February 17, 1999, Plaintiff Lambros' AMENDED COMPLAINT in LAMBROS vs.FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. Served on February 19, 1999. Total of twenty seven (27) pages. NO EXHIBITS SCANNED.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

AMENDED COMPLAINT

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS

Plaintiff

vs.

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

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER

FAULKNER & FAULKNER

JOHN & JANE DOE'S

Defendants

CIVIL CASE NO.
98-1621 (DSD-JMM)

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Pro Se, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, and for DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT/COMPLAINT alleges:

2. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an agreement as to the legal representation of Plaintiff in a federal criminal case in the District of Minnesota, Defendants were appointed by the U.S. District Court. During the legal representation of Plaintiff the Defendants failed to exercise due diligence, were negligent, gave Plaintiff improper advice, failed to interview and/or subpoena witnesses, failed to consult with and/or communicate regularly with Plaintiff and failed to understand or know or apply the law. Plaintiff filed a COMMERCIAL LIEN as to Defendants actions to guarantee the payment to repair damages/injuries caused to Plaintiff, by Defendants, as to LEGAL MALPRACTlCE, Defendants DEFAULTED.

Recovery of damages are in an amount greater than $75,000.00

End of page 1


JURISDICTION

3. This is a civil case brought pursuant to the jurisdiction of this court to Title 28 USCA §§ 1331, 1332, 1441(b), 1655 (Lien), 2201, 2202 and Title 18 USCA §§ 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965 (RICO).

4. Jurisdiction is also founded on the existence of Federal questions arising under particular statues of U.S. Law, Brazilian Constitutional law, U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY, State of Minnesota Constitution, common laws and the Minnesota Attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility.

5. All legal proceedings in this above stated action occurred within a U.S. Federal building, located on a federal enclave, thus federal jurisdiction. See, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota criminal case and U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 1995).

6. This is a VERIFIED COMPLAINT, as to the good faith in averments and statements of this Plaintiff.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner imprisoned at the U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Kansas, pursuant to a sentence rendered in the U.S. District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is not an issue herein.

8. Defendant's et al., known to Plaintiff, being citizens and residents of the State of Minnesota.

9. Defendant's et al. were duly licensed and/or practicing law as investigators or paralegals, engaged in this profession in the State of Minnesota.

10. Defendant Attorney Charles W. Faulkner was Plaintiff Lambros‘

End of page 2


attorney in this action and was appointed by the U.S. District Court. C.W. Faulkner died and his wife has identified herself as the representative of the estate. C.W. Faulkner was a partner of Faulkner & Faulkner, a law firm.

11. Defendant Sheila Regan Faulkner is an Attorney and past wife of C.W. Faulkner. S.R. Faulkner was also a partner of Faulkner & Faulkner. S.R. Faulkner states she is the personal representative to the estate/will/ business insurance of C.W. Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner.

12. Defendant Faulkner & Faulkner is the legal law firm that represented Plaintiff in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05).

13. John & Jane Doe's, persons that where employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of Plaintiff in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05).

14. Defendant S.R. Faulkner is a defendant in her individual capacity and as trustee/administrator/executor of the estate of deceased defendant C.W. Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner, a partnership that is no longer in existence that was formed and maintained by S.R. Faulkner and C.W. Faulkner.

DEFINITIONS AS HEREINAFTER USED

15. LEGAL MALPRACTICE - which includes claims of (a) breach of duty; (b) failure to exercise due diligence; (c) negligence; (d) improper advice; (e) failure to interview and/or subpoena witnesses; (f) failure to consult with and/or communicate regularly with client; and (g) failure to understand or know or apply the law. Also see, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, under MALPRACTICE (Legal Malpractice) - Consists of failure of an attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise in performance of tasks which they undertake, and when such failure proximately causes damage it gives rise to an action in tort.

End of page 3


16. RICO - Civil claim under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, that Plaintiff alleges: (1) violation of RICO; (2) injury to business or property; and (3) causation of injury by the violation. See, AMERICAN BUYING INS. SERV. vs. KORNREICH & SONS, 944 F.Supp. 240, Key note 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Title 18 USCA 5§ 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965.

17. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, at which time Defendants et al. represented Plaintiff Lambros, as per contract with U.S. Public Defenders Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendants acted as legal agents and/or representatives of Plaintiff Lambros.

MINNESOTA LOCAL RULE 10.03 AND F.R.C.P. 10(c)

18. This amended complaint in inclusive as to all other filings in this above-entitled action.

RULE 8 CIVIL PROCEDURE

19. As per U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Mason's ORDER dated January 26, 1999, attached MEMORANDUM, Plaintiff will follow the suggested format as per the guidance of Judge Mason's MEMORANDUM & OPINION in IN RE BUFFETS SECURITIES LITIGATION, 906 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Minn. 1995) (set forth the WHO, WHAT, WHEN,WHY, and WHERE in concise fashion)

CLAIM I

20. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings as to the representation of Plaintiff.

21. WHAT - Committed legal malpractice in the representation of the November 16, 1992, PLEA PROPOSAL submitted by Thomas B. Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney

End of page 4


and Douglas R. Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney. The PLEA PROPOSAL stated that the "CONVICTION ON THE COUNT I CHARGE, HOWEVER, WOULD CARRY A MANDATORY TERM OF IMPRISONMEN OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND A FINE MAXIMUM OF $8 MILLION." See, EXHIBIT G in June 15, 1998, Declaratory Judgement/Complaint. This was incorrect information as per the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction in Count I. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Plaintiff's sentence stating same. See, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698 (8th cir. 1995).

22. WHEN - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. wrote Plaintiff On November 17, 1992, with copy of November 16, 1992, PLEA PROPOSAL and letter stating that the government "MADE A FAIR OFFER AND [You] REJECTED IT, THUS SETTING YOU UP FOR A LIFE TERM WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE." See, EXHIBIT H in June15, 1998, Declaratory Judgement/Complaint.

23. WHY - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed above acts due to that defined within LEGAL MALPRACTICE, as per Plaintiff's beliefs.

24. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed above acts within the law firm of FAULKNER & FAULKNER and transmitted information via interstate communication facilities including U.S. Mail and telephone.

CLAIM II

25. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., in legal proceedings as to the representation of Plaintiff.

26. WHAT - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., refused to pay for legal services they contracted with National Legal Professional Associates in the representation of Plaintiff as per the DOCTRINE OF SPECIALTY as embodied within Article XXI, and other Articles, of the TREATY OF EXTRADITION between the United States and Brazil. Also the research and preparation of a motion

End of page 5


pursuant to the provisions of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure together with a memorandum of law in support thereof. Plaintiff's family was required to pay the legal research fees contracted by Defendants with National Legal Professional Associates.

27. WHEN - Defendants contracted National Legal Professional Associates on or about the first part of 1993, in the legal proceedings of Plaintiff.

28. WHY - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed above acts due to that defined with LEGAL MALPRACTICE, as per Plaintiff's beliefs.

29. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed above acts within the law firm of FAULKNER & FAULKNER and transmitted information via interstate communication facilities including U.S. Mail and telephone.

CLAIM III

30. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., in legal proceedings as to the representation of Plaintiff.

31. WHAT - On or about August 1992 thru the last days Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. represented Plaintiff in this legal proceedings, Plaintiff requested Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. to hire a private investigator to interview Plaintiff's attorneys in Brazil and Brazilian Government Officials who where aware of the torture center Plaintiff was placed in and tortured during detention in Brazil. Plaintiff also requested that Defendants contacted Francisco Toscanino's Attorney in Brazil, as Francisco Toscanino was again placed in the same torture facility with Plaintiff this time and could prove actions of torture. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals choose to state Plaintiff's story as to being "HELD IN THE SAME BRAZILIAN CELL WHERE THE MISTREATMENT ALLEGED IN U.S. vs. TOSCANINO, 500 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1974), occurred, and even asserts that he met Toscanino there." See, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 1995).

End of page 6


IS ALSO FANTASTIC. Due to the fact that Defendant C.W. Faulkner et al. did not hire an investigator as to Plaintiff's torture and fact that he was held with Francisco Toscanino while Plaintiff was tortured did not allow Plaintiff a valid defense and release. Plaintiff has attached copy of his March 6, 1996, letter to Senators Helms, Kassebaum, Grams, Wellstone, et al., which includes the February 12, 1996, letter from Maxime Toscanino to Plaintiff and Attorney Jeff Orren and the October 20, 1991, Sunday Newspaper article from CAMPINAS, entitled "MAFIOSO DA CAMORRA PRESO TORTURAS NA DITADURA" by Jose Francisco Pacola. The article was written while Plaintiff was incarcerated with Francisco Toscanino in the torture interrogation center in Brasilia, Brazil. Thus clear proof that Plaintiff was incarcerated with Toscanino. EXHIBIT AAA.

32. WHEN - Defendant C.W. Faulkner et al. refused to interview witnesses and other acts as defined within legal malpractice during the legal proceedings of Plaintiff.

33. WHY - As per Plaintiff's beliefs Defendants et al. did not act within the scope of lawyers due to claims contained within legal malpractice

34. WHERE - Defendants et al., performed all legal malpractice actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM IV

35. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., in legal proceedings as to the representation of Plaintiff.

36. WHAT - Throughout the legal proceedings Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., represented Plaintiff, Plaintiff experienced continual problems in contacting Defendants and facilitating legal attorney investigative contacts as to hiring a local psychologist and doctor. Plaintiff's family was forced

End of page 7


to hire Attorney Jeff Orren and pay for the private psychological evaluation of Plaintiff by Dr. Criqui and medical x-ray exams, that Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. stated that may be paid for by the court.

37. WHEN - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed the above stated acts during the legal proceedings as to the representation of Plaintiff.

38. WHY - Defendants were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

39. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above legal malpractice actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM V

40. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al., in legal proceedings, specifically trial, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

41. WHAT - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. FAILED to (1) file motion(s) suppressing testimony obtained in violation of Title 18 USC § 201(c)(2) and MINNESOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. Therefore denying Plaintiff a judgement of acquittal on all criminal charges due to legally insufficient evidence to support Plaintiff's conviction, a new trial would of been prohibited by double jeopardy principles. Thus the issues before this Court will be (1) whether the government's conduct during the criminal trial of Plaintiff was prohibited either by Title 18 USC § 201(c)(2) or Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) if it was whether the testimony of the following witnesses should have been suppressed: (a) Lawrence Pebbles trial testimony pages 48 thru 189; (b) Tracy Greer's trial testimony pages 245 thru 347; (c) Pamela Lemon's trial testimony pages 382 thru 467; and (d) Michael Ayd's trial testimony pages 581 thru 607, and (3) whether the record contains sufficient evidence to of remanded Plaintiff for a new trial. Plaintiff believes violations of §§ 201(b)(2) & (b)(3)

End of page 8


of Title 18 USC occurred also. Therefore, due to the above violations of law Plaintiff has been illegally incarcerated since January 1993, the month Plaintiff's trial concluded.

42. WHEN- Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above violations before and during trial of Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

43. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice and it is Plaintiff's belief that possible criminal violations may of occurred by Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. as to there relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

44. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM Vl

(CIVIL CLAIM UNDER RICO)

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in in CLAIM V, paragraphs 40 thru 44 of this complaint as fully as if set forth here and under FRCP Rule 10(c) as to all other filings regarding RICO in this above-entitled action as to violations of Title 18 USCA §§ 201(c)(2), 201(b)(2), 201(b)(3), 1503, 1512. Plaintiff again requests this Court to use paragraph 16, within this complaint as to RICO CIVIL CLAIMS. Plaintiff is victim of misrepresentation and acts of legal malpractice by Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al.

CLAIM VII

46. WHO - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

47. WHAT - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's

End of page 9


due process rights be violated when Plaintiff was sentenced to CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES in violation of the underlying U.S. - BRAZIL Extradition Treaty with Brazil that Plaintiff was extradited to the United States on. Plaintiff's sentence was increased, thus punishment, as the U.S. - BRAZIL Extradition Treaty prevented Plaintiff from being TRIED OR PUNISHED by the requesting State for any crime or offense committed prior to the request for Petitioner's extradition, other than that which gave rise to the request. See, Article XXI, of U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY.

48. WHEN - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above violations during the trial and sentencing of Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

49. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

50. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM VIII

51. WHO - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

52. WHAT - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff's sentence was increased to COMPENSATE FOR UNEXTRADITED CRIMES that violated both the requirement of double incrimination underlying the treaty with Brazil and the separation drawn by the Brazilian Supreme Court between escape/parole violation and the offenses for which it extradited Plaintiff. Plaintiff was to receive no more than a Fifteen (15) year sentence on Count One (1), so as not to compensate for unextradited crimes, thus being sentenced as a first time offender. Defendant's did not contact Plaintiff's attorneys in Brazil or the Brazilian Supreme Court as to

End of page 10


Brazilian Law as to being punished for unextradited crimes based on a technical application of domestic sentencing guidelines.

53. WHEN - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above violations during the legal proceedings of Plaintiff.

54. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

55. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM IX

56. WHO - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

57. WHAT - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff' due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff was CONVICTED and SENTENCED on Count One (1), Title 21 USC §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), when the evidence presented at trial was insufficient. Therefore, the question for review is, "did the evidence presented at trial satisfy the burden needed to be proved to convict and sentence Plaintiff under Title 21 USC Section 841(b)(1) (A)(ii)?" The indictment Plaintiff was arrested on never alleged (other than in count I) or proven by any standard of proof that Plaintiff was involved in one single transaction of at least five (5) kilograms of cocaine. Title 21 USC §841(b)(1)(A) requires that there be at least one single violation of five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine. The record will not support same.

58. WHEN - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

59. WHY- Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definitions contained within legal malpractice.

End of page 11


60. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM X

61. WHO - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

62. WHAT - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced as to the indictment in Plaintiff's legal proceeding being legally insufficient to comply with the grand jury indictment clause of the FIFTH AMENDMENT, as to Counts Five (5), Six (6), and Eight (8). The words COUNSELS, COMMANDS, INDUCES, and PROCURES were OMITTED from Plaintiff's indictment in Counts Five, Six, and Eight, thus making the indictment fatally defective as to Title 18, USC, Section 2(a). Defendants failed to make pretrial objections to the sufficiency of the indictment, RULE 12(b)(2) FRCP, failed to make a request for a bill of particulars pursuant to RULE 7(b) FRCP to obtain more definite information, thus the indictment omitted essential elements, whereby it became "so defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense" for which this Plaintiff was convicted. See, U.S. vs. CAMP, 541 F.2d 737, 741 (8th cir. 1976) and HAMLING vs. U.S., 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed2d 590 (1974) (It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the WORDS OF THE STATUTE ITSELF, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.)

63. WHEN - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

64. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per

End of page 12


the definition contained within legal malpractice.

65. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM XI

66. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff where served "A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM on October 20, 1997 OF COMMERCIAL LIEN and AFFIDAVIT," dated October 16, 1997 See, EXHIBIT O, 12 pages in June 15, 1998, DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT COMPLAINT in this above-entitled case.

67. WHAT - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner, et al. did not respond to the orderly service of "A SECURITY (15 USC) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN and AFFIDAVIT," the "NOTICE OF DEFAULT," and "DEMAND FOR PAYMENT," as to same. All documents in this process were offered as exhibits in Plaintiff's June 15, l998, DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT/COMPLAINT in this above-entitled action. See, EXHIBITS O, P, & Q.

Plaintiff liened Defendant's in the above described Commercial Lienp rocess for the following minimum amounts of U.S. currency:

a. Attorney Charles W. Faulkner, $1 Billion;

b. Attorney Sheila Regan Faulkner, $1 Billion;

c. Faulkner & Faulkner Law Firm, Attorneys-at-Law, $1 Billion;

d. All employees and contractors of Faulkner & Faulkner for $100,000.00 each, severally and jointly liable;

e. The home of Charles W. and Sheila R. Faulkner, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110, Property I.D. Number 363022440030, with a market value of $95,100.00, built in 1977, taxes of $ 1,563.00.

Plaintiff informed Defendants that the COMMERCIAL LIEN was filed within the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS.

End of page 13


Plaintiff deposed to Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. within the COMMERCIAL LIEN as described above and offered as exhibits: (1) "The parties of this Commercial Lien are cited in the following "List of Lien Debtors," where they are identified in there official and individual capacities as employees of FAULKNER & FAULKNER." (2) "The above listed Claimant [Petitioner] claims a lien against lien debtors to guarantee the payment to repair damages/injuries caused to lien claimant [Petitioner] as to LEGAL MALPRACTICE which includes claims of: (a) breach of duty; (b) failure to exercise due diligence; (c) negligence; (d) improper advice; (e) failure to interview and/or subpoena witnesses; (f) failure to consult with and/or communicate regularly with client [Plaintiff]; and (g) failure to understand or know or apply the law." (3) "The value of this claim will compensate lien claimant Lambros [Petitioner] for: (a) direct economic losses (costs for hiring lawyers, paralegals and consultants to fix the mess lien debtors [Defendants] created; (b) foreseeable losses; (c) emotional losses (pain and suffering and mental anguish); (d) financial losses (wages, etc.); (e) loss of life. EXHIBIT 0-5.

As this Court understands, COMMERCIAL LIENS may be filed based on a contractual duty or obligations, thus this Plaintiff's rational for filing same against Defendants so as to offer a non-judicial way to settle this dispute in an orderly fashion. Plaintiff has not seen one bit of evidence, precedent, statute, case law, or Constitutional prohibition to say a COMMERCIAL LIEN is illegal or unlawful.

Defendants chose not to satisfy Plaintiff's COMMERCIAL LIEN by rebutting Plaintiff's affidavit with another Commercial Affidavit, point for point, until this matter was resolved. An unrefuted Commercial Affidavit stands as the truth in commerce. Defendants chose not to convene a sheriff's Common law jury based

End of page 14


on the 7th Amendment to arbitrate the matter. Finally, Defendants chose not to pay the lien amounts specified in Plaintiff's Commercial Lien and attached Affidavit in full.

Defendants chose to ignore the grace period within the Commercial Lien, thus acquiesced to the stated facts within the Commercial Lien. Defendants silence and/or failure to respond is a valid contract in commerce.

Plaintiff is requesting this Court to make a DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT as to the validity of Plaintiff's COMMERCIAL LIEN, thus making the COMMERCIAL LIEN perfected and saleable, tradeable, exchangeable security like any other stock, bond, or mortgage contract under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. See, U.S. vs. KIS, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (1981) (no more than a lawful affidavit is necessary to generate a PRIMA FACIE case); 5 USC §556(d) (failure to deny is an admission of guilt).

68. WHEN - The Commercial Lien was dated October 16, 1997 with copy of same and all follow-up lien documents presented as EXHIBITS O,P, & Q within this above-entitled case.

69. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

70. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the legal malpractice actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM XII

71. WHO - Defendants .W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

72. WHAT - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when he was offered a PLEA PROPOSAL, dated

End of page 15


November 16, 1992, submitted by Thomas B. Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney and Douglas R. Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney that stated Plaintiff was

FACING THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PENALTIES:

a. Count 8 - Life imprisonment without parole;

b. Count 5 & 6 - Life imprisonment without parole

c. Count 1 - Mandatory life without parole.

d. Count 9 - Dismiss pursuant to US - BRAZIL Extradition

Treaty.

(Exhibit H G-1 thru G-6)

and allowed Plaintiff to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment on Count One (1) to a mandatory life sentence without parole that was not allowed due to Brazil's Constitution, which, prohibits, absolutely, the imposition of ANY PENALTY of a lifelong character (CC, Article 5, Clause XLVII,(b), as the Brazilian Constitution prohibition is absolute and impossible to bypass, contains, in reality, the very basis of the legal norm consolidated by Article 75 of the Brazilian Criminal Code, which limits the MAXMINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE TO THIRTY (30) YEARS. See, BOUDINOT vs. U.S., (The Cherokee Tobacco) 11 Wall 616, 20 LEd 227; THOMAS vs. GAY, 169 US 264, 18 SCt. 340, 42 LEd. 740 (A treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if in violation thereof).

Defendants et al. did not raise motions as to the DOCTRINE OF SPECIALITY, consult the U.S. Department of State, Brazilian Supreme Court or review the US - BRAZIL Extradition Treaty Plaintiff was extradited on from Brazil as to the legal proceedings Defendants et al. represented Plaintiff in.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated Count One (1) as to Plaintiff's sentence of life imprisonment without parole and Plaintiff was resentenced to a term of thirty (30) years within the framing of the Brazilian Constitution and Article 75 of the Brazilian Criminal Code as per the demands of

End of page 16


the US - BRAZIL Extradition Treaty Plaintiff was extradited to the United States on as per the legal proceedings Defendant C.W. Faulkner et al. represented Plaintiff in.

73. WHEN - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

74. WHY - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

75. WHERE - Defendant's C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM XIII

76. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

77. WHAT - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff was placed on trial for Counts 5, 6, & 8 that was not allowed by the Brazilian Constitution and the Brazilian Criminal Gode. Counts 5, 6, 8 are considered DOUBLE PUNISHMENT according to Brazilian Law. U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY VIOLATION.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice NERI DA SILVEIRA uses the Brazilian legal terms of BIS IN IDEM and MUTATIS MUTANDIS that appear to be SYNONYMOUS with DOUBLE PUNISHMENT and solved within accordance of the Brazilian law by the "PRINCIPLE OF ABSORPTION."

Counts 5, 6, & 8 are all elements of Count 1 the CONSPIRACY in Plaintiff's legal proceedings. The Brazilian rule of law as to the implied principle of SUBSIDIARITY is implied when the crime defined by one of the rules is an ELEMENT or a LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCE OF ANOTHER CRIME. There is subsidiarity in the case of a complex crime (CC, Article 103). It is said to be complex a

End of page 17


crime which has as an ELEMENT or AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, a fact which on its own constitutes a crime. So Robbery (CC, Article 157) includes Theft (Article 155). In the extradition from Brazil to the US, Justice CARLOS VELLOSO, the justice Plaintiff went before, stated in the extradition of PANG as to his overview of DUAL CRIMINALITY, " In other words, you CANNOT have, according to Brazilian Law, a crime of Arson and a crime of Murder independently." On December 18, 1995, the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil granted extradition to the United States on PANG on single count of arson in the first degree, but not on the four counts of murder in the first degree, in MARTIN SHAW PANG, Brazilian extradition process number 6541/120, as reported in the U.S. Legal publication PACIFIC REPORTER, 940 P.2d 1293, 1338-1339 (Wash. 1997)

78. WHEN - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

79. WHY - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

80. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM XIV

81. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

82. WHAT- Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff was placed on trial for COUNTS 5, 6, 7, 8 that was not allowed by the Brazilian Constitution, Brazilian Criminal Code and the U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY. Counts 5, 6, & 8 are counts that included the AIDING AND ABETTING under Title 18 USC §2.

End of page 18


The aiding and abetting statute charges a separate offense. Title 18 USC §2 makes it a crime for any person to "aid[], abet[], counsel[], command[], induce[], or procure[]" the commission of a federal offense. If the aiding and abetting statute is not listed as an extraditable crime, then prosecution for that offense violates the RULE OF SPECIALTY. See, U.S. vs. GALLO-CHAMORRO, 48 F.3d 502 (llth Cir. 1995). Petitioner states that the "DUAL CRIMINALITY DOCTRINE" is also applicable in this claim as others within this amended complaint. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that courts of this country will not try a defendant extradited from another on the basis of a treaty obligation for a crime NOT LISTED IN THE TREATY. See, U.S. vs. RAUSCHER, 119 US 407, 424 (1886).

Plaintiff was also convicted and sentenced on Counts 5, 6, & 8.

83. WHEN - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

84. WHY - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

85. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

CLAIM XV

86. WHO - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. in legal proceedings, as to the representation of Plaintiff.

87. WHAT - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. allowed Plaintiff's due process rights to be violated when Plaintiff was allowed to stand trial on a]l counts for which he was extradited on from Brazil DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF.

End of page 19


Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. did not object to the jurisdiction of the court over Plaintiff, ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE. See, U.S. vs. LLOYD, 23 F2d 858, 859 (DC Cal 1928) Defendants should of only raised that question; if he does more, he waives his objection. As one who pleads to the indictment, or makes motions to suppress evidence or to quash the indictment, has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court in the ordinary case. A plea to the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant has been filed where the defendant has been extradited and is being prosecuted for a crime not listed in the. See, U.S. vs. RAUSCHER, 119 US 407, 433, 30 L Ed 425, Plaintiff believes the lack of jurisdiction argument should of included claims of the "RULE OF SPECIALTY," "DUAL CRIMINALITY DOCTRINE," and validity of the "U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY" as to the extradition of offenses PUNISHABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The 1961, U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY DOES NOT include the language "offense . . . punishable under the FEDERAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, within Article IV, TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, it only uses the word STATES. See, U.S. vs. JOHNSON , 506 F.2d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1974) (The phrase "law of the United States" would appear to encompass ONLY FEDERAL LAWS NOT STATE LAWS.) (Moreover, we have been informed that it is the policy of the Justice Department to limit the use of prior convictions under §841 to FEDERAL convictions only.)

Petitioner consulted the 1974 AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, Volume 74, under TREATIES, -20 - PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES:

. . . TREATIES WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RIGHTFUL EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER BY THE DIFFERENT STATES.

End of page 20


. . . It may be inferred from the decision of the United States Supreme Court that a Treaty will, if possible, be given RESTRICTED CONSTRUCTION where a broader construction would infringe upon a special power of the STATE over the subject matter.

The June 24, 1980, Extradition Treaty between The Kingdom of the NETHERLANDS and the United States of America specifically states, "FEDERAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." The original 1971 Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and SPAIN, Article II(D.) states:

Extradition SHALL ALSO BE GRANTED for the above mentioned offenses, even when, in order to recognize the competent FEDERAL JURISDICTION, circumstances such as the transportation from one STATE to another, have been taken into account and may be ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE.

The U.S. - SPAIN Extradition Treaty, second supplement effective on July 2, 1993, DELETED and replaced the above language with ARTICLE II(E), which states:

Extradition SHALL ALSO BE GRANTED for these offenses, even when, in order to RECOGNIZE THE COMPETENT FEDERAL JURISDICTION, circumstances such as the transportation from one STATE to another, have been taken into account and may be ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE.

The U.S. - BRAZIL EXTRADITION TREATY is TOTALLY VOID OF THE WORDS FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

On April 30, 1992, The Brazilian Supreme Court GRANTED IN PART the extradition of Plaintiff to the United States of America. The Court DID NOT allow the extradition of Count I~ within Plaintiff's indictment for travel in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CRIME IN BRAZIL." COUNT IX of Plaintiff's indictment stated:

On or about the 12th day of February, 1988, in the STATE and DISTRICT of MINNESOTA, the defendant

End of page 21


JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, did travel in interstate commerce from the STATE OF MINNESOTA to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA with intent~t to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely the distribution of COCAINE, a Schedule II controlled drug substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952(a)(3) and 1952(b)(1).

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3:

Plaintiff WAS extradited from BRAZIL on cocaine violations of Title 21 USC §841(a)(1). Plaintiff WAS NOT extradited from BRAZIL on the TRAVEL ACT in violation of Title 18 USC §1952. Both 21 USC §841 and Title 18 USC §1952 are covered under the JURISDICTIONONAL ASPECT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, U.S.C.A. Constitutional Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Legal cases to support this statement include:

a. U.S. vs. GOLDBERG 928 F.Supp. 89, 90 (D.Mass. 1996), key note #7.

b. U.S. vs. BRAMBLE 894 F.Supp. 1384, 1386 (D.Hawaii 1995), key note #22. ( . . . Congress has made specific findings that illegal drugs affect interstate commerce.)

88. WHEN - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. committed the above legal malpractice claims during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

89. WHY -- Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. were incompetent as per the definition contained within legal malpractice.

90. WHERE - Defendants C.W. Faulkner et al. performed all of the above actions during Plaintiff's legal proceedings.

End of page 22


ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO ASSIST THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS:

91. THE DOCTRINE OF SPECIALTY: The doctrine of specialty provides the surrounding nation with a means of ensuring that a defendant is not prosecuted for an offense other than THOSE LISTED IN THE EXTRADITION TREATY, and "reflects a fundamental concern of governments that persons who are surrendered should not be subject to indiscriminate prosecution by the receiving government . . ." See, U.S. vs. PUENTES, 50 F.3d 1567, 1571 (llth Cir. 1995) (quoting FIOCCONI vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S., 462 F.2d 475, 481 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 409 US 1059 (1972). The doctrine is based on principles of INTERNATIONAL COMITY: "to protect its own citizens in prosecutions abroad, the U.S. guarantees that it will honor limitations placed on prosecutions in the U.S." See, U.S. vs. ANDONIAN, 29 F.3d 1432, 1434 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 938 (1995); U.S. vs. THIRI0N, 813 F.2d 146, 150 (8th Cir. 1987)(doctrine of specialty is based on the principle of international comity). The doctrine of specialty was first recognized in U.S. vs. RAUSCHER, where the Supreme Court of the U.S. held that courts of this country WILL NOT TRY a defendant extradited from another on the basis of a TREATY OBLIGATION FOR A CRIME NOT LISTED IN THE TREATY. See, U.S. vs. RAUSCHER, 119 U.S. 407, 424 (1886). Also see, U.S. vs. FLORES, 538 F.2d 939, 944 (2nd Cir. 1976)

92. STANDING TO RAISE DOCTRINE OF SPECIALTY: The federal circuits are split regarding whether a defendant has STANDING to raise the issue of a violation of the principle of specialty absent a protest by the asylum country. The EIGHTH, (this court circuit), Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals hold that the defendant may raise WHATEVER OBJECTIONS THE EXTRADITING COUNTRY IS ENTITLED TO RAISE EVEN ABSENT AN OBJECTION BY THE

End of page 23


EXTRADITING NATION. See, U.S. vs. THIRION, 813 F.2d 146, 150 (8th Cir. 1987) (defendant may raise whatever objections to his prosecution that the extraditing country might have.) The ELEVENTH CIRCUIT cited to dicta in U.S. vs. PUENTES, 50 F.3d 1567, 1574-1575 (llth Cir. 1995) to support its conclusion by stating the Supreme Court commented that "if the [e]extradition [t]reaty has the force of law . . . it would a pear that a court must enforce it on behalf of an individual regardless of the offensiveness of the practice of one nation to the other nation. See, U.S. vs. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 504 US 655, 667, 112 S.Ct. 2188, 2195-96, 119 L Ed 2d 441, 454 (1992).

93. THE DUAL CRIMINALITY DOCTRINE: The doctrine of dual criminality is distinct from the doctrine of specialty. DUAL CRIMINALITY refers to whether the criminal conduct CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE LAWS OF BOTH THE ASYLUM AND REQUESTING STATES. See, U.S. vs. GALL0-CHAMORRO, 48 F.3d 502, 507 (llth Cir. 1995)(offense charged must constitute an offense under the laws of the respective states); U.S. vs. KHAN, 993 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1993)("Under the doctrine of 'dual criminality, an accused person can be only if the conduct complained of is considered criminal by the juris prudence or under the laws of both the requesting and requested nations"') (citations omitted); U.S. vs. LEVY, 905 F.2d 326 (lOth Cir. 1990)("The doctrine of dual criminality provides that a person shall not be extradited 'if the offense with which he is charged . . . is not punishable as a serious crime in both the requesting and requested state[s]"'), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1049 (1991); U.S. vs. SENSI, 879 F.2d 888, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1989)(dual criminality requires that the "offense charged be punishable as a serious crime in both countries"); BRAUCH vs. RAICHE, 618 F.2d 843, 846 (1st Cir. 1980)("The require ment that the acts alleged be criminal in both jurisdictions is central to extradition law and has been embodied either explicitly or implicitly in all

End of page 24


prior extradition treaties between the United States and Great Britain since the JAY TREATY of 1794")

94. DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT ACTION: The underlying policies of DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT ACT supports the use of declaratory judgements in EXTRADITION CASES; it is a useful remedy permitting direct confrontation between the two real parties in interest, the extraditee and the demanding government, without triangular complications of habeas corpus. Title 28 USCA §2201. Quoting, WACKER vs. BISSON, 348 F.2d 602, 603, key note 9 (5th Cir. 1965) Also see, GOVERNMENT OF JAMAICA, vs. U.S., 770 F.Supp. 627, 628, Key Note 2 (M.D.Fla. 1991)(Standing of defendant extradited from Jamaica to seek habeas corpus relief was derivative of Jamaica‘s rights under extradition treaty, to which it was contracting party.)

95. INTERNET WEB SITES HOME PAGES CONTAINING INFORMATION TO ASSIST THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS:

a. http://members.aol.com/BrazilByct (Boycott Brazil)

b. http://members.aol.com/lambrosbl (final digit #1)

c. http://members.aol.com/BrazilLien (Brazil Lien)

d. http://members.aol.com/LambrosLDF (Lambros' legal fund)

e. http://adpages.com/usal/brazilct.htm (Brazil's Court)

f. http://adpages.com/usal/andreaci.htm (Brazil's torture centers)

RELIEF AND DAMAGE PRAYER

96. Demand for trial by jury, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39

97. For the 1st through 5th cause of action, $150 Million each.

98. For the 7th through 15th cause of action, $150 Million each.

99. For the 6th cause of action, RICO CIVIL CLAIM - $100 Billion U.S. as to his "LOSS OF PROFITS" from his past, present, and future injury of his

End of page 25


businesses and property as to those documented and recorded careers listed within paragraph 74 of Plaintiff's November 4, 1998, "PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER THE PLEADINGS IN THIS MATTER AS PER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN M. MASON'S ORDER, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1998 (89 pages in length). Plaintiff is requesting the claim for damages from all Defendants jointly in CLAIM VI RICO.

100. Plaintiff states claims 1 thru 5 and / thru 15 damages are for pain and suffering and actual injuries to Plaintiff's body, enjoyment or use, loss of wages, residual pain, etc.

101. Plaintiff Lambros requests the following SUM CERTAIN actual and punitive damages from the following Defendants due to injuries sustained herein and all documents filed within this cause of action:

a. ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, and/or ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE thru the personal representative of the deceased party CHARLES W. FAULKNER, Defendant attorney Sheila Regan Faulkner, as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1), in the amount of FIFTY-ONE BILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

b. ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER in her individual capacity, in the amount of FIFTEEN BILLION AND THREE-HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION U.S. DOLLARS.

c. FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, thru the personal representative and past partner of the law firm, in the amount of FIFTEEN BILLION AND THREE-HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION U.S. DOLLARS. (Attorney S.R. Faulkner)

d. JOHN AND JANE DOE'S, persons employed by C.W. Faulkner and S.R. Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the legal representation of Plaintiff Lambros, TWENTY BILLION THREE-HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION U.S. DOLLARS. (Jointly liable)

CERTIFICATION

102. Plaintiff Lambros, pro se, shall certify, pursuant to Rule 11,

End of page 26


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry to all claims of action in this case, that all above facts are well grounded and are warranted by existing law.

103. Plaintiff hereby states under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Title 2 USC 1746.

DATED: February 17, 1999.

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Pro Se
Reg. No. 00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000
USA (Plaintiff was born in the good ole USA)

 


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.