March 29, 2000, RULE 26(F) REPORT submitted to the Court by all attorneys in this action as to April 5, 2000 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Total of 7 pages.







FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys at Law




98-1621 (DSD-JMM)


The counsel identified below participated in the meeting required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), on March 23, 2000, and prepared the following report.

The pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for April 5, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. before the United States Magistrate Judge Mason in Room 6 10, Federal Courts Building, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties request that the pretrial be held by telephone.

(a) Description of Case:

(1) Plaintiffs Factual Summary

This is a civil action against Plaintiff 's court-appointed attorney Charles NV. Faulkner (now deceased) and others claiming that Mr. Faulkner committed malpractice in representing Mr. Lambros during his criminal trial. Of notable interest, Mr. Lambros claims that Mr. Faulkner and the U.S. Attorney misrepresented that one of the Counts carried a mandatary life sentence without parole, counts 5, 6, and 8 carry a maximum potential penalty of life in imprisonment without parole, the parole violation would not be prosecuted due to the extradition treaty, and that ALL counts carry a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years without parole. Lambros claims U.S. Statutory Law provisions Do Not allow Lambros to receive a mandatory minimum penalty nor a maximum penalty of more than 15 years on any count within the indictment when Brazilian Law is incorporated, as per the U.S. Brazil Extradition Treaty. Also the Brazilian Supreme Court Did Not authorize

End of page 1

Lambros' parole violations to be prosecuted and used as a penalty against Lambros, nor did Lambros' indictment offer one fact to support DISTRIBUTION of cocaine, thus only the lessor included offense of Title 21 U.S.C. § 844, of simple possession, with a maximum penalty of one year per count is possible. The government allegedly offered a plea agreement of seven years to Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Lambros claims that had the U.S. Attorney, and his attorney, Mr. Faulkner. correctly advised him of the correct potential sentences he could have received, investigated Lambros' torture and forced- brain control implantation in Brazil, demanded Lambros' brain control implants to be removed, the government would have offered something less than 7 years, i.e. 2-4 years, and that Mr. Lambros would have accepted Such a plea agreement. which was consistent with what others involved in the criminal case were offered. Mr. Faulkner recommended that Mr. Lambros accept the seven-year plea agreement. Mr. Lambros rejected the agreement. Mr. Lambros was subsequently convicted at trial. The mandatory life sentence without parole on one of the Counts was reversed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, See US. v. Lambros. 65 F.3d, 698 (8th Cir. 1995). Mr. Lambros further contends Mr. Faulkner's actions violate RICO and makes other claims.

(1) Concise Factual Summary of Defendant's claims/defenses-,

Defendants assert that Mr. Faulkner, as appointed counsel for Mr. Lambros in a criminal case, was immune from any claims of legal malpractice Linder applicable Minnesota law Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N-W.2d 771 (Minn. 1993). The remaining named defendants, whose liability the plaintiff asserts is based upon either a partnership or agency relationship with Mr. Faulkner, are similarly immune from liability for legal malpractice. Further, defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to state any viable claim of racketeering in Claim VI of his Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs RICO claim is based upon a claim that the defendants acted in concert and committed legal malpractice by not filing a motion to suppress statements under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). Defendants contend that Charles Faulkner was not negligent in failing to file a motion to suppress statements under 18 U. S.C. § 20 1 (c)(2) because such a motion would not have been successful and the witnesses whom plaintiff claims were improperly allowed to testify (Peebles. Greer, Lemon, Ayd) would not have been precluded from testifying even if Mr. Faulkner had filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2). See United States v. Albanese, 195 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 1999).

Defendants deny that Charles W. Faulkner was negligent in his representation of the plaintiff, that no named defendant besides Mr. Faulkner did work on Plaintiffs case nor worked in concert with Mr. Faulkner to plaintiffs detriment. Plaintiff cannot show that but for actions of anyone other than himself is he currently incarcerated.

End of page 2

Following the remand for resentencing from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals the district court imposed a sentence of 360 months which sentence was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in a unpublished decision filed September 2, 1997.

(2) Statement of Jurisdiction (including statutory citations)-,

Mr. Lambros claims jurisdiction based on Federal Question (28 U.S.C. § 133 ) 1) and Diversity (28 U.S.C.§ 1332), Title 28 U.S.C. § § 144 1 (b), 1655, 2201 2202, and RICO. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1965.

(3) Summary of Factual Stipulations or Agreements;

Plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of 360 months.

Plaintiff was represented at trial in United States District Court by Charles W. Faulkner who was appointed to represent the plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Charles W. Faulkner died on October 6, 1997.
Sheila Regan Faulkner is Charles W. Faulkner's surviving spouse.

(4) Statement of whether jury trial has been timely demanded by any party.

A jury trial has been demanded by Plaintiff.

(b) Pleadings

(1) Statement of whether all process has been served, all pleadings filed and any plan for any party to amend pleadings or add additional parties to the action; Mr. Lambros currently has a motion pending to add the insurance company of defendants as a party and has requested his attorney to re-file and/or modify his January 6, 2000 (mailed January 7, 2000) motion for additional defendants to be reconsidered. Mr. Lambros has additional claims.

End of page 3

(2) Proposed date by which all hearings on motions to amend and/or add parties to the action shall be heard;

Mr. Lambros requests that the proposed date by which all Motions to Amend shall be heard, be set at 30 days after the Motion for Summary Judgment has been ruled upon.

Defendants believe that no further motions to amend pleadings should be entered by the court given that the plaintiff has been allowed to amend his complaint. Defendants have opposed plaintiffs request for general insurance information and have repeatedly advised plaintiff his claims are not covered by any insurance policy.

(c) Discovery Limitations

(1) Mr. Lambros' request for discovery are detailed in his January 20, 2000 submission, which is attached hereto. Defendants' discovery requests are as follows:

25 interrogatories; I set document requests; and I set requests for admissions, if defendants' dispositive motions are denied.

(d) Discovery Schedule/Deadlines

Mr. Lambros requests six months after the summary judgment ruling to complete non-expert discovery.

(e) Experts

The parties anticipate that they will require expert witnesses at time of trial.

(1) The plaintiff anticipates calling at least one expert in the field of Legal Malpractice. The other proposed experts are identified in Mr. Lambros' January 20, 2000 submission, attached hereto.

(2) The defendant anticipates calling two defense experts.

(3) The parties recommend that the Court establish the following deadlines for disclosure of experts and experts' opinions consistent with Rule 26(a)(2) as modified b, Local Rule 26.3):

End of page 4

(A) Deadlines for all parties' identification of expert witnesses (initial and rebuttal). (Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A).)

Plaintiffs Proposal

Plaintiff: Seven months after the summary judgment ruling. Defendants: Eight months after the summary judgment ruling.

Defendants' Proposal

Defendants request that the court order the plaintiff to provide a report from plaintiffs proposed experts within 60 days of a decision on defendants' dispositive motion. Defendants request an additional 30 days from receipt of plaintiffs expert report to provide notice and reports from tip to two defense experts.

(B) Deadlines for completion of disclosure or discovery of the substance of expert witness opinions.

Plaintiff 's Proposal

Plaintiff. Seven months after the summary judgment ruling

Defendants: Eight months after the summary judgment ruling.

Defendants' Proposal

Defendants request that the court order the plaintiff to provide a report from plaintiffs proposed experts within 60 days of a decision on defendants' dispositive motion. Defendants request an additional 30 days from receipt of plaintiffs expert report to provide notice and reports from up to two defense experts.

(C) Deadlines for completion of expert witness depositions, if any.

Plaintiffs Proposal

Nine months after the summary judgment ruling.

(f) Motion Schedule

(1) The parties recommend that motions be filed and served on or before the following date:

(A) Plaintiff 's Proposal: Nine months after the summary judgment ruling for non- dispositive motions;

End of page 5

(B) Plaintiff 's Proposal: Nine months after the summary Judgement ruling for dispositive motions.

Defendants' Proposal

Defendants request that plaintiff file and serve a response to the Defendants' Second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Summary Judgment by May 15, 2000, that the defendants have until May '30 to submit any responsive pleading and that the motion be heard in June, 2000, if the court elects to hear oral argument. Failing defendants' dispositive motions, defendants request that all discovery for non-dispositive motions be filed and served within 60 days of the Summary Judgment ruling and additional dispositive motions within 120 days.

(g) Trial-Ready Date

(1) Plaintiffs Proposal

Nine months after the summary judgment ruling

(2) A final pretrial conference should be held on or before the trial readiness date.

(h) Insurance Carriers/Indemnitors
List all insurance carriers/indemnitors, including limits of coverage of each defendant or statement that the defendant is self-insured:

Defendants state there are no insurance carriers or indemnitors.

G) Settlement

(1) The parties will discuss settlement before April 5, 2000, the date of the initial pretrial conference, by the plaintiff making a written demand for settlement and each defendant making a written response/offer to the plaintiffs demand.

(2) The parties believe that a settlement conference is appropriate and should be scheduled by the Court before N/A

(3) The parties have discussed whether alternative dispute resolution (ADR) will be helpful to the resolution of this case and recommend the following to the Court: N/A

Trial by Magistrate Judge

End of page 6

(1) The parties have not agreed to consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(c). Plaintiff Lambros is agreeable to jurisdiction and trial by the Magistrate Judge.


By: Gregory J. Stenmoe (#131155)

2400 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis. NN 55402
(612) 334-8400

By: Deborah Ellis (#14616X)

Donna J. Johnson (#950945)
700 Saint Paul Building
Six West Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
(651) 297-6400

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

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

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