Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

,-—; ~~—— — \._ 1 . .. U.S. Departme Justice

t it j United States Attorney
*•, 3 *=*"*,,_ j . . .
*¤t\\___;____; _ District of Arizona
A Two Renaissance Square Main: (602) 514-7500
40 North CentralAvenue, Suite 1200 Main FAX· (602) 514-7693
l Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 FAA? (602) 514-7537
_ March 9, 2004 .
_ Richard B. Jones .
273 South Scott Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701
VIA FAX: 520 884-9687
Re: US. v., 493,850.00 in US. Currency
CIV—03-2345-PHX-HRH .
Dear Mr. Jones:
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 2004. I have re—read my letter and found it professional and
truthful. I simply correctly documented that your representations and actions were inconsistent. A fair
reading of your letter makes it clear that your representation and actions were inconsistent. The only
` question which remains is if there ever was an intention to comply with my discovery requests. Based upon
the obvious facts of the case, the possession of nearly one half of a million dollars concealed in a pickup,
it would appear obvious that your clients could never respond to the discovery and you would seek to rely
[ upon a technical defense. Hence my question to you. I believe that you obtained the extension only to
( provide additional time to prepare your motion. Nothing in your letter of March 4* alters that conclusion.
I The point of this communication is to make clear to you that I expect that the discovery will be
- _ responded in an appropriate manner. As I stated in my letter, a blanket assertion of the Filth Amendment
Privilege is not acceptable. United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9‘h Cir. 1993). The
general rule is that the Fifth Amendment does not allow a witness to refuse to take the witness stand.
Instead, he must assert his privilege "in response to specific questions propounded by the
investigation body." United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 741 (9‘“ Cir. 1977) (Pierce), cert. denied,
435 U.S. 923 (1978). "Thus a blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable." Id. To make
it very clear, I expect that you will prepare a response to the discovery which asserts the Fifth Amendment
privilege to appropriate questions, and answer the question which can be answered without the risk of self
incrimination. That is the proper way to respond to discovery. I think I was clear in my previous expression
of how I expected you to proceed. I am not willing, nor do Ibelieve that it would be appropriate under the
law ofthe Circuit to consent to the tiling of a pleading with the District Court which asserts a blanket claim
regarding all of the discovery. V I
I also give you fair warning that the claim and answer you have tiled is defective. You may not sign .
` · either document on behalf of your clients. They must each sign under penalty of perjury. I will give you A
i a reasonable period of time to obtain their signatures. Ifyou refuse or are unable to obtain their signatures,
1 Iwill be forced to move to strike both pleadings and will seek a default judgment.
I Case 2:03-cv-02345—VAI\/I Document 58-5 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 2
( . H - . l. , - , A .

i __ /7 Ul
h Letter to Rick Jones '
March 3, 2004
Page 2
This letter is intended to comply with the local rule requiring counsel to attempt to resolve
the discovery issues prior to tiling a motion to compel. Based upon the assertions in your letterl am
certain that it will take no time to prepare the discovery in the form you proposed. I expect that the
proper discovery will be in my office by March 15, 2004.
_ I
2 4 Sincerely yours, I _ V
PAUL K. CHARLTON
i United States Attorney
l District Arizona l,_,
p t / , (_ /
l { X A if M
ei C. Pixler -
Assistant United Stat s Attorney
cc: Chris Jacobsen `
E
F
’
l
V
g Case 2:03-cv-02345—VAI\/I Document 58-5 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 2 of 2

L V · ’· "J. · ·.

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58-5

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58-5

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 2