Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 1 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 2 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 3 of 7

José Miguel Gómez Giralt declares that in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I JOSÉ MIGUEL GÓMEZ GIRALT state the following:

My name is JOSÉ MIGUEL GÓMEZ GIRALT, I have more than eighteen years of age and I have never been convicted of a crime.

I am licensed to practice law in the Mexican United States with twenty years of experience in the private practice.

I graduated from the Pan-American University and I have litigated before the Courts and the Supreme Court of Mexico representing private parties.

My area of practice includes wide experience in civil, mercantile matters and actions of cover against resolutions of the Mexican government "Amparo"..

I have been requested to give my opinion in relation to the situation of the change of possession of the aircraft Agusta A-109E and Cessna 208-B that they find provisionally secured by the Mexican Attorney General's Office ("PGR") and the decision taken by the is the possessor of the aircraft and in the same manner express my opinion, if in accordance with the resolution of Protective Order of July 12 of the year two thousand five promulgated by the Third Judge of District in Matters of Protective Order and Civil Federal Judgments in the State de Mexico, in relation to the ability of the PGR to be transfer the possession of the aircraft or to sell the same.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 4 of 7

My opinion is as follows:

Initially, the company Servicios Integrales de Aviación, S.A. of C.V., ("SIASA") lessee of the aircraft, filed a suit for a Protective Order (defense legal means), ("Amparo") against the acts of the PGR through its district attorney, Iván Villaverde, in order to prevent SIASA from being deprived of the possession that SIASA had on the already above-mentioned aircrafts, This request was presented to a federal judge of whom it was requested that he issue an order against the PGR to appear before him and explain its reasons for the PGR's acts, (this is, to take the aircrafts from the said company) as it appeared the above mentioned authority PGR, through its attorney, Iván Villaverde, and SIASA complained before the same federal judge that the claim of the PGR to dispossess SIASA of the aircraft was not true and requesting the Judge to lift the suspension of the Amparo order that had been previously had been previously issued in protection of SIASA. This judge issued an order on July 12, 2005 by which the PGR,

by means of its attorney, Ivan Villaverde, is prohibited from delivering the aircraft to any other authority, neither the United States nor any other third party. A copy of this Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Meanwhile, on the fourth of July, 2005 the PGR through its attorney, in arbitrary form took possession of the aircrafts, and for incurring an undue and illegal conduct with the one that acted as authority against SIASA and also, for the false being his own reports. Then on the 13th of July, 2005, one day after the issuance of the Judge's Order, in contempt of the Order of the 12th, an Administrative Act of transfer of possession of the aircraft was entered into between the Service of Administration and Alienation of Goods of the Mexican

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 5 of 7

Department of the Treasury and the PGR, by means of which the PGR assumed responsibility for possession of the aircraft, a copy of which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B. Effectively this document is an agreement between the PGR and the Service of Administration and Alienation of Goods. The document that is attached hereto as Exhibit C is a letter issued by the PGR, but in no manner constitutes a judicial order of the Mexican courts. In the same manner, SIASA complained of the taking of possession by the PGR and the Administrative Act before the same federal judge as the first suit. In addition the judicial Mexican authorities have decided that these aircraft must not be sent to the Government of the United States nor to any other; demonstrating, because it is clear, the PGR has concealed maliciously the rules, norms and defense measurements that it has the individuals against the acts come from the above mentioned authority. While the PGR, from July 4, 2005, does possess the aircraft, it cannot dispose of the same or turn them over to third parties until the federal judge determines that it may do so. (As previously stated, there is an amparo, precautionary measure, decreed by the Federal Judge). In this sense it is not true that the federal judges of Mexico are cooperating with the PGR to execute the delivery of the aircrafts to the United States, to the contrary the judges have determined that the provisional securitization is contrary to the legal norms of the our maximum law, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States. In conclusion, both before and after the change in possession of the Agusta A-109E y la Cessna 208-B aircraft, the same were and are subject to a Provisional Securitization Order and are not subject to confiscation by the Mexican Government.

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 6 of 7

I declare under penalty of perjury for the laws of the United States of America, which here presented it is true and correct.

LIC. JOSÉ MIGUEL GÓMEZ GIRALT

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 104-2

Filed 09/12/2005

Page 7 of 7