Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 1 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 2 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 3 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 4 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 5 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 6 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 7 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 8 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 9 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 10 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 11 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 12 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 13 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 14 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 15 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 16 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 17 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 18 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 19 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

1

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

TRANSLATION FROM SPANISH

Toluca, State of Mexico; twelfth of September two thousand and five.

HAVING EXAMINED the cases files related to the motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered facts derived from Protective Order Proceedings number 147/2005-IV, filed by SERVICIOS INTEGRALES DE AVIACION, S.A. DE C.V., through its legal representative Virginia Brondo Romero in order to pass judgment; and,

WHEREAS (FINDINGS OF FACT):

FIRST. SERVICIOS INTEGRALES DE AVIACION, S.A. DE C.V., through its legal representative Virginia Brondo Romero, through brief filed on the eleventh of July two thousand and five, filed the motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered evidence in this suspension proceeding; by ruling dated the twelfth of the same month and year, it was admitted to process and the respondent authorities were required to make their corresponding legal statements regarding the motion filed by the plaintiff within a term of THREE DAYS.

SECOND. The Area Director of the General Legal Affairs Department of the Federal Preventive Police, in absence of the COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL PREVENTIVE POLICE and the General Legal Coordinator of the SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, the General Policing Planning Director in Absence of the DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 20 of 38

2

the General Protective Order Director in the absence of the FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL and the General Legal Affairs Coordinator in absence of the FEDERAL PUBLIC SAFETY MINISTER, the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, the Assistant Fiscal Attorney for Protective Orders in absence of the MINISTER OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE, the Legal Analysis and Consulting Director, in response to official letter number 5330-IV, addressed to the GENERAL DIRECTOR FOR THE CONTROL AND REGISTRATION OF PROVISIONAL SECURING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE and the General Legal Coordinator in the absence of the SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, made different statements in the official letters and telegrams that have been added to the case file.

THIRD. By ruling dated the nineteenth of August this year, the respective motion was opened to evidence, and, given its own special nature, the documental evidence offered by the plaintiff to the motion due to newlydiscovered facts in question through its briefs submitted on the eleventh of July and tenth of August two thousand and five was recorded as having been offered, admitted and examined, and which was decided through rulings dated the twelfth of July and tenth of August the same year, and which the plaintiff ratified through its brief dated the sixth of September this year.

FOURTH. Consequently, as the term for providing evidence had concluded, by ruling dated the seventh of September the date was indicated for the holding of the allegations hearing, in the terms of the provisions of Article 360 of the suppletory Federal Code of Civil Procedure, which took place at nine forty a.m. on the twelfth of September two thousand and five; and

WHEREAS (CONCLUSIONS OF LAW):

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 21 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

3

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

FIRST. This Third District Court is legally competent to judge the motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered facts, based on the provisions of Article 140 of the Protective Orders Act and 360 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure applied in a suppletory manner to the Governing Law, as it is this same court that has judged the suspension to be modified.

SECOND. For the purposes of this ruling, it is convenient to state that in these protective order proceedings, the challenged act consists of:

"IV.- RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES: In their status as ISSUING AUTHORITIES DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, it indicated: A) THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL. B) THE SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. C) THE GENERAL DIRECTOR FOR THE CONTROL AND REGISTRATION OF PROVISIONAL SECURING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. D) 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. E) THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY. IN THEIR DUAL STATUS AS ISSUING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITIES: AA) THE MINISTER OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE. BB) DIRECTOR OF THE PROVISIONALLY SECURED PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICE. CC) THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY. DD) THE COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL PREVENTIVE POLICE.".

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 22 of 38

4

"IV.- CHALLENGED ACTS: A) From all of the respondent authorities indicated as issuing authorities, I claim the orders issued against my client for the purpose of dispossessing it in its status as lessee of the aircraft (twin-engined helicopter) Model AGUSTA A109E Power, with registration number XA-TSR, serial number 11116. B) From all of the respondent authorities indicated as enforcing authorities, I claim the orders I claim the orders issued against my client for the purpose of dispossessing it in its status as lessee of the aircraft CESSNA 208B, serial number 208B 09 41, XA-TUF. C) From the respondent authorities indicated as enforcing authorities, the physical enforcement of the acts attributed to the issuing authorities is claimed regarding the dispossession of the aircraft (TWIN-ENGINED HELICOPTER AND CESSNA 208B). D) From all the authorities indicated as respondents, both issuing and enforcing authorities, I claim the effects and consequences of the aforementioned challenged acts such as the order and physical enforcement of the removal from the petitioner of the protective order of the possession of the aforementioned aircraft and the disposal thereof by the respondent authorities, either decommissioning or any other act aimed at depriving me of the possession and use of the aforementioned aircraft". By ruling dated the second of February two thousand and five, the motion for suspension was formed in duplicate; a preliminary report was requested from the respondent authorities: THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT 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 GENERAL'S CRIME OFFICE, INVESTIGATION THE DIRECTOR ASSISTANT OF THE ATTORNEY FEDERAL

INVESTIGATION AGENCY, THE MINISTER OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE, DIRECTOR OF THE PROVISIONALLY SECURED PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICE, THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 23 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

5

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

SAFETY, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL PREVENTIVE POLICE, on behalf of the person whose principal complaint was admitted; and a date and time was fixed for the holding of the hearing of the motion, which took place pursuant to the interlocutory ruling dated the thirty-first of March two thousand and five, whose conclusions of law and rulings read as follows:

"...CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: FIRST.- It should be stated that pursuant to Article 77, section I, of the Governing Law, the challenged act is constituted by the orders issued against you, in order to dispossess it in its status as lessee and depository of the aircraft TWIN-ENGINED HELICOPTER model AGUSTA A109E POWER, with serial registration number XA-TSR, and the aircraft CESSNA 208B with serial number 208B 09 41, XA TUF, as well as their enforcement. SECOND.- THE FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (pages 40 and 41), the GENERAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS DIRECTOR, in absence of the FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL (pages 42, 43 and 44), the GENERAL POLICING PLANNING DIRECTOR, in absence of the DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (pages 45, 46 and 47), the FEDERAL ASSISTANT FISCAL ATTORNEY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS, in absence of the MINISTER OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE (pages 48 and 49), the DIRECTOR FOR THE CONTROL AND REGISTRATION OF PROVISIONAL SECURING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (pages 52, 53 and 54), the GENERAL LEGAL AFFAIRS COORDINATOR OF THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in absence of the FEDERAL MINISTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (pages 80 and 81), the GENERAL LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, in absence of the COMMISSIONER AND THE GENERAL LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, both of the FEDERAL PREVENTIVE POLICE (pages 97 and 98), and the GENERAL LEGAL COORDINATOR, in absence of the SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL (page 124), when submitting their preliminary reports, denied the existence of the challenged acts, without the plaintiff having offered any evidence to contradict such denial, for which reason it is admissible to DENY THE DEFINITIVE SUSPENSION requested as there is no subject matter to which it could be applied.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 24 of 38

6

Due to its application to the case, Caselaw Excerpt number 1128 should be quoted, published in the Appendix of the Supreme Court Reports 1917-1995, Volume VI, Local Matters, Page 777, which reads as follows: "PRELIMINARY REPORT. The contents thereof should be taken to be true if no evidence exists otherwise, and, consequently the suspension should be refused if the existence of the challenged act was denied, unless evidence to the contrary is presented in the hearing". IN VIRTUE OF THE FOREGOING EXPLANATIONS AND REASONS, IT IS RULED: SOLE RULING.- The definitive suspension requested by VIRGINIA BRONDO ROMERO, in her status as legal representative of SERVICIOS INTEGRALES DE AVIACION, S.A. DE C.V. against the authorities mentioned in the first finding of fact and in the terms of the second conclusion of law of this ruling, is denied...". By ruling dated the twelfth of July two thousand and five, the motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered facts was processed, and the suspension was granted so that things would be maintained in their current state and the aircraft would remain in the hangars of the Federal Attorney General's Office in the international airport of the City of Toluca, State of Mexico, until this motion is decided, as long as to such date the acts mentioned by the plaintiff have not already been performed, i.e. that the property has not been handed over to the Provisionally Secured Property Administration Service, a third party or to the Government of the United States of America.

The plaintiff files the motion for suspension due to newly-discovered facts based on the facts consisting of that on the fourth of July this year, Mr. Ivan Villaverde Garcia, in his status as Federal Public Prosecutor, appeared in the hangars where the plaintiff keeps in deposit the aircraft TWIN-

ENGINED HELICOPTER model AGUSTA A109E POWER with serial registration number XA-TSR and the aircraft CESSNA 208B with serial number 208B 09 41, XA-TUF, stating that his visit was to remove such depository from it and move the aircraft to the hangars of the Federal Attorney General's Office in the airport of this City of Toluca, State of Mexico,

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 25 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

7

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

which occurred on the same date, as well as indicating that such aircraft would be delivered to the Provisionally Secured Property Administration Service to later to be handed over to a third party or to the Government of the United States of America.

THIRD. After having studied the filed motion being decided in depth, it is pertinent to establish the admissibility thereof, as it is a procedural prerequisite and its study is mandatory.

Consequently, Article 140 of the Protective Order Act establishes:

"Article 140. Until a final and binding judgment is passed in the protective order proceedings, the District judge may modify or revoke the ruling in which the suspension has been granted or denied, when newlydiscovered facts occur that may be used as its basis.". From reading the foregoing article, it is clear that the following is a requirement of admissibility of the motion:

a)

That no final and binding judgment has been passed in the protective order proceedings.

The requirement in question is met, given that in the protective order proceedings from which this motion is derived, no final and binding judgment has been passed, which is corroborated with the records that form such file, which is before me at this time ­ as permitted by Article 88 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure applied in a suppletory manner to the governing law, which establishes as a power of the District Judge that he or she may take

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 26 of 38

8

into consideration the actions that form the different protective order proceedings being judged, when they affect the matter being decided, even when they have not been alleged by the parties, which is corroborated with the contents of Caselaw number XXII, J/12, visible on page 295, Volume V, January 1997, of the Supreme Court Reports and their Gazette, Three-Judge Circuit Courts, Ninth Series, titled: "COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

CONSTITUTED FOR A DISTRICT JUDGE BY THE DIFFERENT AFFAIRS PROCESSED BEFORE HIM." ­ given that by ruling dated the twenty-fifth of August two thousand and five, the protective order hearing was deferred, having fixed ten twenty-five a.m. on the twenty-third of September two thousand and five; a certified copy of such ruling is attached to this case file to corroborate the foregoing.

FOURTH. From the precedents extracted above and the facts narrated by the plaintiff legal entity, it is clear that the motion being decided is duly founded.

In effect, as has already been stated, in this case, by means of the interlocutory judgment dated the thirty-first of March this year, the motion for suspension from which the motion to modify the suspension is derived was decided on.

From such interlocutory judgment, the following stands out:

I.- The act challenged by the plaintiff consists of the orders issued by the respondent authorities in order to dispossess it in its status of lessee of the aircraft: 1) Twin-Engined Helicopter Model AGUSTA A109E Power, registration number XA-TSR, serial number 1116; and, 2) CESSNA 208B, serial number 208B 09 41, XA-TUF.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 27 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

9

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

II.- That the challenged act was denied by the respondent authorities and for this reason, the preventive measure was refused due to considering that no subject matter existed to decree it.

Now, the petitioner of the protective order appears to request the modification of such interlocutory judgment, in virtue of the fact that it considers that a fact that makes it admissible to alter it has been discovered.

To this regard, it indicates that on the fourth of July two thousand and five, Mr. Ivan Villaverde Garcia, in his status as Federal Public Prosecutor and several individuals wearing uniforms with the letters "AFI" (Federal Investigation Agency) appeared in its domicile in the international airport of this city, with the aim of removing the depository of the aircraft and safeguarding them in the hangar of the Federal Attorney General's Office in the aforementioned airport, indicating to them that the suspension granted in this case file had been denied and therefore that they had no impediment of any kind to move them.

The plaintiff, to support its statements, offered among others, as evidence, document number five hundred and fifteen, normal volume five, folios one hundred and twelve and one hundred and thirteen, of notary public's office one hundred and thirty-six of the State of Mexico, related to the notarial certification of the facts that occurred on the fourth of July two thousand and five in the hangar of "Aerolineas Marcos" in the international airport of this city of Toluca.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 28 of 38

10

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, when replying to the notification given thereto with the brief by which the motion being resolved herein was filed, indicates that on the twenty-eighth of June two thousand and five, it passed a ruling in which it revoked the depository previously granted to the plaintiff, regarding the aircraft defended thereby in this instance and on the fourth of July the same year, it enforced such decision in the hangar of Aerolineas Marcos, Sociedad Anonima, in the International Airport of the City of Toluca, State of Mexico, safeguarding the aircraft in the hangar of the Federal Attorney General's Office. Furthermore, it indicates that on the thirteenth of July two thousand and five, it handed the aircraft over to the Property Administration and Sale Service, so that such decentralized body could exercise the powers of administration over the aircraft in question.

From the foregoing, it is valid to conclude that on the fourth of July two thousand and five, the plaintiff was dispossessed of the aircraft that it defends in this two-instance protective order proceedings, given that on the thirty-first of March this year it had been denied the definitive suspension of the challenged acts, because the respondent authorities, especially 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, denied to have ordered the dispossession of the plaintiff of the aircraft: 1) Twin-Engined Helicopter Model AGUSTA A109E Power, registration number XA-TSR, serial number 1116; and, 2) CESSNA 208B, serial number 208B 09 41, XA-TUF.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 29 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

11

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

Consequently, the foregoing is sufficient to evidence a newlydiscovered fact that may be used as the basis to modify the interlocutory judgment dated the thirty-first of March this year, and therefore, it is admissible to carry out the corresponding study with regards to the preventive measure.

The foregoing is supported by the criteria sustained by the First ThreeJudge Administrative Court of the First Circuit, which appears on page 247 of Volume 91-96 Sixth Part, Seventh Series, of the Supreme Court Reports, which reads as follows:

"SUSPENSION DUE TO NEWLY-DISCOVERED FACT. ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT THAT HAD BEEN DENIED.- If the respondent authorities deny the acts that are claimed as being imminent, and for this reason the suspension is denied, but after the interlocutory judgment such authorities enforce the respective acts, or substantially similar acts (it is not possible to demand a perfect description of future acts from the plaintiff), it is clear that a newly-discovered fact has arisen that may lead to the revocation of the aforementioned interlocutory judgment and to the granting of the suspension, so that things are maintained in the state they kept when the interlocutory judgment had been passed. It may be thought that we are faced with an already consummated situation, and that the situation has no restituting effects, but it has to be seen whether it refers to that the suspension could not retroact things to a situation prior to the filing of the protective order petition, given that such restituting effect may only correspond to the judgment that grants the protective order; but in the examined case, it does not give restituting effects to a suspension by reestablishing a situation prior to the filing of the petition, but rather only to the reestablishment or maintenance of the situation that existed when the suspension was denied. And it would be to renounce any real effectiveness of the institution of suspension in the protective order proceedings if it is estimated that an act may be denied by the respondent authority merely by performing it after the suspension was denied, and accept that this creates an irrevocably consummated situation, for the effects of the motion. This is the

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 30 of 38

12

way that this court considers that Articles 130, 132, 140 and related articles of the Protective Order Act should be interpreted.". Additionally, the caselaw sustained by the Third Three-Judge Administrative Court of the First Circuit, seen on page 41 of Volume 78, Sixth Part, Seventh Series of the Supreme Court Reports, which reads as follows:

"NEWLY-DISCOVERED FACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 140 OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ACT.- If the respondent authorities initially denied the challenged acts, which lead to the denial of the definitive suspension due to a lack of subject matter, and posteriorly enforce or try to enforce them, this constitutes a newly-discovered fact for the purposes of such article.". FIFTH. In the case under study, the plaintiff states that the challenged acts consist of the dispossession in its status as lessee of the aircraft: 1) Twin-Engined Helicopter Model AGUSTA A109E Power, registration number XA-TSR, serial number 1116; and, 2) CESSNA 208B, serial number 208B 09 41, XA-TUF, 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.

Articles 107, section X of the General Constitution of the Republic, 124 and 130 of the Protective Order Act, state the aspects that the Judge should take into account, as well as the requirements that the petitioner in the protective order proceedings should meet in order for the suspension of the challenged act to be admissible, which are: the nature of the alleged infringement; the difficulty to repair the damages and losses that may be suffered by the plaintiff with its enforcement; that no damage continues to be caused to public interest and no public order provisions are contravened; and that imminent danger exists of that the challenged act may be enforced with clear damage to the plaintiff.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 31 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

13

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

In this case, taking into consideration that the petitioner refers to that the respondent authorities have dispossessed it of the aircraft TWINENGINED HELICOPTER model AGUSTA A109E POWER, with serial registration number XA-TSR, and the aircraft CESSNA 208B with serial number 208B 09 41, XA TUF, and which are located in the hangars of the Federal Attorney General's Office; additionally, 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 of the Federal Attorney General's Office, admitted that on the fourth of July two thousand and five it dispossessed the plaintiff of such property, in virtue of having revoked the depository that had been granted regarding such property and that it had moved the apparatus to the hangars of the Federal Attorney General's Office.

Based on Articles 124, 130, 136 and 138 of the Protective Order Act and until the principal protective order proceedings is decided with a final judgment, it is admissible to decree the definitive suspension in its favor, so that the respondent authorities immediately return the possession of the aforementioned aircraft to the plaintiff and within the term of twenty-four hours prove to have complied with this decision.

The foregoing is so, in virtue of the fact that in order to admit the suspension of the challenged acts it is necessary to attend to the nature of an interim relief, whose presumptions are the appearance of the correct application of the law and the danger of delay, i.e. that the first of them is

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 32 of 38

14

based on a superficial piece of knowledge aimed at reaching a decision of mere probability regarding the existence of the right discussed in the process, applied to the suspension of the challenged acts, implies that, for the granting of the measure, without ceasing to observe the requirements contained in Article 124 of the Protective Order Act, the verification of the appearance of the right invoked by the plaintiff suffices, which is the case occurs, given that from the analysis of the challenged act it can be seen that the denial of the suspension of the challenged act causes damages to the plaintiff that are difficult to repair, which translates into the founded fear of the configuration of damage or a right whose protection is pursued in the concrete case, keep the possession of the aircraft it has under lease and which it indicates are the source for the subsistence of the plaintiff company, and which, if they are not immediately returned thereto, the risk will be run of that in the case that a favorable final judgment is issued, it will remain unfulfilled.

On the other hand, in this case no public order provisions are infringed and no damage to public interest is pursued, because although in Preliminary Inquiry PGR/SIEDO/UEIOFM/015/04, the provisional securing of the aircraft in question had been decreed, the plaintiff being foreign to the investigated facts, the public prosecutor named it as the depository thereof, as mentioned by the petitioner in the brief under study.

Additionally, from the simple copy of the documents in this file of the motion, it can be seen that the company Servicios Integrales de Aviacion, Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable, is a legally incorporated company that has as its purpose, among other things, the concession of the domestic air taxi service, making special domestic and international flights; additionally, that it has the aforementioned aircraft under lease as to this effect it exhibited simple copies of the different certificates related to each of the lease agreements, as well as the respective authorizations by the General Civil

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 33 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

15

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

Aeronautics Director and the Air Transport and Control Director, related to the aforementioned property, in which the plaintiff is authorized to include them in its itinerary; and, finally, a copy of official letter CGIS/368/2004 dated the fourth of February two thousand and four, in 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, through which Jose Diego Ruben Aguilar Chavez is left as the depository of such property. Therefore, it is possible to grant the interim measure in question as from the aforementioned documents it can be seen that the plaintiff has a protected right to be safeguarded with such measure.

Without the granting of the suspension implying the acknowledgement of a right other than that enjoyed by the plaintiff at the time of decreeing the interim measure or, therefore, the substitution of the protective order body, under the jurisdiction of the respondent authority, as in the documents that have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the right to legally exploit the activity is acknowledged in favor of the plaintiff.

Without any guarantee of any kind being fixed, in virtue of the fact that such act is due to an administrative decision that does not cause damages and losses to the rights or property of affected third parties, because the relation derived from the sanction is absolute between the authority and citizen and only affects the legal standing of the now plaintiff and, of course, the consequences of such measure do not transcend to the legal standing of third parties.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 34 of 38

16

In the concept that the suspension granted in this ruling will not be effective in the case of acts following its granting or of the challenged act originates from authorities other than those indicated as the respondent authorities.

On the other hand, the notification of this ruling is reserved to the affected third parties HARTSLOPE HOLDING, LIMITED AND CASAFIN LTD, until they are duly served notice in the main case.

In this context, it is admissible to declare and the motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered fact is declared admissible, as filed by the plaintiff.

In virtue of the foregoing reasons and explanations and additionally based on Articles 140 of the Protective Order Act and 360 of the suppletory Federal Code of Civil Procedure:

IT IS RULED:

FIRST. The motion to modify the suspension due to newly-discovered fact filed by SERVICIOS INTEGRALES DE AVIACION, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA DE CAPITAL VARIABLE, through its legal representative, VIRGINIA BRONDO ROMERO is declared admissible and well-founded.

SECOND. The interlocutory judgment dated the thirty-first of March two thousand and five is modified in the terms stated in the fourth conclusion of law of this ruling.

THIRD.

The

definitive

suspension

is

granted

to

SERVICIOS

INTEGRALES DE AVIACION, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA DE CAPITAL

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 35 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

17

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

VARIABLE, through its legal representative, VIRGINIA BRONDO ROMERO against the act, by the authority and for the effects stated in the last conclusion of law of this interlocutory judgment.

LET IT BE KNOWN TO THE PARTIES.

Thus ruled and signed by Mr. MARIO OSCAR LUGO RAMIREZ, Justice of the Third District Protective Orders and Federal Civil proceedings Court in the State of Mexico, before the Court Clerk, Mrs. SARA MERCEDES NEIRA GONZALEZ, with whom she acts and attest. I ATTEST TO THE FOREGOING.

(Illegible signature) signature) THE JUDGE

(Illegible

THE COURT CLERK.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 36 of 38

18

THE UNDERSIGNED CLERK OF THE THIRD DISTRICT PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS COURT IN THE STATE OF MEXICO, MRS. SARA MERCEDES NEIRA GONZALEZ------------------------------------------------ CERTIFIES------------------------------------------THAT THESE PHOTOCOPIES CONSISTING OF EIGHTEEN PAGES OF TEXT ON ONE SIDE ONLY, ARE A TRUE REPRODUCTION OF THE RULING PASSED ON THE TWELFTH OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE, IN THE MOTION FOR SUSPENSION DERIVED FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER PROCEEDINGS 147/2005-IV, FILED BY VIRGINIA BRONDO ROMERO IN HER STATUS AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SERVICIOS INTEGRALES DE AVIACION S.A. DE C.V. AGAINST THE ACTS OF THE FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SPECIALIZED ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ASSISTANT 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 MINISTER OF THE TREASURY AND PUBLIC FINANCE, DIRECTOR OF THE PROVISIONALLY SECURED PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICE, THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL PREVENTIVE POLICE, RELATED TO THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE SUSPENSION DUE TO NEWLYDISCOVERED FACT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF. WHICH IS CERTIFIED FOR THE CORRESPONDING LEGAL EFFECTS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULING PASSED ON THIS DATE. IN THE CITY OF TOLUCA, STATE OF MEXICO, ON THE THIRTEENTH OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE. I ATTEST TO THE FOREGOING.

THE COURT CLERK. (Illegible signature) SARA MERCEDES NEIRA GONZALEZ (Seal in the bottom right corner containing the Mexican coat-of-arms STATES ­ and the inscription: "THE UNITED AND MEXICAN FEDERAL

THIRD

DISTRICT

PROTECTIVE

ORDER

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS COURT IN THE STATE OF MEXICO")

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 37 of 38

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

19

FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

___________________________________

I, Michele Pagano, Expert Translator, duly qualified, and authorized by the Superior Court of Justice in Mexico City, with domicile at Río Elba 25-K, Col. Cuauhtémoc, México City, D.F., Tel. 5286-81-89 and 5286-29-02 (Fax), do hereby certify that the foregoing is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and correct translation of the attached document in Spanish. Mexico, City, Federal District, September 16, 2005.

______________________________ Michele Pagano

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 110-3

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 38 of 38