The March 3, 1997 date is taken from the first line of the document. LOS NARCOJUNIORS. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. The Department of States's opinion is entitled to deference. Gonzalo Curiel was made by Emilio Valdez Mainero in a bugged conversation with a convicted cocaine trafficker and government informant . (7) Evidence which, in accordance with the laws of the requested party, would justify the apprehension and commitment for the trial of the person sought if the offense had been committed there, (i.e., probable cause). Los jvenes que cayeron en las garras de los hermanos Arellano Flix fueron: Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Mexico does acknowledge that there is an investigation ongoing concerning the actions of General Rebollo and his associates, and that the investigations include the "possible" unlawful detention of suspects. *1209 *1210 *1211 *1212 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michel Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Ricardo Valdez. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 789, 790 (9th Cir.1986). EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Respondent") [1] is accused by Mexico of having been involved with or committing various crimes in violation of . Valdez _ the godfather of one of the Arellanos children _ was arrested in September in Coronado, Calif. An extradition hearing began Thursday for Valdez and another man. 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. Aparte de Kitty 'Pez', los que formaron el grupo de los "Narcojuniors" fueron Emilio Valdz Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial; Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un importante empresario . Garcia-Guillern v. United States, 450 F.2d 1189, 1192 (5th Cir. Respondent had indicated that a recantation by Vasquez would be filed, but no such document has been offered in evidence in this case. 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. Background. Peter Lupsha, an expert on drug trafficking and former professor at University of New Mexico, said this case suggests that a corrupt Mexican government thwarted previous drug investigations. En una de las fiestas conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales, cuando existan. 1136 (1916); McNamara v. Henkel,226 U.S. 520, 33 S. Ct. 146, 57 L. Ed. The "recantations" from Cruz and Soto are in the form of testimony before a judge of the First District of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico. The case against the juniors spilled into U.S. courts after the Sept. 30 arrest of Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, the baby-faced son of a deceased Tijuana colonel. Emami v. United States District Court for N. District of California, 834 F.2d 1444, 1453 (9th Cir.1987). Soto contends that he was arrested on September 12, 1996 and held in custody for some weeks. 3190 having been properly and legally certified and authenticated by Bruce A. Beardsley, principal counsular officer of the U.S. in Mexico. In fact, the prevailing authorities are clear that: The decision to honor a request for extradition is "political", not "judicial". Alejandro provides an unrestrained narrative discussion of various events and circumstances, prompted by periodic questions and all simultaneously recorded in an office on CPU's. Hodoyan was taken into custody for carrying an AK-47 and some marijuana. *291 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michael Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Valdez Mainero. When the two cars arrived at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Valdez got out of the white Volkswagen and told Contreras, "Be, cautious, wait for me here and when you see us going out from the parking lot in the white Volkswagen, you should form a `wall' so that we cannot be followed.". Ultimately, the United States sought to stay the proceedings for an additional ninety (90) day period. Respondent asserts that the Treaty in this instance is invalid due to changed circumstances. 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. The Court is not limited in its receipt of this evidence by virtue of the lack of certification. Valdez and Martinez drove off in the white Volkswagen and Cruz and Contreras followed them in a navy blue Cutlass.[24]. On October 22, 1997, the Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to produce photographic evidence referenced in witness statements and related to the issue of the identity of Respondent. After receipt of the diplomatic note, Respondent was then held under the formal request for extradition and not the provisional arrest which had initiated the case. Respondent urges that this Court decline extradition based upon a "humanitarian exception" in that he is likely to be tortured based upon his alleged relationship to the Arellano-Felix brothers. Additionally, it is not the business of the United States Courts to assume responsibility for supervising the integrity of a judicial system of another sovereign nation; such an assumption would directly conflict with the principal of comity on which extradition is based. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. Whitepages people search is the most trusted directory. Finally, Valdez offers that Cruz, Soto, Alejandro and Vasquez[32] were subjected to torture, *1222 and were under duress at the time of the "alleged" statements. Finally, Respondent filed FINDINGS OF MEXICAN LAW EXPERT RODOLFO GASTELUM PEREZ RE: ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE; SYNOPSIS; AND CURRICULUM VITAE which asserted procedural, substantive and constitutional infirmities under Mexican law in the extradition request and in the arrest warrant. [25] While there is no corroborating evidence outside of this declaration itself, that Mr. Curiel was in fact an agent of Mexico under the mutual legal assistance treaty, nor was a copy of that treaty provided, this evidence is received over respondents objection and pursuant to Article 10(6) of the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. Cruz admitted his own involvement in the criminal activities of Valdez and the AFO and admitted that he was paid to assist them in killing the enemies of Ramon Arellano-Felix. Appellant appealed the habeas corpus denial to the Second Circuit. Cal. Emilio Valdez Mainero was a boyhood buddy Mr. Hodoyan chose years later to be the godfather at his first daughter's baptism. Valdez relies on Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 78 (2d Cir.1960), cert. Mexico also argued that the document was not certified as required by the treaty and would be presumptively inadmissable. 3184. October 21, 1996. A few seconds passed and then he saw the white Volkswagen speed out of the parking lot. [15] The Treaty, in Article 11, and 18 U.S.C. There is no legal support for a judicially created "humanitarian exception" in an extradition proceeding. The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. The certificate is forwarded to the Department of State. The United States has filed videotapes of Alejandro's November 30, 1996 deposition. Barrett v. United States, 590 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. United States District Court, S.D. The admissibility of Miranda's statement, as taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, was previously discussed. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. [40] U.S.-MEXICO DRUG WAR: Two Systems Collide, New York Times, July 22, 1997. They are: (1) Ministerial Statement of September 27, 1996, at 1140 a.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor, in Guadalajara, Mexico; (2) Additional Ministerial Statement of September 27, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor, in Guadalajara, Mexico; (3) Additional Statement of September 30, 1996, at 9:00 p.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor in Mexico City, Mexico; and. The indicia of reliability is clearly on the November 30, 1996 deposition offered in Mexico's case in chief. "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. 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. Under Article 10(7) of the Treaty, the probable cause determination is to be made in accordance with the laws of requested party (here, the United States). They are under a compelled setting initiated by Mexican judicial authorities (as opposed to a self directed recantation by the declarants) and are no greater than a plea of not guilty when analyzed to similar proceedings under United States law. There is no evidence to suggest that the United States no longer honors the treaty or that its purpose and intent are no longer served. This element was not challenged by the Respondent. 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"). R.Crim.P. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . The Court concludes that each of the crimes for which extradition is requested by Mexico are among those specified in the Treaty but that only Criminal Association and First Degree Murder are analogous to United States law. Mexico contests the reliability of these recantations asserting that they are self serving, lacking in reliability and inadmissable as contradictory evidence. [36] A recantation of Francisco Cabrera Castro is also filed and argued to support Respondent's position. Finally, the scope of admissible evidence in an extradition hearing is guided by the distinction between contradictory and explanatory evidence. For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. The witnesses go on to attribute a number of other incidents based upon their personal knowledge occurring since 1994 which are competent for a finding of probable cause on this charge as well. Based on case authorities Respondent's Motion in this regard is denied. The court denied the writ. Actually, this declaration is not signed by Alejandro, nor was it written by Alejandro. Valdez also faces charges of arranging the sale of a kilogram of heroin to a fellow inmate through friends outside prison. 23. 448 (1901); Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635 (2d Cir.1980); Charlton v. Kelly,229 U.S. 447, 461, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. *1229 The testimony of the various witnesses, including Miranda and Alejandro provide competent evidence for an assessment of probable cause to believe that the crime of criminal association (conspiracy) has been committed and that Respondent is involved therein. 96mg 1828(AJB). The murder and conspiracy offenses, above described, survive the Respondent's challenge. 96-1798-M. United States District Court, S.D. [33] On June 19, 1997, Respondent filed a REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY requesting, among other things, that the Court "order the government to turn over any other relevant information which might help the detainee explain the `evidence' lodged against him" (Docket No.