Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Burton M. Bentley, Esq. (Bar No. 00980) BURTON M. BENTLEY, P.C. 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 480 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 861-3055 (602) 861-3230 fax Attorney for Defendants Rada IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, RECEIVER, CAUSE NO. CIV'03 2390 PHX JAT RADA DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Assigned to Hon. James A. Teilborg) Defendants.

9

Plaintiff,
10

vs.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MICHAEL ALANIZ, et al.

Pursuant to Court Order, Rada Defendants hereby file their Response to Plaintiff's Motion For Clarification, or Alternatively, Motion For Reconsideration. For good reason, this Court has cautioned against filing Motions To Reconsider. From the Rada Defendants' perspective, the Court's previously issued Order succinctly disposed of both Plaintiff's and Defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment. After carefully reviewing the Court's Order, the Rada Defendants concluded that the Court had quite clearly enunciated its position: a) that the Ponzi scheme established the element of "actual intent" on the part of

the transferor, Mid-America Foundation, so that as a matter of law, there was a fraudulent transfer under Arizona statutes, A.R.S. §§44-1001 et seq; b) that the Rada Defendants could prove their defenses provided for in the statute,

to abate the fraudulent nature of the transfer from Mid-America;

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

-1Document 512

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

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

c)

subject to the limitations set by the applicable statute of limitations contained in

the statute (A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1)), as this was a statute of repose, rather than one of mere limitations, and accordingly the limitations that had been set by the Arizona legislature bound the United States Government as well as non-governmental parties; and d) limitations. From the foregoing, it became at once clear to the Rada Defendants what proof need be offered in each instance and, for those reasons, ask that Plaintiff's Motion be stricken. Dated at Phoenix, Arizona this 17th day of August, 2006. BURTON M. BENTLEY, P.C. that the burden of proof was upon the Receiver to evade the one-year statute of

_s/ Burton M. Bentley _________ Burton M. Bentley Attorney for Defendants Rada

PROOF OF SERVICE
15

This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing Response has been filed electronically
16

with the Court and that the persons on the attached service list designated as "CM/ECF
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Registered" will be served with same by the Court's CM/ECF system; and that the other persons on the attached service list have been served with a copy of the Response by first class mail this 17th day of August, 2006. _/s/___Burton M. Bentley Burton M. Bentley Ryan W. Anderson, Esq. Guttilla & Murphy, PC Attorneys for the Receiver CM/ECF Registered ____

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

-2Document 512

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

Gregory Shebest Heritage Marketing Attorneys for Heritage Marketing CM/ECF Registered David L. Kagel, Esq. John Torbett, Esq. Law Offices of David L. Kagel Attorney for Paul Pichie CM/ECF Registered Ren Bidwell 3430 Pacific Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501 Defendant Pro Se Robert Tretiak 4615 North Ft. Apache Road Las Vegas, NV 89129 Defendant Pro Se Steve A. Bryant 3618 Mt. Vernon, # A Houston, TX 77006-4238 Co-Counsel for Rada Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

-3Document 512

Filed 08/17/2006

Page 3 of 3