Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Burton M. Bentley, Esq. (Bar No. 00980) THE BENTLEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 480 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 861-3055 (602) 861-3230 Attorney for Defendant Ronald Stephen Holt and Equitable Relief Defendants Annette Holt, Leonora Trust, Dover Trust, Clarendon Trust, Dublin Trust, Pacific Central and American Benefit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. RONALD STEPHEN HOLT; and INTERNATIONAL FUNDING ASSOCIATION, Defendants And ANNETTE HOLT; et al., Defendants Solely for Purposes of Equitable Relief. I, Burton M. Bentley, declare as follows: 1. I am now, and at all times relevant to the Petition No. 13, have been the sole and principal officer, director and shareholder of The Bentley Law Firm, P.C., formerly known as Burton M. Bentley, P.C., as described in the Petition before this Case No. CV03-1825 PHX PGR DECLARATION OF BURTON M. BENTLEY IN SUPPORT OF BENTLEY/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITION NO. 13 FOR TURNOVER ORDER

(Assigned to the Hon. Paul G. Rosenblatt)

24

Court as Receiver's Petition No. 13.
Case 2:03-cv-01825-PGR Document 348-3
-1Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. The statements in this Declaration are made upon my own first hand knowledge of the facts. 3. At or about October 2nd or 3rd, I received two $5,000 checks from Ronald S. Holt. ("Holt") named herein as a Defendant, both checks were made payable to "Law Office Re: Rose Holt" and were accepted by me as a retainer pursuant to a Retainer Agreement executed by Holt and Burton M. Bentley, P.C. 4. I had agreed to represent Holt as well as certain specified persons identified as Equitable Defendants, but not all of them.

8

5. Because of certain ethical considerations set forth in E.R. 1.8(f), Arizona
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Rules of Professional Conduct, relating to the acceptance of payment from one other than the client, and because; (i) the check was made payable to "Law Office" rather than to "Burton M Bentley, P.C."; (ii) I did not know Ronald Holt or his Mother, Rose Holt; (iii) I had no facts to establish that Rose Holt knew to whom the 2 checks were given and the reasons therefore; and (iiii) it seemed wise under the circumstances to ask for and receive replacement funds, which Holt tendered soon thereafter;. 6. At the same time that the SEC was asking for the $10,000 received from Rose Holt, her attorneys Kothe & Helms, P.C., Rose Holt's legal counsel, were also asking for the return of her $10,000 retainer, and it appeared safe at that time to withhold payment from both claimants, as no matter who won, the other side was threatening enforcement of their claims against me.

20 21 22 23 24

7. By the time the matter had been resolved by the Court, that Rose Holt had used receivership assets for her own legal fees and Holt's legal fees and costs, Holt's bill to this law firm exceeded that which had been paid, and I therefore resolved to hold the $10,000 to pay accrued and unpaid fees and costs until there was a final disposition by this Court in my favor or in the Receiver's favor. That has not
-2Filed 08/03/2007

Case 2:03-cv-01825-PGR

Document 348-3

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

occurred even to this date as this Petition No. 13 is the Receiver's first serious attempt to obtain a judicial solution to its claims to the $10,000 received by this law firm for Ronald Holt. 8. In due course this law firm also entered appearances in the companion law suit commenced by the CTFC against Holt and others, and that representation continued until at or about the time that Holt ran out of money and terminated our representation by letter dated 24 April 2004, a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A."

8

9. It has never been my intention to hinder or obstruct the judicial processes
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

involved in this case or the ability of the Receiver to marshal receivership assets as permitted by the Court, nor have I ever knowingly disobeyed any Order of this Court or hindered the Receiver from complying with this Court's Orders. 10. I do believe that at this time there is a true difference of opinion as between the undersigned and the Receiver respecting whether or not the $10,000 belongs to me or the Receiver under the law; and I further believe that if the SEC believed that the $10,000 received by me was a receivership asset, that the SEC would have most certainly have named me as an Equitable Defendant by the flick of some keyboard strokes, and that neither the SEC nor the CFTC did so indicates their joint and several unwillingness and their weak position. 11. I am also of the belief that the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, is no longer an impartial Receiver in this matter as the result of a recent trial in Federal

20 21 22 23 24

District Court (Warfield v. Alaniz) in which Warfield underwent severe cross examination by me. He has all at once become extremely aggressive and belligerent since I have taken an Appeal on behalf of the Defendants in that case, and there is a Cross Appeal filed by Warfield. A lengthy two week jury trial ended in a split

Case 2:03-cv-01825-PGR

Document 348-3

-3Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

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

decision in that case, marring Warfield's previous perfect settlement record with approximately 135 Defendants similarly situated, without ever having to go to trial. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 3rd day of August, 2007. THE BENTLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.

/S/ BURTON M. BENTLEY BURTON M. BENTLEY

Case 2:03-cv-01825-PGR

Document 348-3

-4Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 4