emilio valdez mainero emilio valdez mainero

November 4, 1997. The videotapes clearly demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. 3184, Argento v. Horn, 241 F.2d 258 (6th Cir.1957). Respondent was identified in statements of alleged co-conspirators Fausto Soto Miller, aka "Joel Fierro," "El Chef" or "El Cocinero" (hereinafter "Soto");[22] Cruz; Gilberto Vasquez Culebro, aka "El Gorras" or "El Cachuchas" (hereinafter "Vasquez"); as well as witnesses, Alejandro Enrique Hodoyan Palacios, (hereinafter "Alejandro"); and, Gustavo Miranda Santacruz, (hereinafter "Miranda") with involvement in a host of criminal activities on behalf of the Arellano Felix organization and in particular with the shooting of Gallardo and Sanchez. R.Crim.P. Cruz testified based upon his personal acquaintance with the individuals named in the statement, and his participation in various events and circumstances, as well as conversations, with the individuals involved. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . As described herein, the Court does find that the Republic of Mexico has met the documentary and timeliness requirements of the Treaty. Ultimately, Article 9 of the Treaty invests the "executive authority" with the final discretion.[17]. Mexico contests the reliability of these recantations asserting that they are self serving, lacking in reliability and inadmissable as contradictory evidence. We will gather for a memorial service and viewing at 6:00 p.m. Friday, September 6, 2019 followed by a visitation at Lake Ridge Chapel and Memorial Designers. In fact, Respondent urges the Court to dismiss this proceeding stating that the Mexican Attorney General's office held back these statements because of their negative impact on the probable cause analysis. These three were carrying short range firearms in a white Volkswagen. At the time of the June 30, 1997 hearing, a typed translation of Alejandro's personal notes was offered. Evidence that conflicts with that submitted on behalf of the demanding party is not permitted, nor is impeachment of the credibility of the demanding country's witnesses. C. Fausto Soto Miller, aka "Chef" In his September 27, 1996[27] declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Fausto Soto Miller, "Chef," (hereinafter *1221 "Soto") stated that he was aware of the personal problems between Valdez and Gallardo, arising out of a threat with a firearm against Gabriel Valdez made by Gallardo. These statements do not add a great deal to Mexico's case regarding this Respondent. These declarations bear even greater indicia of competency than the police reports accepted as competent evidence in Zanazanian. 44). Mexican officials wanted Valdez, 32, for allegedly gunning down an aspiring boxer over a personal grudge in 1996 at a Holiday Inn in the state of Mexico. No precise authority is offered in regard to this premise. In fact, in the statement to the district judge on October 2, 1996, Mr. Soto indicates that he has no physical defects. United States v. Valdez-Mainero. The evidence tying Valdez to the murder of Gallardo and Sanchez itself, given the numbers of other individuals involved, supports the criminal association charge. Esta clula del crtel de Tijuana volvi a la luz por la nueva temporada de la serie de Netflix Los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana. This element was not challenged by the Respondent. A few seconds passed and then he saw the white Volkswagen speed out of the parking lot. He stated that Valdez and Martinez used a white colored vehicle and that they used another car for protection. See footnote 25. There is no credible evidence supporting the authenticity of this summary of testimony in the closed investigation in Mexico. Another Mexican, questioned by prosecutors while in the intensive care unit of a San Diego hospital, said the hit on the 50-year-old Ibarra was planned carefully by Arellano organization members. The signs of injury included 16 irregularly circular scars, 17 circular scars and 3 small scars on the chest as well as a hematoma to the upper base of the nose and a circular bruise on the right chin. Ultimately, the United States sought to stay the proceedings for an additional ninety (90) day period. Informacin de El Universal. The Extradition Hearing was continued on several occasions after the January 14, 1997 filing, with the consent of the parties, to allow for further preparation and response to the evidence. At the time, Emilio Valdez Mainero, a member of the Arellano Flix cartel, said in a bugged conversation with a inmate-turned-informant that he wanted to kill Curiel. Attorney Gastelum's opinions are contradictory, at best, and excludable on that basis. Curreri v. Vice, 77 F.2d 130, 132 (9th Cir.1935); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 510 (7th Cir.1981), cert. The contours of the extradition proceeding were shaped by the Treaty and statute. There is no prohibition against hearsay in the extradition context because the Federal Rules of Evidence, which proscribe hearsay, do not apply to extradition. Fue en una fiesta que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un coronel que fue miebro de los guardias presidenciales. *291 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michael Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Valdez Mainero. The case against the implicated juniors spilled into U.S. courts after the Sept. 30 arrest of Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, the baby-faced son of a deceased army colonel from Tijuana who, his widow . On July 29, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen Evidence in this matter. This finding could be based upon the testimony of Miranda and Alejandro, alone. Mexico also takes the position that the statement is inaccurate and not properly certified or executed. A significant portion of the mens statements were taken in Mexico by officials putting together the case against Valdez and his companion at the time of his arrest, 25-year-old Alfredo Hodoyan de Palacios. 2d 496 (1990). Based on case authorities Respondent's Motion in this regard is denied. It is argued that Vasquez suffered similar mistreatment at the hands of the Mexican authorities and had recanted the statement attributed to him in Mexico's case in chief. 3188 for a similar proposition. During the drive, Contreras told Cruz that, "his friends in the white Volkswagen wanted to say hello to a fellow citizen who was in Toluca to train for boxing." The United States has also offered statements from interviews between Alejandro and federal agents in February of 1997 which are asserted to corroborate Alejandro's knowledge of the AFO and his willingness to cooperate. 526/2019. As noted previously, Respondent also offers the expert opinion of Rodolfo Gastelum Perez which has been excluded under the analysis previously set forth.[31]. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. ``Wear black clothes, the man, Gustavo Miranda Santacruz, said he was told by his superior. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. Alejandro, who is the brother of extraditee Alfredo Miguel hodoyan Palacios aka "Lobo",[28] stated that his brother told him that Valdez and Martinez had participated in the murder of Gallardo at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Toluca. [5] This Declaration is filed in Case No. The respondent offers a handwritten declaration of Alejandro, dated March 3, 1997, to document his being detained, interrogated and tortured. The Court is not required to decide guilt or innocence, but only determines whether there is competent legal evidence to justify holding the accused for trial in the charging country. 777 (N.D.Cal.1985). En una de esas fiestas fue que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales, cuando an existan. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. De acuerdo con un artculo del periodista Jess Blancornelas, publicado en 2002 . The suggestion of torture is certainly present in the record. During the meeting, the group discussed their plans to kill enemies of their interests, including Amado Carillo, a rival drug trafficker. Specifically, Respondent sought "all witness statements submitted in General Gutierrez Rebollo's case to determine whether or not there is additional relevant testimony." The United States filed certified documents in support of the extradition request at various times, the first of which was on December 4, 1996. at 1450-1451. Family and friends will gather for his funeral services at 10:00 am on Saturday, September 7, 2019 at Lake Ridge The statement is a summary of what Alejandro described to his family and includes information related to meeting General Gutierrez Rebollo as well as contact with DEA and FBI agents who pressured him to sign a confession in exchange for removal from Mexico and protection thereafter. denied, 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S. Ct. 1321, 108 L. Ed. In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. This is part of the framework created by case law in these proceedings. E. Alejandro Enrique Hodoyan Palacios On November 30, 1996, Alejandro Enrique Hodoyan Palacios (hereinafter "Alejandro") gave a deposition at the office of the Attorney General of the United States of Mexico. Probable cause exists to believe that the Respondent committed the offenses of homicide and criminal conspiracy as charged against him in Mexico. The court has jurisdiction over the Respondents if they are before the court. An analysis of whether this Court should enact a humanitarian exception into foreign extradition begins with a recognition of the rule of non-inquiry. "The Secretary of State has sole discretion to refuse extradition on humanitarian grounds because of the procedures or treatment that await the surrendered fugitive." De recuperar la libertad, en Mxico le esperan una sentencia de 22 aos de crcel por narcotrfico . The others drove in a white Volkswagen. [47] Alejandro's testimony also implicates his brother concerning the involvement with the AFO, which relates to the pending extradition of Alfredo Hodoyan-Palacios, 96mg1828(AJB). The Federal Rules of Evidence and of Criminal Procedure do not apply to an extradition hearing. The complaint . Est acusado de ser uno de los secuaces ms temidos de Arellano y se lo busca por asesinato en Mxico.Emilio Valdez Mainero era un compaero de juventud que Alex Hodoyn eligi, aos ms . Valdez moved the Court for release under the special circumstances doctrine. 534 (1902). 448 (1901). He ended up in the hospital with gunshot wounds he said were inflicted by a member of the Arellano organization. 5.1 is without authority and is unavailable in any event under prevailing authority. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of *292 California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). Equihua had been close to a witness in the drug-related cases of Alfredo Hodoyan and Emilio Valdez Mainero, which were due to be heard in San Diego courts. Emilio Valdez Mainero and Alfredo Hodoyan were linked to the Arellano Felix drug organization, which controls the lucrative drug corridor from Baja California into the United States. [4] As presented, the documentary evidence in this regard appears to supplement, not supersede, the previous filings of certified documents in support of the request for extradition. Ejecutivo Mercantil Autr. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635 (2d Cir.1980). emilio valdez mainerospiral pattern printing in c. phillies front office salaries By Molly Moore. Whitepages people search is the most trusted directory. No mention of torture or physical abuse is made. In the Ruiz statement, it appears that Soto was arrested at least no later than September 15, 1996. [2] An analysis under Parretti v. United States, 112 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1997) decided May 6, 1997 and amended August 29, 1997, well after the issuance of the provisional arrest warrant in this case, is unnecessary given the timely filing of the certified documents. 1028, 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Republic of France v. Moghadam, 617 F.Supp. In Matter of Extradition of Pazienza,619 F. Supp. 30), he requests discovery regarding the statement by Miranda. Id. ("Miranda") In his November 19, 1996 declaration, Miranda states that he knows the Arellano Felix brothers. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that barring hearsay from extradition hearings would thwart one of the objectives of bilateral extradition treaties by requiring the requesting nation to send its citizens to the extraditing country to confront the accused. Bingham v. Bradley,241 U.S. 511, 517, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. [29] Respondents request for discovery of all evidence of discussions with Alejandro Hodoyan is denied on the basis of the authority set forth in footnote 26, except to the extent that this information was produced in response to the Court's order of September 11, 1997 (see footnote 6). The Treaty between the United States and Mexico calls for probable cause to be measured by the standards established in the requesting country. 2D1.1 and reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to many drug trafficking offenses. 1978). You're all set! 970 (1925); the probable cause is sustained if competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is presented, not necessarily evidence competent to convict. There is no evidence, however, in this regard. 1996) on CaseMine. [39] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RE: DETAINEE'S RESPONSE TO EXTRADITION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE, Page 6, lines 5-7 (Docket No. Hodoyan haba estudiado en una . There is nothing to confirm, corroborate or verify that the facts in the statement are in fact the testimony of Sergeant Ruiz, and based upon personal knowledge. [21] This evidence is certified by the principle diplomatic or counsular officer of the United States in Mexico and is received into evidence pursuant Article 10(6) of the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. Soto contends that he was arrested on September 12, 1996 and held in custody for some weeks. Therefore, the Court will certify the above and all documents admitted into evidence to the Secretary of State. Challenges to the testimony of Cruz, Soto, Vasquez, Miranda and Alejandro based upon the argument that they are conclusory, unreliable hearsay, and unreliable as presented by alleged codefendants or co-conspirators are rejected. [45] The thought of testimony coerced by torture is certainly abhorrent and inconsistent with tenets of our society. Soto acknowledges having signed the statement as well as affixing his fingerprints. No. LOS NARCOJUNIORS. The March 3, 1997 date is taken from the first line of the document. These individuals returned to Mr. Vasquez' home in April of 1996 and stated that they were running from the authorities because they had committed a homicide in Mexico City. Fernandez v. Phillips,268 U.S. 311, 45 S. Ct. 541, 69 L. Ed. 1980), the court refused to decide whether the accused might be tortured or killed if surrendered to the requesting nation because this argument raised an "issue that properly falls within the exclusive purview of the executive branch" Id. Respondent's objections to this evidence and his explanatory evidence have already been addressed, and rejected. See Reply to Extraditees Response to Extradition Request and Request for Release, Page 8, lines 1-5, inclusive (Docket No. California. [44] There are some inconsistencies in the testimony when various statements are compared, but these are not significant differences affecting this analysis. United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1983). [16] Habeas corpus was subsequently granted, Kin-Hong v. United States,957 F. Supp. 1462, 1469 (S.D.Tex.1992). Criminal activity is defined as those who agree to or plan the crime, commit the crime themselves and/or commit the crime jointly with others (Article 13, Sections 1 through 3, inclusive). Alejandro's statement, at page 13, implicates Respondent[47] in the murder. 1280 (D.Mass.1997) but reversed on appeal. Actually, this declaration is not signed by Alejandro, nor was it written by Alejandro. "El Lobo" tambin fue capturado en los Estados Unidos junto con el tijuanense Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", ambos extraditados a Mxico en enero de 1998 y tambin remitidos a Almoloya de Jurez. The interviews of Alejandro in the United States confirm the uncoerced willingness of Alejandro to provide testimony concerning the criminal activities of the AFO and Respondent's role therein. 3184, Ward v. Rutherford, 921 F.2d 286, 289 (D.C.Cir.1990) and Rule 74 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). Finally, he contests the date of arrest. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 316, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. The United States, in fact, complied with Article 11, Paragraph 3, by its initial filing of diplomatic note 001831, on November 25, 1996 with the U.S. Embassy in Mexico. 1136 (1916); McNamara v. Henkel,226 U.S. 520, 33 S. Ct. 146, 57 L. Ed. The government's request for the stay was denied sustaining Respondent's objection and request to proceed. 1462, 1469 (S.D.Tex.1992). [6] The Court also directed the United States to request from Mexico, a signed statement of Seargent Ruiz and evidence of all dates of arrest after September 1, 1996 of witnesses Soto, Alejandro Hodoyan, Francisco Cabrera Castro and Gerardo Cruz Pacheco.[7]. He goes on to state that he signed it because he was subjected to psychological pressure and that it was a "lie". [46] Respondent's repeated request to confront and cross-examine Mexico's witnesses under Fed.R.Crim.P. Mexico did not produce a signed statement of Sergeant Ruiz or evidence of dates of arrest of the referenced witnesses. *1218 Respondent has been accused by Mexico of murder in violation of Mexican law. de Sicor 1 Acdo. California. Soto is also asked of his desire to make a statement concerning the facts attributed to him in his statement. It is further argued that there is a strong motivation on behalf of the Hodoyan family to help Respondent and this would give rise to questions with regard to the trustworthiness of the document. [23] Cruz made several statements relative to this matter. The certificate is forwarded to the Department of State. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. Several days went by before Cruz met with Valdez, Martinez, Contreras and Cabrera. En 1995, su reinado lleg a su fin. In this regard, Respondent cites Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty. Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. Under Article 10 of the Treaty, the request for extradition is required to contain the description of the offense for which extradition is requested and shall be accompanied by: (1) A statement of the facts of the case; (2) The text of the legal provisions describing the essential elements of the offense; (3) The text of the legal provisions describing the punishment for the offense; (4) The text of the legal provisions relating to the time limit on the prosecution of the offense; and. El Lobo was captured in the United States together with Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", they were extradited to Mexico in January of 1998 and also sent to Altiplano at Almoloya de Juarez. Emilio Valdez Mainero was a boyhood buddy Mr. Hodoyan chose years later to be the godfather at his first daughter's baptism. The power to make treaties is constitutionally invested in the executive branch of the United States government. Respondent asserts that the Treaty in this instance is invalid due to changed circumstances. Specifically, the tape of the interview with Miranda, all notes and interview sheets, and documentation concerning Assistant United States Attorney Curiel's agency on behalf of Mexico. "Chef" ("Soto") In his September 27, 1996 declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Soto recalled an incident in which Valdez, Ramon Arellano Felix and other members of his organization met at a house rented by Valdez in Mexico City. 28). The physical description of Emilio Valdez Mainero, "El C.P." or "Cabeza de Perro," is the following: 30 years old, 1.77 or 1.76 meters, heavy build, white skin, short straight hair which . 1274 (1913); Glucksman v. Henkel,221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. 33. View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Emilio Valdez. ``But it only makes the laxity which we see daily _ that should be viewed with greater and greater suspicion.. [41] The statement of Francisco Cabrera Castro, aka "Piedras" is offered in the Extradition of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, 96mg1828 AJB. mayo 9, 2022. QUIERE LIBERTAD, DEBE VIDAS. Gill v. Imundi,747 F. Supp. There was no mention of the lost eye in the medical exam performed by the Republic of Mexico or during the court proceedings where the alleged recantation took place. Respondent's reliance upon Article 11, Paragraph 3, is misplaced. Respondent also challenges compliance with the Treaty, and urges his release in these proceedings, relative to the "late filing" of certified documents in this case. Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Ramn y Arturo se la pasaban en fiestas y en una de conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales. In the supplemental request for extradition filed in January, 1997, the facts supporting the firearms offense were related to the first degree murder of Mr. Gallardo and Mr. Sanchez alleged to have occurred on or about April 9, 1996. [17] Article 9(1) provides in pertinent part, "the executive authority of the requested party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it is deemed proper to do so". El recordado criminal perteneca a los Narcojuniors, una clula del crtel de Tijuana que sale a relucir en la nueva temporada de la serie de Netflix. This evidence is clearly contradictory and inadmissible under Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. In addition to being signed by extraditee's father, other family members similarly signed attesting to the authenticity and veracity of the document. Extradition of Kraiselburd, 786 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1986). Miranda's statement was given to an officer of this Court. 934 (D.Mass.1996). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Terlinden v. Ames,184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. Explanatory evidence is allowed only if the evidence would, clearly, negate a showing of probable cause.