January 20, 2000. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 22, 1999, REGARDING DISCOVERY AND EXPERT WITNESSES, SO COURT MAY ISSUE A PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AS PER RULE 26(A) (2) (A) AND (B). Total of twenty one (21) pages including CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. NO EXHIBITS SCANNED.

I hereby state under the penalty of perjury that a true and correct copy of the following:

a. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 22, 1999, REGARDING DISCOVERY AND EXPERT WITNESSES, SO COURT MAY ISSUE A PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AS PER RULE 26(A) (2) (A) AND (B). Dated January 20, 2000,. (20 pages in length and EXHIBITS containing 47 pages.)

was served on the following persons this 21st day of January, 2000, via U.S. Mail through the USP Leavenworth mailroom, to:

1. CLERK OF THE COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
316 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1460
One original and one copy
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z-233-381-727

2. Attorney Donna Rae Johnson
Attorney No. 50945
Attorney for Defendant's
700 St. Paul Building
6 West Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

3. INTERNET RELEASE TO ALL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS

4. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Organization of American States
1889 F. Street, N.W.
RE: TO BE FILED WITH: JUNE 30, 1998, Complaint and released to all 35 countries that are members of the Organization of American States.

5. Judge Baltasar Garzon of the National Court of Madrid, Spain
Audiencia National
Garcia Gutierrez, #1
Madrid, Spain 28004
RE: TO BE FILED WITH: January 5, 1999, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, mailed on January 7, 1999 and received by Judge Garzon on January 25, 1999.

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, #00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000, USA
Web site: www.brazilboycott.org

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS

Plaintiff

vs.

CHARLES W. FAULKNER, SUED AS ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER

FAULKNER & FAULKNER

JOHN & JANE DOE'S

Defendants

CIVIL NO. 98-1621 (DSD-JMM)

VERIFIED FORM

the authenticity of documents, and advance rulings from this court on the admissibility of evidence. See, RULE 16(c)(1) and (3), FRCP. Plaintiff's requested discovery WILL ALLOW individuals to step forward and state the TRUTH as to acts of legal malpractice by Defendant's, torture, denial of due process, and forced brain control implantation to Plaintiff by Brazilian Government Officials. Therefore, enabling the FACTFINDERS IN THIS CASE TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES AGAINST THOSE PARTIES WHO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AND/OR RESPOND TO ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES. See, BAXTER vs. PALMIGIANO, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976); LEFKOWITZ vs. CUNNINGHAM, 431 U.S. 801, 808 n.5 (1977) (In CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, the FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID FACT FILERS FROM DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES AGAINST A PARTY WHO REFUSES TO TESTIFY.) See, U.S. vs. FRANCISCO SOLANO-GODINES, No. 96-10255, page 8549 (9th Cir. 1997).


PLAINTIFF LAMBROS REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING DISCOVERY BE TAKEN IN THE FORM OF ADMISSIONS AND/OR INTERROGATORIES, TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: (Please note that Plaintiff does not have mailing addresses for many of the following and has requested the appointment of counsel to secure mailing addresses.)

1. S.R. FAULKNER: Order compelling S.R. Faulkner to respond to all
admissions and interrogatories that she has been served with by Plaintiff and
a list of all employees and contractors of Defendants C.W. Faulkner, S.R. Faulkner,
and FAULKNER & FAULKNER in the years of 1992, 1993, and 1994, so as to identify
JOHN & JANE DOE(s). Plaintiff has also requested the names and addresses of all
insurance companies that insured Defendants S.R. Faulkner, C.W. Faulkner, and
FAULKNER & FAULKNER in the years of 1992, 1993, and 1994.

2. JEFFREY L. ORREN, St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1993 thru 1997, Attorney Jeffrey L. Orren represented the Lambros family in several matters as to the Federal Criminal indictment U.S. vs. LAMBROS, et al., CR-4-89-82. Attorney Orren wrote and spoke to Defendant C.W. Faulkner, Judge Murphy, Dr.

Page 2.

Susan Minette, D.O., Midwestern Neurologic and Psychiatric Consultants, Ltd. (Court authorized Examining Physician); Attorney Timothy G. Bailey, of Robins Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi during the time Defendants represented Plaintiff. Attorney Bailey spoke with Defendant C.W. Faulkner and requested x-rays of Plaintiff, from the government; Wesley Robinson, Director of Case Analysis and Research for National Legal Professional Associates who also contracted with Defendant C.W. Faulkner; and contacted numerous research sources as to the facts within U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4- 89-82.

3. ATTORNEY TIMOTHY G. BAILEY: Attorney Bailey of ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER, & CIRESI, consulted with Plaintiff Lambros in 1992 thru 1998 as to a lawsuit against persons within Brazil. Attorney Bailey spoke with Defendant C.W. Faulkner at least two (2) times as to the implantation of Plaintiff Lambros. See, EXHIBIT PAGE 1,2, & 3 . (April 4, 1994, Attorney Bailey letter to Plaintiff Lambros, 3 pages)

4. ROBERT L. PAVLAK, SR., Past United States Marshal, District of
Minnesota (March 7, 1990): U.S. Marshal PAVLAK, SR. consulted with a Chief

U.S. Postal Inspector and others as to the criminal investigation of Plaintiff
Lambros. U.S. Marshal PAVLAK, SR. stated to a Chief U.S. Postal Inspector and
OTHERS that his DlSTRICT OF MINNESOTA OFFICE (thus all District of Minnesota
Deputy U.S. Marshals) where conducting an official investigation of Plaintiff
Lambros who is wanted by the United States Marshals, District of Minnesota,
for distribution of cocaine, in violation of Title 21, USC, Section 846, 841(a)(1),
and 841(b)(1)(B). THESE OFFENSES CARRY PENALTIES OF THIRTY (30) YEARS
IMPRISON),
AND/OR A FINE OF $250,000.00. See, EXHIBIT PAGE 4 (March 7, 1990,
letter from Robert L. Pavlak, Sr., United States Marshal and UNKNOWN Deputy U.S.
Marshal, District of Minnesota to Chief U.S. Postal Inspector of UNKNOWN AREA)
(This was EXHIBIT F and stated within paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's June 15, 1998,
Served to this Court on June 17, 1998, DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT/ COMPLAINT) (Please
note that Defendants received this release sometime in 1992).

Page 3.

5. JOHN J. BOULGER, (May 17, 1989), Sergeant Police Officer
of Minneapolis, Minnesota Police Department and assigned to the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force. Sergeant J. Boulger visited
Plaintiff Lambros at the Anoka County Jail sometime before Plaintiff went to
trial or sometime before sentencing and informed Plaintiff that he could not
receive a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE due to the drug statute he
was indicted on.

6. THOMAS B. HEFFELFINGER, Past Minnesota U.S. Attorney (November 16, 1992), who assisted in the government's PLEA PROPOSAL submitted to Plaintiff on November 16, 1992, via Defendant C.W. Faulkner. It appears that Mr. Heffelfinger also had verbal communications, directly or indirectly, with Defendant C.W. Faulkner and others as to the November 16, 1992, PLEA PROPOSAL. Plaintiff will request the names and addresses of all persons Mr. Heffelfinger discussed Plaintiff's PLEA PROPOSAL and possible sentence exposure with. Also Plaintiff will request information as to PLEA PROPOSAL NEGOTIATIONS with all defendants in criminal indictment number 4-89-82, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, et al. and information Mr. Heffelfinger requested as to Plaintiff extradition and torture in Brazil.

7. DOUGLAS R. PETERSON, Past/Present Assistant U.S. Attorney for Minnesota: a) Names of all persons he discussed the PLEA PROPOSAL of November 16, 1992, to Plaintiff with; b) Names of all persons Mr. Peterson discussed PLEA BARGAIN CONTRACTS with as to all defendants named within criminal indictment number 4-89-82, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, et al.; c) Names of all individuals Mr. Peterson contacted regarding Plaintiff's extradition and torture in Brazil.

8. UNITED STATES MARSHAL, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota: a) Names of the Deputy U.S. Marshals who escorted Plaintiff Lambros to ABBOTT NORTHWESTERN HOSPlTAL, on or about May 6, 1993, from about 10:30 A.M. to 11:30 A.M., for X-rays and CT Scan, as per Judge Murphy's ORDER on April 19, 1993,

Page 4.

granting the examination of Plaintiff for implants.

9. U.S. Bureau of Prisons Medical Facility, Rochester, Minnesota: a) Names of all persons within the X-ray room, x-ray evaluation room (separate f,room X-ray room), and X-ray office on July 17 and 27, 1992, when Plaintiff was X-rayed; b) the INTENSITY SETTING on the X- ray machine when the X-rays where taken of Plaintiff's SKULL on July 17 and 27, 1992.

10. Dr. Susan Minette, D.O., Midwestern Neurologic and Psychiatric

Consultants, Ltd. (Dr. Minette was the Court Authorized Examining Physician that
Defendant C.W. Faulkner refused to subpoena): a) Facts as to X-rays and CT
Scan taken at ABBOTT NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or
about May 6, 1993, of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has attached the August 9, 1993,
MEMORANDUM that is signed by Dr. Minette, to the Honorable Diana Murphy, which
states, "[D]ue to the safety constraints, I COULD NOT safely perform an MRI
examination of Mr. Lambros at the initial examination on April 20, 1993, and
May 6, 1993 (X-ray & CT Scan). It is now my opinion that an MRI would be safe
for the patient, and that it would be BOTH APPROPRIATE TO USE, AND NECESSARY TO
USE, to determine once and for all whether foreign objects of any kind were placed
into Mr. Lambros, and whether such objects, if they exist or existed, are still
in place or have been removed." See, EXHIBIT PAGE 5 (August 9, 1993,
MEMORANDUM by Dr. Minette to Judge Murphy).

11. Dr. Kenneth J. Crigui, Jr. Ph.D.: Dr. Criqui holds two (2)
doctorate degrees, one from the University of California, Berkeley and one from
the University of California Santa Cruz, in the History of Consciousness and
Psychology. Taught at the University of Minnesota and at MMSU and has been a
psychoanalyst since 1973. Dr. Criqui performed a COMPETENCY EVALUATION of
Plaintiff Lambros that was dated January 19, 1994, twenty-one (21)pages in
length and submitted an ADDENDUM dated January 19, 1994, three (3)pages in

Page 5.

length. Both the COMPETENCY EVALUATION and the ADDENDUM where submitted to
Defendant C.W. Faulkner to be submitted to the court with a request for a
hearing as to validity of the governments COMPETENCY EVALUATION performed at
the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Medical Facility, Rochester, Minnesota. Plaintiff
Lambros does not know if Defendant Faulkner submitted a MOTION AS TO NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AS TO DR. CRIQUI'S COMPETENCY EVALUATION AND
ADDENDUM. Dr.
Criqui was not allowed to testify during any hearing within the criminal action
Defendants represented Plaintiff Lambros in. Attached is the January 19, 1994,
ADDENDUM TO COMPETENCY EVALUATION OF JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, three (3)
pages in length. See, EXHIBIT PAGE -6,7, & 8 .

12. RAYMOND H. LAVAS, Technical Consultant for TED L. GUNDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, International Security Consulting and Investigations, 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 422, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784. Mr. Lavas corresponded with Plaintiff Lambros as to his research into electromagnetic communications interface with human brain control implants, as per the implants within Plaintiff's skull.

13. Dr. Antony C. Sutton, D.Sc.: Publisher of the PHOENIX LETTER and author of twenty-six (26) books. Dr. Sutton researched Plaintiff Lambros' case, received copies of the X-rays taken at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Medical Facility, Rochester, Minnesota, and wrote articles as to his research.

14. JEAN St.PIERRE: Past U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons number

22711-034, with his parents address, 2311 Romancita Street, Chalmette, LA 70073,
Tel. (504) 277-9605. Mr. St. Pierre was arrested in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in
1991 and held with Plaintiff Lambros in the Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Federal Police
Station AT ALL TIMES Plaintiff Lambros was held within the facility before
Plaintiff was forcibly taken to Brasilia, Brazil WITHOUT a court hearing in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mr. St. Pierre was give due process in Rio de Janeiro,
as he attended his EXTRADITION HEARINGS to the United States in Rio de Janeiro.

Page 6.

U.S. Federal Attorneys from the United States visited Mr. St. Pierre in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and prearranged a plea bargain due to extradition treaty implications that did not favor/or allow anyone to be extradited to the United States. Mr. St. Pierre wrote Plaintiff Lambros at the Federal Police station in Brasilia, Brazil from the Federal Police Station in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, stating something to the effect that Plaintiff would be going free due to the invalidity of the U.S./Brazil Extradition Treaty. Plaintiff has written Mr. St. Pierre several times at his mothers house and has not received a response.

15. HARLAN GIRARD, International Committee for the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons, P.O. Box 58700, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8700: Mr. Girard has corresponded with Plaintiff several times and admitted on March 4, 1996, that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is the source of Plaintiff's problems, probably the National Security Agency and certainly the FBI. Attached for this courts review is Mr. Girard's letters dated December 9, 1994, February 11, 1996, and his February 29, 1996, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ALERT, in which he stated the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT was the source of Plaintiff's problem on page two (2). Also attached is the December 13, 1994, letter from Attorney Jeffrey L. Orren to Harlan Girard. See, EXHIBIT PAGES 9 thru 13

16. JULIANNE McKINNEY, Past Director of the Electronic Surveillance Project, Silver Spring, MD.: Current contact thru HARLAND GIRARD. Attached is the July 27, 1995, letter from JULIANNE McKINNEY to Plaintiff Lambros, that

14 thru 17 is eight (8) pages in length. See, EXHIBIT PAGES -- .

17. CHIEF OF THE FEDERAL POLICE IN BRAZIL: Information as to:

a) Plaintiff's arrest on May 17, 1991 on a United States Parole Violation
Warrant in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; b) Plaintiff's forced/illegal transportation
to the police torture interrogation center in Brasilia, Brazil, that DID NOT
ALLOW A BAIL or EXTRADITION HEARING (NO HEARING AT ALL), thus no due process,
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; c) Events during Plaintiff's stay within the Federal

Page 7.

Police torture interrogation center, including forced brain control implantation, depatterning, torture, denial of due process, etc.; d) Names and addresses of all prisoners held within the Federal Police Station in Brasilia, Brazil at the same time Plaintiff was held there, approximately July 1991 thru March 1992; e) Verification of the fact that FRANCISCO TOSCANINO (U.S. vs. TOSCANINO, 500 F.2d 267 (1974))(yes the same one) was held with Plaintiff Lambros in 1991 for extradition to Italy.; f) Fact that many of the prisoners held within the Federal Police torture/interrogation center in Brasilia, Brazil, are implanted with brain control implants that monitor there thoughts and deeds, forcibly infuse negative information within the inmates thought process, and control there total body movements.

18. LUIS CARLOS ANDREACI: Mr. Andreaci was being held in the Federal
Police torture interrogation center in Brasilia, Brazil and given favorable cell
status that included a bathroom instead of a cell Plaintiff was held in that had
a pipe sticking out of the wall for water and a hole in the floor to shit, wash, &
piss in. Mr. Andreaci was being held on extradition charges to the United States.
Mr. Andreaci assisted Brazilian Federal Police in the torture of Plaintiff Lambros.
Plaintiff advised Defendant C.W. Faulkner of all events as to Mr. Andreaci's
actions and Defendant C.W. Faulkner refused to interview and subpoena Mr. Andreaci
to Plaintiff trial and hearing as to his torture and events in Brazil. Defendant
C.W. Faulkner was informed that Mr. Andreaci was incarcerated within the U.S.
Bureau of Prisons or in a U.S. Marshals holding facility, therefore under the
control of the U.S. Attorney General for the United States. Mr. Andreaci was
available for interviewing and could of been served by Defendant C.W. Faulkner.
Attached for this courts review are Plaintiff's NEWS RELEASE, dated October, 4
1993, "DEA INFORMANT LUIS CARLOS ANDREACI DOCTOR DEATH FLED HIALEAH, FLORIDA HOME, LEAVING NO FORWARDING ADDRESS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH $35,000,000.00 COMPLAINT BY U.S. MARSHALS FOR THE TORTURE OF AMERICAN CITIZEN." and Plaintiff's poster

Page 8.

that was mailed to bail bonds men in Florida, which stated, "WANTED FAILURE TO COMPLY TO $35,000,000.00 TORTURE COMPLAINT - LUIS CARLOS ANDREACI DOCTOR DEATH." Plaintiff offers a description of Mr. Andreaci, d/o/b: 09/08/44;

Social Security No.: 341-48-1520; Last known address: 333 West 32nd Street, Hialeah, Florida 33012. See, EXHIBIT PAGES 18 & 19

19. BRAZILIAN ATTORNEY CARLOS ROBERTO SCHLESINGER, of the law firm SCHLESINGER e SCHETTINO ADVOGADOS S/C, Rua da Quitanda, 20/4 floor, Rio de Janeiro., Brazil, Tel. No. 224-0635, 232-6193, 224-0714, and 252-1575. Attorney Schlesinger represented Plaintiff Lambros in Brazil as to his extradition proceedings to the United States and was aware of the torture and forced implantation to Plaintiff Lambros. Attorney Schlesinger refused to assist Plaintiff Lambros.

20. BRAZILIAN ATTORNEY NELIO ROBERTO SEIDL MACHADO, address offered on his business card is, R. Anfilofio DE Carvalho, 29 - SLS, Suites 503/04/05, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Tel. No. 210-1377, and 299-57-56. Attorney Machado represented Plaintiff Lambros in Brazil as to his extradition proceedings to the United States and was aware of the torture and forced implantation to Plaintiff Lambros. Attorney Machado refused to assist Plaintiff Lambros.

21. BRAZILIAN ATTORNEY RUY LUDOLF RIBEIRO, address offered on his business card is: Av. Erasmo Braga, 277, Suites 608 thru 612, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 20020. Tel. No. 252-8796; 242-4873; 242-9408; 242-4874; Fax 242-1154. Attorney Ribeiro and his partner Attorney Vernon Dale McNamee contracted with the Lambros family initially as to a legal opinion of brazilian law affecting Plaintiff in his extradition to the United States. Attorney Ribeiro lied to Plaintiff and the Lambros family as to Plaintiff Lambros' right of due process to an ARRAIGNIfM HEARING after he was arrested on May 17, 1991, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Attorney Ribeiro and Attorney McNamee's written opinion was also incorrect as to Brazilian law effecting extradition. Plaintiff Lambros was never given an ARRAIGNMENT HEARING IN RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL. ONLY EXTORTED FOR MONEY THAT RESULTED IN TORTURE AND IMPLANTATION.

Page 9.

24. LAWRENCE RANDALL PEBBLES: Defendant in Criminal Indictment number 4- 89-82, District of Minnesota. Mr. Pebbles will be requested to state: a) PLEA AGREEMENT OFFERS by government and his attorney; b) Maximum amount of time the government and his attorney stated he was exposed to under Count One (1).

25. RALPH AMERO: Defendant in Criminal Indictment number 4-89-82,
District of Minnesota. Mr. Amero will be requested to state: a) PLEA
AGREEMENT
OFFERS by government and his attorney; b) Maximum amount of time the
government and his attorney stated he was exposed to under Count One (1).

26. IRA JAY BERINE: Defendant in Criminal Indictment number 4-89-82, District of Minnesota. Mr. Berine will be requested to state: a) PLEA AGREEMENT OFFERS by government and his attorney; b) Maximum amount of time the government and his attorney stated he was exposed to under Count One (1).

27. PAMELA RAE LEMON: Defendant in Criminal Indictment number 4-89-82. District of Minnesota. Ms. Lemon will be requested to state: a) PLEA AGREEMENT OFFERS by government and her attorney; b) Maximum amount of time the government and her attorney stated she was exposed to under Count One (1).

28. Criminal Indictment number 4-89-82, District of Minnesota, page one that lists PEBBLES, AMERO, BERINE, and LEKON within Count One (1) is offered as an exhibit. EXHIBIT PAGE 23.

29. BUSINESS CARDS of individuals listed in paragraphs 19 thru 23 are offered as EXHIBIT PAGES 20, 21, & 22.

30. ATTORNEY PAULO ROBERTO CRAVES ROLO, Legal Counsel for the U.S. Embassies in Brazil. Attorney Rolo maintained his office at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil and attended the one (1) extradition hearing Plaintiff Lambros attended in Brasilia, Brazil. Plaintiff Lambros telephoned and wrote Attorney Rolo as to his torture at the Brazilian Federal Police Station in Brasilia, Brazil, to no avail. Attorney Rolo would not assist and lied to Plaintiff as to the law.

Page 11.

31. WILLIAN E. WILKINS: Past General Counsel for the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil while Plaintiff Lambros was being held in the Brazilian Federal Police Station in Brasilia, Brazil. Plaintiff Lambros met with Mr. Wilkins several times and informed him of the torture he was receiving from the Brazilian Federal Police. Mr. Wilkins would not assist. It is Plaintiff's understanding that Mr. Wilkins does not work at the U.S. Embassy in Brazil any longer. Mr. Wilkins last known address is, Oakwood Apartments, 501 North Roosevelt Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22044, Tel. (703) 533-6750.

32. LENNART LINDQVIST , EVAMARIE TAYLOR, and ROBERT NAESLUND
of GRUPPEN, Box 136, 114-79, Stockholm, Sweden: Attorney Orren mailed LINDQVIST,
TAYLOR, and NAESLUND copies of Plaintiff Lambros' X-rays taken at the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons Medical Facility that showed foreign bodies. The Swedish group contracted
doctors in Sweden that are familiar in the treating of victims that have been
implanted with transmitters in there brain to review Plaintiff's X-rays. Swedish
doctors stated that foreign bodies do exist within Plaintiff's head and they are
most likely transmitters. Sweden has and is currently passing legislation as to
the implantation of humans with transmitters, a practice that has been done in
Sweden since the 1950 and 1960's.

33. Plaintiff Lambros has attached for this Court review his attempt to request information from individuals and government officials in Brazil as to his denial of due process and torture in Brazil. Defendant C.W. Faulkner did not pursue Plaintiff's actions for the request of information. The following documents are attached for this courts review:

a. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RECEIPT, number P-394-311-337, as to
the receipt of the following documents by the AMBASSADOR OF BRAZIL, USA, 3006
Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008, on September 20, 1993:
a(l). September 15, 1993, AFFIDAVIT, (Notarized) as to

Page 12.

the mailing of Plaintiff Lambros' 24 notices of forthcoming subpoena's for
request for the production of documents to individuals and Brazilian Government
Agencies within Brazil and in the care of the Ambassador of Brazil, USA,
Washington, DC 20008, sent via U.S. Certified mail number P-394-311-337, RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED. (Three (3) page in length).
a(2). September 22, 1993, Plaintiff's letter to the
Honorable Judge Diana E. Murphy as to the 59 notices of subpoena requests for
the production of documents. (five (5) pages in length)
a(3). September 14, 1993, Plaintiff's "NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING
SUBPOENA FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL,
PRESIDENT ITANAR FRANCO, BRASILIA, BRAZIL, c/o, AMBASSADOR OF BRAZIL, USA, 3006
MASSACHUSETTS AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008. (Three (3) pages in length).

34. Plaintiff has attached as EXHIBITS the documents listed within paragraph 33. EXHIBIT PAGES 32 thru 43

35. Plaintiff has also attached as an EXHIBIT the magazine article entitled, "GETTING WITNESSES TO FEDERAL COURT" by Attorney Nancy Hollander and Professor of Law Barbara Bergman, that appeared in "THE CHAMPION," (www.criminal justice.org), July 1999, pages 38, 39, 40, 73, 74, 75, 76, & 77. See, EXHIBIT PAGES 24 thru 31.

36. WESLEY ROBINSON: National Legal Professional Associates, 7 Mariners Cove, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249. Mr. Robinson is the Director of Case Analysis at NLPA. Mr. Robinson and the associates at NLPA consulted Plaintiff Lambros' family during the time Defendant C.W. Faulkner, et al. represented Plaintiff. Mr. Robinson spoke and wrote Defendant C.W. Faulkner as to his representation of Plaintiff Lambros. It was and still is Wesley Robinson and other associates at National Legal Professional Associates that Defendant C.W. Faulkner was negligent of LEGAL MALPRACTICE in the representation of Plaintiff Lambros.

Page 13.

AMOUNT OF TIME PLAINTIFF BELIEVES HE NEEDS TO TAKE ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES OF THE ABOVE LISTED INDIVIDUALS IN PARAGRAPHS I THRU 36:


37. Plaintiff has submitted a motion to this Court requesting an APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. To date the motion has not been ruled on. Within that motion Plaintiff notified this Court that he did not know the addresses of many of the above listed individuals and did not have access to United States and Brazilian directories to access the information. Plaintiff also stated that some of the above listed individuals where past GOVERNMENT WITNESSES and/or GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and/or INFORMANTS, thus Plaintiff is PREVENTED FROM CONTACTING THESE INDIVIDUALS AS PER POLICY WITHIN THE U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS.

38. Plaintiff believes that a COURT ORDER authorizing Plaintiff to contact the above listed individuals. directly or indirectly, for the purpose of ADMISSIONS and/or INTERROGATORIES in this above-entitled action would assist if this court chooses not to appoint an attorney to assist this Plaintiff.

39. Plaintiff believes that he will need SIX (6) MONTHS, after this Court has issued an ORDER to complete discovery due to the international parties listed within paragraphs I thru 36. or the need in requesting the Minnesota U.S. Attorneys Office to disclose contact addresses.

PLAINTIFF INTENDS TO CALL EXPERT WITNESSES:

40 Plaintiff does not have funds to pay the following EXPERT WITNESSES for there time and travel.

41. WESLEY ROBINSON, National Legal Professional Associates 7 Mariners Cove, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249. Tel. (513) 247--9580. See, EXHIBIT PAGE 45. Mr. Robinson will testify as to his written and telephone conversations with Defendant C.W. Faulkner, Attorney Jeffrey L. Orren. and Plaintiff Lambros during the criminal trial of Plaintiff Lambros in which Defendant C.W. Faulkner. et al- represented Plaintiff.

Page 14.

42. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not
force WESLEY ROBINSON to prepare a written report signed by Mr. ROBINSON, as
to a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and
reasons thereof; the data or other information considered by Mr. Robinson in
forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for
the opinions; Mr. ROBINSON's qualifications as a witness, including a list of
all publications authored by Mr. ROBINSON within the preceding ten (10) years;
and a listing of all other cases in which Mr. ROBINSON has testified as an
expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. See,
RULE 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff believes that he will need at least six (6) months
to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS as to information Plaintiff has and
forward same to WESLEY ROBINSON in the hope he will expound as to same. Plaintiff
can foresee a report of 75 to 150 pages due to the extensive interaction Mr.
ROBINSON had with Attorney Orren and Defendant C.W. Faulkner.

43. ATTORNEY JEFFREY L. ORREM, Past Attorney in St. Paul, Minnesota that represented Plaintiff Lambros' family during the criminal trial of Plaintiff Lambros, as to communication with Defendant C.W. Faulkner. Mr. Orren is no longer a practicing attorney and lives at 1771 Dayton Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Orren's telephone number is (651) 603-0885. See, VJERTBIT PAGE 44. Mr. Orren will testify as to his telephone conversations and written correspondence with the Lambros' family, Defendant C.W. Faulkner, et al., Attorney Tim Bailey, Wesley Robinson and employees of National Legal Professional Associates, Dr. Susan Minette, D.O., Dr. Kenneth J. Criqui, Jr. Ph.D., Dr. Antony C. Sutton, Harlan Girard, Brazilian Attorney Carlos Roberto Schlesinger, Dr. Plotnick, and others unknown to Plaintiff at this time, all as to the events surrounding the defense of Plaintiff Lambros in his criminal proceedings while he was represented by Defendant C.W. Faulkner.

Page 15.

44. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force JEFFREY L. ORREN to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds to assist Mr. Orren and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed.

45. DR. KENNETH J. CRIQUI, JR. Ph.D., Dr. Criqui performed a COMPETENCY EVALUATION on Plaintiff Lambros. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph eleven (11) within this motion into this paragraph.

46. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force Dr. Criqui to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds to assist Dr. Criqui and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed. Plaintiff Lambros does not have a current address for Dr. Criqui, as of three years ago Dr. Criqui was practicing in California.

47. DR. ANTONY C. SUTTON, D.Sc., Dr. Sutton spent over one (1) year researching Plaintiff Lambros case as to his extradition, torture, and forced brain control implantation in Brazil. Dr. Sutton filed numerous Freedom of Information Act requests as to Plaintiff's extradition from Brazil. This Court, under separate copy, without disclosure to the Defendants', have been provided copy of documents for release as to this Court's discretion due to a CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT. Plaintiff has with Dr. Sutton. Dr. Sutton was provided copy of Plaintiff's X-rays for review and professional analysis. Plaintiff is not currently in active communication with Dr. Sutton.

48. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force Dr. Sutton to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B), Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds to assist Dr. Sutton and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed. Plaintiff Lambros does not have a current address for Dr.

Page 16.

Sutton and would be required to contact his publisher for forwarding.

49. HARIAN GIRARD, Mr. Girard with the assistance of JULIANNE McKINNEY researched Plaintiff's case extensively, due to there affiliation and/or employment with NATO, United States Armed Forces, CIA, and NSA. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) of this document within this paragraph. Mr. Girard is aware of my torture due to implantation and other electronic devices in Brazil.

50. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force Mr. Girard to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B), Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds to assist Mr. Girard and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed. Plaintiff believes that the address for Mr. Girard in paragraph 15 is correct.

51. GRUPPEN, Box 136, 114-79, Stockholm, Sweden. Plaintiff would request principles of GRUPPEN, including LENNART LINDQVIST, EVAMARIE TAYLOR, and ROBERT NAESLUND, to testify as to the research they conducted into the torture and forced brain control implantation of Plaintiff Lambros. GRUPPEN was provided copies of Plaintiff's X-rays taken by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and submitted them to Doctors in Sweden for evaluation, due to there expertise in the evaluation of transmitters placed within Swedish Citizens by the government that monitor and control citizens in Sweden. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph thirty-two within this paragraph. GRUPPEN would provide AFFIDAVITS and DOCTORS if this Court allows to testify as to the fact Plaintiff Lambros has some type of implant(s) within his skull that appear to be receiver(s)/transmitters that control Plaintiff Lambros thoughts and deeds.

52. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force GRUPPEN and/or representatives to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B), Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds

Page 17.

to assist GRUPPEN, et al. and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed.

LEGAL CASES TO ASSIST THIS COURT AS TO RULE 26 FRCP:

53. IN RE AIRCRASH DISASTER NEAR ROSELAWN, IND. 172 F.R.D. 295 (N.D.Ill. 1997) Discovery rules of HAGUE CONVENTION were not applicable to discovery requests made by Plaintiffs, who brought action against French manufactures of airplane which had crashed, for documents relating to similar model of airplane to that which had crashed, French sovereign interests were not in jeopardy.

54. WILBURN vs. MARITRANS GP INC., 139 F.3d 350 (C.A.3(Pa) 1998) Seaman was not required in Jones Act action to disclose names of lay witnesses who might be used at trial to present OPINION TESTIMONY.

55. WOOD vs. BREIER, 54 F.R.D. 7 (D.C.Wis. 1972) While government's claim of executive privilege is entitled to great respect, it is nonetheless court's duty to make an independent determination of whether a privilege does exist with respect to proposed discovery.

56. YANG vs. RENO, 157 F.R.D. 625 (M.D.Pa. 1994) Official who invoked state privilege against discovery must set forth, with enough particularity for court to make informed decision, the NATURE OF MATERIAL WITHHELD and the threat to national security posed by revelation of the material.

57. IN RE HILLSBOROUGH HOLDING CORP., 118 B.R. 866 (M.D.Fla. 1990) (OPINION LETTER) Facts which formed basis of OPINIONS STATED BY ATTORNEY IN OPINION LETTER on whether corp. which was involved in leveraged buyout had potential liability for asbestos-related personal injury claims asserted against the corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary were DISCOVERABLE.

58. S.A. HEALY CO. vs. MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWAGE DIST., 154 F.R.D. 212 (E.D.Wis. 1994) Generally, party deposing expert is not required to bear

Page 18.

EXPENSES OF THAT EXPERT'S DEPOSITION PREPARATION TIME; however, there is exception to this general rule in complex cases where there has been considerable LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN EXPERT'S WORK ON CASE AND DATE OF HIS ACTUAL DEPOSITION.

59. REED vs. BINDER, 165 F.R.D. 424 (D.N.J. 1996). "MANIFEST INJUSTICE" would result if impoverished medical malpractice PLAINTIFF had to pay six defense experts for their testimony at deposition, and thus, those costs would be SHIFTED TO DEFENDANTS; plaintiffs' combined income since patient's death (which gave rise to malpractice action) was $2280 per month, and many defense experts charged $250 per hour.

ADDITIONAL EXPERT WITNESS:

60.DR. SUSAN MINETTE, D.O., Midwestern Neurologic and Psychiatric Consultants, Ltd. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph ten (10) of this motion into this paragraph.

61. Due to the fact Plaintiff Lambros DOES NOT have funds and can not force Dr. Minette to prepare a written signed report, as per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). Plaintiff believes he needs a court ORDER and funds to assist Dr. Minette and a time limit of at least six (6) months to outline the REPORT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS is needed.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS COSTS FOR TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION OF EXPERTS TO BE SHIFTED TO DEFENDANTS DUE TO PLAINTIFF IMPOVERISHED STATUS:

62. Plaintiff requests that costs incurred by Plaintiff be prepaid by Defendants for the EXPERTS DEPOSITION PREPARATION TIME and TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION(s). See, Paragraphs 58 and 59.

CONCLUSION:

63. Plaintiff tried to prepare this document as per his reading of Rule 16 and Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B).

Page 19

EXECUTED ON: January 20, 2000

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Pro Se
Reg. No. 00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.