attributed to the issuing authorities dependent on the Federal Attorney General's Office in order to be deprived of the property through the sale of the aircraft that the Property Administration and Sale Service attempts to carry out.- - From the precedents of the aforementioned challenged acts, it can be seen that regarding Preliminary Inquiry PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, my clients ignored their terms, reasons and grounds, which lead them to once again file indirect protective order proceedings, such case being judged by the Third District Judge of

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

15 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 15 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE the State, under the number 524/2005, who following the legal process decreed the dismissal of the protective order proceedings, in virtue of the fact that the respondent authorities had denied the existence of the challenged act, IN VIRTUE WHEREOF TODAY MY CLIENTS IGNORE THE REASONS AND GROUNDS ON WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BASED THEMSELVES FOR ORDERING THE PROVISIONAL SECURING OF SUCH AIRCRAFT. - - - To this tenor and given that the petitioners are third parties foreign to the crimes investigated in the aforementioned preliminary inquiry, my clients requested the provisional and definitive suspension SO THAT THINGS ARE MAINTAINED IN THEIR CURRENT STATE AND SUCH AIRCRAFT ARE NOT SOLD, UNTIL THE BASIS OF THESE PROTECTIVE ORDER PROCEEDINGS IS DECIDED.- - - At the time of requesting the preventive measure, the plaintiffs demonstrated to have a legal interest in virtue of the fact that they exhibited the documents that evidenced the property of the aircraft, as well as their legal importation into the country, such as the corresponding invoices and their customs entry forms with their respective translations.- - - Therefore, it is clear that with regards to public order and public interests, these concepts have not been affected, in virtue of the fact that all the legal requirements are possessed by my clients that prove that the aircraft were legally brought into national territory, as well as having their respective registrations to operate in Mexico.- - - The following caselaw excerpts apply to the foregoing: "SUSPENSION, NOTIONS OF PUBLIC ORDER AND PUBLIC INTERESTS FOR THE EFFECTS OF THE. (Transcribed)."- - - Ninth Series, Supreme Court Reports and their Gazette, Volume V, January 1997, Excerpt: I.3o.A.J/16, Page: 383.- - -

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

16 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 16 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE "DEFINITIVE SUSPENSION, WHEN DECIDING ON IT, THE PROTECTIVE ORDER JUDGE SHOULD SET FORTH, IF APPLICABLE, THE REASONS WHY HE BELIEVES THAT PUBLIC INTERESTS ARE AFFECTED OR NOT AND IF PUBLIC ORDER PROVISIONS ARE CONTRAVENED OR NOT. (Transcribed)."- - Along this line of ideas, the Judge is wrong when she states that if the suspension was granted public order provisions would be contravened and public interests affected, given that, as has already been mentioned, such terms are subjective and are left to the subjective appreciation of the judge and in this case, contrary to what the District Judge says, such concepts are not infringed with the requested suspension, as even when the respondent authorities, pursuant to Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38 of the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, are authorized to sell the property transferred thereto by means of a purchase-sale, it is also true that such operation transferring ownership and the right of sale of the property in question operates until their seizure is ordered, through the respective judicial proceeding, and therefore such sale cannot take place when the property has only been provisionally secured, because in virtue of such provisional securing, the State HAS NOT YET ACQUIRED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPOUNDED PROPERTY, BUT RATHER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 181 OF THE FEDERAL CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the ordering of the provisional securing of the respective property is ordered so that they are not altered, destroyed or do not disappear, and for the public prosecutor to proceed to make the corresponding investigations and in the case that such property is unrelated to the investigated crimes, they will be returned to those who proves to possess an

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

17 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 17 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE interest to such effect, and in virtue of the foregoing it is clear that the provisional securing only represents a preventive measure ordered in order to facilitate the investigating function of the public prosecutor, and therefore it is illogical and contrary to law for the respondent authorities, at this stage, to proceed with the sale of the property that is supposedly under investigation, thus going against the very purpose of the provisional securing and contravening the legal provisions that govern such legal figure. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the District Judge made an improper analysis of Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38 of the aforementioned Act, as the sale of provisionally secured property is only possible when the State acquired the ownership thereof by means of a seizure and when it has been proven that the secured property was effectively the fruit of the crime, and this is so true that secured property cannot be sold in virtue of the provisions of Articles 182 "N", 182 "Ñ", and 182 "O" of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for the return of the property, such provisions being of public order and public interest.- - - Consequently, in this case, if the property that forms the subject matter of this protective order proceedings were to sold, then these proceedings would be left without substance.- - - Now, regarding the Property Administration and Sale Service, consisting of the sale of the aircraft, the case Judge considers that it is not legally feasible to grant the preventive measure requested, as the observance of the Law is of public order, and consequently it is not admissible to grant such measure, as the requirement contained in section II of Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act is not met. In effect, in the concrete case of the protective order proceedings, it can be seen that the Property Administration

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

18 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 18 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE and Sale Service has in its possession the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XATSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, such guaranties having been provisionally secured, it is clear that this does not mean that the respondent authorities may proceed with their sale, as this measure is only provisional so that the Public Prosecutor may carry out the corresponding investigations and so that the subject matter of the inquiry is not destroyed or disappear, which would happen if the sale of such property by the respondent authorities is permitted, which would invalidate the nature of the provisional securing, affecting the plaintiffs.- - - The case is that to today, my clients ignore evidence, reasons, motives and grounds that the Public Prosecutor attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office had to order, in preliminary inquiry PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, the challenged provisional securing, as such actions infringe the rights of the plaintiffs, as it was ordered outside of the formalities contained in Article 16 of the Constitution, which states that: "... No-one may be harassed either personally, regarding their family, domicile, papers or possessions, without a written order from the competent authority that provides the basis and grounds for the legal cause of the procedure", and therefore by ordering that things be maintained in their current state would at no time affect public interests, as I am not requesting that the aircraft be returned to me but rather that they not be sold until the basis of these protective order proceedings has been decided. Consequently, the Judge is wrong to state that

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

19 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 19 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE such measure cannot be granted as the observance of the Law is related to public order, but, in this specific case, the Law is not being infringed at any moment, but rather, on the contrary, I am only requesting that the aircraft should not be sold until these proceedings are decided.- - - The following caselaws are applicable to the foregoing: "PROVISIONAL SECURING OF THE OBJECT OF THE CRIME, SUSPENSION IN THE CASE OF. (Transcribed)."- - - Fifth Series, First Division, Source: Supreme Court Reports, Volume: LXXXVII, Page: 2333.-

"PROVISIONAL SECURING OF REAL ESTATE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY. IT IS ADMISSIBLE TO GRANT THE DEFINITIVE SUSPENSION IN THE CASE OF. (Transcribed)."- - - Ninth Series, Supreme Court reports and their Gazette, Volume: I, May 1995, Excerpt: XV.1°.J/4, Page: 239." FOURTH.- The asserted causes of action are, on the one hand, inoperative and, on the other, well-founded. In their first cause for dispute, the appellants argue that the trial court judge denied them the provisional suspension in virtue of deeming that the challenged acts had a consummated status, as they had been exhausted with their issuance and enforcement, and therefore it was impossible to change them, as this would be the same as giving the suspension restoring effects, which pertained to the judgment of the merits of the case; such decision, they say, was incorrect, in virtue of the fact that the suspension they requested was with the aim of maintaining things in their current state and preventing their aircraft from being sold until the merits of the protective order proceedings were resolved. That it is an attribute of the Judge to grant the provisional suspension, anticipating the possible results that

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

20 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 20 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE may be obtained with the resolution of the merits of the case, in virtue whereof the granting of the measure that complies with the appearance of good law may be decided in accordance with the powers thereof and a provisional suspension that does not imply the invalidation of the consummated act. The foregoing is inoperative, given that the appellants do not challenge the decision of the trial court judge regarding her decision to deny the requested provisional suspension, regarding the acts consisting of: "a) the ruling passed issued in preliminary inquiry A.P. PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004, which ordered the provisional securing of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, b) the procedure dated the 4th of July two thousand and five, by means of which the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office, took possession of the aforementioned aircraft, and c) the physical delivery of such aircraft by the Public Prosecutor in favor of the Property Administration and Sale Service, so that this agency could proceed to sell the aforementioned aircraft", acts that she deemed to have been consummated in virtue of having been exhausted with their issuance, in virtue of which it was unfeasible to change them and in continuation, she referred to the effects and consequences of such acts, which she believed would be translated into the sale of the aircraft of which the plaintiffs appeared as owners.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

21 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 21 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE As can be seen, the cause of action is aimed at challenging the decision of the trial court judge, regarding the effects and consequences of the challenged acts and not regarding the decision of the respondent authority that the issuance thereof had the status of having been consummated, and consequently they are inoperative. In their second cause of action, the appellants essentially state that the District Judge denied them the requested provisional suspension, regarding the effects and consequences produced by the challenged acts, which translate into the sale of the aircraft Cessna Caravan 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration XA-TUF, and the Helicopter Registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A-109E, serial number 116, due to considering that in this case the requirement contemplated in Article 124, section II of the Protective Orders Act was not met, in virtue of the fact that public order provisions would be contravened, which consisted of Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38 of the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, as pursuant to such articles, the Property Administration and Sale Service is authorized to sell the property transferred thereto when it deems convenient. That the trial court judge made an incorrect interpretation of such legal precepts, because although it is true that the aforementioned authority is authorized to sell the property transferred thereto, it should be understood that such operation transferring ownership and the right to sell the property operates until the seizure thereof is ordered by means of the respective judicial proceeding and therefore the sale cannot take place when the property has only been

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

22 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 22 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE provisionally secured, because in virtue of the provisional securing the State has not yet acquired the ownership of the impounded property, and therefore, pursuant to Article 181 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, it is admissible to order the provisional securing of the property object of the crime, so that it is not altered, destroyed or disappears, until the corresponding investigations are made, and in the case that such property is unrelated to the investigated facts, it should be returned to whoever proves to have an interest to this effect, added to the fact that articles 182 "N", 182 "Ñ" and 182 "O" of the same legal ordinance contain the return of the property and these are also public order provisions and of public interest. That if the property, subject matter of these protective order proceedings were to be sold, then they would be left without substance. That in the case of the protective order proceedings, it can be seen that the Property Administration and Sale Service has the plaintiffs' aircraft in its possession as provisionally secured, but this does not mean that it may proceed with their sale, as such securing is a provisional measure and the only request being made is to maintain things in their current state, in virtue whereof public interests are not affected, because at no time is their return being requested, but rather only that they should not be sold until the merits of the case have been decided. From the analysis of the protective order proceedings, it can be seen that Hartslope Holdings Limited and Casafin Limited appeared before the Federal Courts to request constitutional protection regarding the challenged acts. "The

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

23 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 23 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Federal Attorney General.- - - The General Director For The Control And Registration Of Provisional Securing By The Attorney General's Office.- - - The Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. - - The Regional Delegate of the Federal Attorney General's Office in Cancun, Quintana Roo. - - The Director of the Federal Investigation Agency. - - The

General Integration and Supervision Coordinator of the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. - - - The Legal Property Coordinator attached to the Property Administration and Sale Service. - - - B).- FROM THE MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE, as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The Minister. - - - The Director of the Property Administration and Sale Service. - - - C).FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT, in their status as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The General Civil Aviation Director. - - The Director of the Mexican Aviation Registry dependent on the General Civil Aviation Department. - - - The General Airports and Auxiliary Services Director. - - D).- FROM THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in their status as enforcing authorities, I indicate: The Minister. - - - The Commissioner of the Federal Preventive Police. - - IV.- CHALLENGED ACTS: OF THE AUTHORITIES INDICATED AS RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I CLAIM: 1) The Provisional Securing Order of

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

24 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 24 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE the Aircraft passed in preliminary inquiry A.P. PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/2004 by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office. By means of which the following aircraft were provisionally secured: 1) CESSNA 208B, with serial number 208B0941, Civil Registration XA-TUF, and 2) HELICOPTER REGISTRATION XA-TSR, MANUFACTURER AND MODEL AGUSTA A-109E, SERIAL NUMBER 116, which under penalty of perjury, was not notified in writing. - - - 2) The procedure dated the 4th of July this year, carried out by the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration, by means of which he took possession of the aircraft covered by these protective order proceedings. - - - 3) The physical delivery of such aircraft by the Public Prosecutor in favor of the Property Administration and Sale Service, dependent of the Ministry of the Treasury and Public Finance, so that this agency could proceed to sell the aforementioned aircraft. - - - 4) The effects and consequences derived from the aforementioned provisional securing. - - - FROM THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE; FROM THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT, I claim the physical enforcement of the acts attributed to the issuing authorities dependent on the Federal Attorney General's Office in order to be deprived of the property

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

25 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 25 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE through the sale of the aircraft that the Property Administration and Sale Service attempts to carry out.". Whilst in the facts of the complaint, they indicated, among other issues, that Hartslope Holdings Limited was the legitimate owner of the aircraft CESSNA 208B, with serial number 208B0941, registration number XA-TUF, whilst Casafin Limited was the owner of the helicopter registration XA-TSR, make and model Agusta A109E, serial number 116, and that on the first of November two thousand and one, both plaintiffs entered into lease agreements regarding the aforementioned aircraft with the company Servicios Integrales de Aviation, Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable, and that the latter company possesses authorization to operate the aforementioned aircraft. That on the sixth of September, the aforementioned lessee informed them that the Federal Public Prosecutor Attached to the Unit Specialized in the

Investigation of Transactions with Funds from Crime and Currency Falsification or Alteration of the Specialized Organized Crime Investigation Assistant Attorney General's Office, in preliminary inquiry number PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/04, had proceeded to take possession of the aforementioned aircraft and had handed them over to the Property Administration and Sale Service of the Ministry of the Treasury and Public Finance, so that such agency could proceed with the sale of the aforementioned aircraft and that such sale had not yet been made. Now, the cause of action stated by the appellant is deemed to be essentially well-founded, given that one of the aims pursued with the suspension of the challenged acts is that things are maintained in their current state, with the purpose

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

26 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 26 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE of conserving the substance of the protective order proceedings, until the respective judgment is passed regarding the merits of the case; the foregoing in order to prevent damages or losses to the petitioner with the enforcement of the challenged act that are difficult to repair, given that if the purpose of the plaintiffs when filing the protective order proceedings is to prevent the aircraft belonging thereto from being sold, then it is obvious that if such sale were to take place then the protective order proceedings would be left without substance. In this case, the appellants are right to argue that public order provisions are not contravened, because the trial court judge incorrectly interpreted the provisions of Articles 5, 7, 31, 36 and 38 of the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, which contemplate the powers of the Property Administration and Sale Service for the sale of the property transferred thereto; as it should effectively be understood that such powers operate regarding that property whose ownership has been transferred thereto, in order to be able to freely dispose of it, which does not occur in this case regarding the property provisionally secured from the appellants in a preliminary inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of Article 181 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, in order to prevent the elements of the crime being investigated from being altered, destroyed or disappearing. On the other hand, given that pursuant to the Federal Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Act, the purpose thereof is the administration and disposal by the Public Sector Property Administration and Sale Service, among other property, of that provisionally secured in the federal criminal proceedings and which by transfer, pursuant to section XIII of its 2nd article, is understood to mean

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

27 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 27 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE the procedure by means of which a transferor entity hands over one or more pieces of property to such Service for its or their administration, sale or destruction, without such delivery implying the transfer of ownership of any kind or the generation of the payment of taxes. This coincides with the provisions of Articles 182 "N", 182 "Ñ" and 182 "O" of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, which contain the return of the provisionally secured property in the cases in which the Public Prosecutor, in the preliminary inquiry, decides not to take criminal action, the reservation or raising of the provisional securing or during the process when the judicial authority does not order the seizure or removes the securing. Consequently, this Three-judge Court considers that it is admissible to grant the provisional suspension so that the property is not sold or disposed of until its legal situation is defined when judging the merits of the protective order case, with which public order provisions are not infringed, given that such aircraft will continue as provisionally secured property and at the disposal of the respondent authority, until judgment is passed in the principal proceedings and therefore the requirements contained in sections I, II and III of Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act are met. The caselaw sustained by the First Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, visible on page 2333, of Volume LXXXVII, Fifth Series, of the Supreme Court Reports is applicable to the case, and which verbatim reads as follows:

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

28 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 28 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE "PROVISIONAL SECURING OF THE OBJECT OF THE CRIME,

SUSPENSION IN THE CASE OF.- If the object of the crime has been provisionally secured, it is unquestionable that the suspension cannot operate regarding such securing, but it does regarding the consequences thereof, such as the disposal of the secured property by the respondent authorities, delivering it to other persons, and the order to move such property elsewhere, and other consequences derived from such acts, because if the suspension prevents such consequences following the securing, it is unquestionable that public order is not affected if such object remains, as secured property at the disposal of the case Judge, who decides on the aforementioned crime, whilst the issue is being processed, principally in virtue of the fact that the provisional securing is nothing more than a preventive measure that has the aim of preventing that the consequences of the crime are irreparably consummated." Similarly, the caselaw sustained by the First Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, visible on page 437 of Volume LXXXVII, Fifth Series, of the Supreme Court Reports is applicable, which verbatim reads as follows: "SECURING OF THE OBJECT OF THE CRIME, SUSPENSION OF THE.Even when the securing has as its purpose the object of the crime, no harm is caused to general interest with the suspension granted so that the property is not disposed of, until its legal situation is defined, when the basis of the protective order proceedings is decided, given that the named depository will hand over such property to the corresponding person once the issue has been concluded."

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

29 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 29 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Furthermore, the caselaw sustained by the First Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, visible on page 985 of Volume XCVII, Fifth Series, of the Supreme Court Reports is applicable, which verbatim reads as follows: "SECURING OF THE OBJECT OF THE CRIME, SUSPENSION IN THE CASE OF.- The suspension is inadmissible against the securing of the property object of the crime, because its disappearance will make it difficult to prove, which is the basis of any criminal process, given that the society and the State are interested in the investigation of crimes and the punishment of the guilty parties. But regarding the effects of the securing, indicated by the plaintiff and which consist of the auctioning and awarding of the secured goods, the definitive suspension is admissible, given that it meets the requirements of section I, II and III of Article 124 of the Protective Orders Act." For the foregoing reasons, and based on Articles 95 section XI, 97, section IV, and 99, last paragraph of the Law Governing Articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution, it is ruled: SOLE RULING.- The complaint filed by Hartslope Holdings Limited and Casafin Limited against the ruling dated the ninth of September two thousand and five, passed by the Third District Judge in the State of Quintana Roo, residing in this city, in the motion for suspension related to protective order proceedings 1355/2005, is well-founded. Notify the parties accordingly; record with an official copy of this decision, return the case records to their place of origin and file the case at the appropriate time.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

30 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 30 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE Thus ruled by the Three-judge Court of the Twenty-seventh Circuit, by unanimous vote of the Magistrates Gonzalo Eolo Duran Molina, as Chief Justice, Mariano Mario Hernandez Torres and Jose Manuel Rodriguez Puerto, the latter being the judge writing the court's decision, who signs with the Chief Justice, together with the Court Clerk who authorizes and attests. THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Illegible signature) GONZALO EOLO DURAN MOLINA THE MAGISTRATE (Illegible signature) JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ PUERTO

THE COURT CLERK (Illegible signature) JOSE LUIS DIAZ PEREIRA. JFAM/ELF (Illegible stamp, with SEPTEMBER 2005) (Stamp that reads: "DELIVERED TO THE ACTUARY 21 SEP. 2005 CERTIFIED.") (Stamp that reads: "On 22 SEP. 2004 at nine a.m., the

foregoing ruling dated SEP. 21 2005 was notified on the list referred to by Article 29 of the Protective Orders Act.

Certified.")

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

31 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 31 of 33

COMPLAINT 130/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE (Stamp that reads: "On 22 SEP. 2005 at two p.m. and in virtue of the fact that the interested parties have not appeared to receive notifications, the notification is recorded as having been made by means of the list.- I attest to the foregoing") (Another illegible stamp with "23 SEP. 2005")

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

32 Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 32 of 33

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

FORM B-1

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

THE UNDERSIGNED, JOSE LUIS DIAZ PEREIRA, COURT CLERK OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH CIRCUIT,

CERTIFIES: THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND EXACT COPY OF ITS ORIGINAL, WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO COMPLAINT NUMBER 130/2005 OF THE INDEX OF THIS COURT; AND THIS CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED FOR THE CORRESPONDING LEGAL EFFECTS ON TWENTY PAGES OF TEXT, IN THE CITY OF CANCUN, QUINTANA ROO, ON THE TWENTY-NINTH OF

SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE.

THE COURT CLERK (Illegible signature) JOSE LUIS DIAZ PEREIRA

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 119-3

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 33 of 33