12-14-98 Letter from Donna Rae Johnson

December 14, 1998, letter from Attorney Donna Rae Johnson to the Clerk of the Court and Lambros with copy of the following motions attached: (1) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ET AL, dated December 14, 1998, two (2) pages; (2) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS, dated December 12, 1998, nine (9) pages; (3) AFFIDAVIT OF SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, dated December 14, 1998, four (4) pages; 4) DEFENDANT SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, dated December 14, 1998, nine (9) pages; (5) DEFENDANT SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, dated December 14, 1998, ten (10) pages; in LAMBROS vs. FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. Total document pages within combined set of documents is 35 pages.

On Donna Rae Johnson letterhead:

December 14, 1998

Magistrate Judge John M. Mason
610 Federal Courts Building
316 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101

Civil Case # 98-1621 ADM/AJB

Dear Judge Mason:

I have enclosed a copy of the following:

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss
2. Defendant's Memorandum

3. Sheila Faulkner's Affidavit

4. Defendant's Exhibits

3. Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories

4. Sheila Faulkner's Answers to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions

along with the letter which I filed with the Court. Defendants motion is made in the same way that Plaintiff's motion was made. However, I understand that you may set the hearing on this matter for a later date.

End of page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, #00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000, USA
Web site:
Web site:
http://members.aol.com/BrazilByct
http://adpages.com/usal/brazilct.htm
http://adpages.com/andreaci.htm
http://members.aol.com/LambrosLDF
http://members.aol.com/BraziLien
http://members.aol.com/Lambrosb1 (final digit number 1)
http://www.brazilboycott.org

Plaintiff

vs.

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendants (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE # 98-1621 ADM/AJB

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO.
U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 698 (1995).

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS ET AL

Comes now the Defendant, Sheila Regan Faulkner, through her attorney, and moves the court for an order as follows:

End of page 2

1. Dismissing Plaintiff's action against Defendants in its entirety.

2. Denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.

3. Granting Defendants a protective order against answering Plaintiff's interrogatories.

4. Granting Defendants the right to file and serve answers to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions.

5. Granting Defendants the right to amend its answer to include the defense that Plaintiff failed to file a claim against the Estate of Charles W. Faulkner within the time allowed under Minn. Stat. 524.803.

6. For such other relief as the court deems just in the premises.

Dated: December 14, 1998

Signed:
Donna Rae Johnson ID# 50945
Attorney for Defendants
700 St. Paul Building
6 West Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: (651) 297-6400
FAX: (651) 291-2675

End of page 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Plaintiff

vs.

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendant's (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE # 98-1621 ADM/AJB

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO.
U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 698 (1995).

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

FACTS

It appears that Plaintiff, John Gregory Lambros, has consolidated his motions in his motion dated November 4, 1998. Defendants will attempt to respond

End of page 4

to his motions in the order presented.

Charles W. Faulkner died October 6, 1997. He was an attorney, hired as a part-time public defender by the Federal Public Defender's Office, which assigned him to represent John Lambros. Sheila Faulkner, his wife, is also an attorney, who has never been employed as a Federal Public Defender, but who is employed part time by Hennepin County as a Public Defender. Each practices in these fields separately, and each is paid separately, under their own social security numbers, not the Federal ID No. of Faulkner & Faulkner.

Besides being on the Federal Public Defender panel, Charles W. Faulkner was on the Hennepin County Public Defender's Conflict Panel part time. He was also on the Commitment Defense Panel for the Hennepin County Bar Association, and the Hennepin County Family Court Paternity Panel.

The law firm, Faulkner & Faulkner, handled primarily civil cases, after he began to serve on the above panels, and only occasional criminal cases. The Federal Public Defender Panel only assigned cases randomly, and sometimes Charles Faulkner handled as few as two a year. Sheila Faulkner acted in an administrative capacity for the law firm, and occasionally as a consultant, after her automobile accident in April, 1988.

Sheila Faulkner, individually, had only casual knowledge of any of Charles W. Faulkner's criminal defense work, and she did not actively work on any of his cases. She had absolutely no information regarding Charles Faulkner's representation of John Gregory Lambros.

Plaintiff did not file a timely claim with the estate of (Charles W. Faulkner in the Ramsey County, Minnesota probate court, or within the Federal court, within the four month time period for claims to be filed, which ended March 30, 1998, nor did he notify the Personal Representative, Sheila Faulkner, of said

End of page 5

claim. Sheila Faulkner was not notified until the Plaintiff's action was served on her on July 17, 1998, four months after the claims period had passed. The Personal Representative complied with all notice and publication requirements set forth by Minnesota Statutes and the Ramsey County Probate Court.

Sheila Faulkner was notified by the Ramsey County Recorder and the county attorney that Plaintiffs attempt to file commercial liens against Defendants was invalid, so no response was required.

Plaintiff does not state a cause of action against any of the defendants. Charles W. Faulkner properly defended Plaintiff, as established in Plaintiff's Exhibit H and Exhibit G in his alleged complaint dated June 15, 1998.

The errors and omissions insurance which covered Charles W. Faulkner, individually, denied coverage, stating that the policy was a "claims only" policy, and that the policy had lapsed when this action was initiated. Faulkner & Faulkner has no malpractice insurance coverage, since Sheila Faulkner is employed as a public defender through Hennepin County, which provides coverage for her individual actions. Faulkner & Faulkner dissolved upon the death of Charles W. Faulkner.

The Federal Public Defenders Organization is established pursuant to Title 18 § 3006 A, and section 2 B (3) states that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall, to the extent the Director considers appropriate, provide representation for and hold harmless, or provide liability insurance for, any person who is an officer or employee of a Federal Public Defender Organization established under this subsection...for money damages for injury, loss of liberty, loss of property or personal injury or death arising from malpractice or negligence of any such officer or employee in furnishing representational services under this section while acting within the scope of that person's office or

End of page 6

employment. That organization denied responsibility, initially, but is being pursued.

Plaintiff's Request for Admissions has been completed by Sheila Regan Faulkner and is enclosed herein.

Defendants are refusing to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories at this time, and are asking for Protective Order.

ARGUMENT

Defendants strenuously oppose plaintiff's motion to supplement his complaint, and urge the Court to dismiss his action in its entirety. Plaintiff does not state a cause of action in his complaint, or in his proposed supplements, and his named defendants are not proper parties to this alleged action. He has also brought the action in the wrong court.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Minnesota. He was at the time the crimes were committed, and when the alleged "malpractice" occurred, even though he ran to Brazil, where he was extradited back to Minnesota. He did not lose his Minnesota residency by being incarcerated at Leavenworth. He does not allege diversity, nor does he have diversity. The Court, in White v. Fawcett Publications 324 F. Supp. 403 (1971) states that "Ordinarily, the citizenship of a prisoner remains in the State of which he was a citizen before his imprisonment", citing 25 Am Jur 2d, Domicil 41, pg. 31. His statement that the claims arise under the Constitution, pursuant to Title 28, §1441, is not supported in fact. Any constitutional arguments which he attempts to make to this court have already been heard on appeal to the 8th circuit, and have been determined. Also, Mr. Lambros' appeal was not handled by Charles Faulkner, and if the attorney who handled it felt that there was-a claim for incompetency of counsel in the lower court, she certainly would have included it in

End of page 7

the appeal.

Plaintiff is correct that a federally appointed attorney is not entitled to absolute immunity, as established in Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979). However, the court refers to a "state malpractice suit in, which is the proper jurisdiction for a malpractice action. Any action against Defendants should have been initiated in the probate court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, by filing a claim against the estate. The claims period expired on March 30, 1~98, and this action was not served until July 15, 1998. There is an extension of that time period allowed under Minn. Stat. 541.16, "if a cause of action survives against a decedent". but Defendants have found no case law defining whether a legal malpractice action survives the alleged perpetrator decedent.

Faulkner & Faulkner, is not a proper party to this action, nor are any employees or contract personnel of that firm. Both Charles and Sheila Faulkner were public defenders, hired to represent individuals in felony and misdemeanor actions, which were assigned to them by their employers. Since they were the only attorneys in that firm, Faulkner & Faulkner handled primarily civil actions, only rarely accepting a private criminal case. In Minnesota, if a partner commits a wrongful act or omission while acting "in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership" the partnership is liable. Minn. Stat. §323.12. However, even if Charles Faulkner had committed an error or omission in the representation of Plaintiff, he was not acting "in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership", but he was acting under the auspices of the Federal Public Defenders office. The fact that Charles Faulkner wrote to Mr. Lambros on Faulkner & Faulkner letterhead, does not mean that Faulkner & Faulkner had any knowledge of or involvement in Charles W. Faulkner's representation of the Plaintiff, nor that his representation was part of the "ordinary course of business of the partnership".

End of page 8

Charles Faulkner was appointed by the Federal Public Defender's Office to represent John Lambros, and he was paid, individually, an hourly rate to do so. In doing so, he made a very valid recommendation to the Plaintiff to accept the plea proposed by the U.S. Attorney's office, stating that "The case against you is one without a chance of success either on the legal or factual issues." The plea did not call for a life sentence. See Exhibit A. Mr. Lambros chose to ignore counsel's advice and go to trial, where he was found guilty on all four counts. Plaintiff's contention that he would be a free man if it wasn't for Charles Faulkner's faulty representation is not supported by the facts.

Charles Faulkner did not handle the appeal for Mr. Lambros. If the attorney representing Mr. Lambros had found that Mr. Lambros' action had not been handled competently in the lower court, she certainly would have included that fact in the appeal. She did not do so.

Plaintiff is continuing to do what he has done, repeatedly, in the past, as confirmed by the psychologist's evaluation cited by the Court in U.S. v. LAMBROS 65 F. 3d 698 (8th Cir. 1995), "...Mr. Lambros takes great pleasure in antagonizing the legal system. It is highly likely that further court proceedings will involve much manipulation on the part of Mr. Lambros". In remanding the sentence in regard to Count I, the Court affirmed the convictions and sentencing on the remaining counts See Exhibit B attached.

In his motion to supplement the declaratory judgment complaint,

Plaintiff is attempting to include the fact that the witnesses used against him had accepted plea bargains, which he infers is an alleged misfeasance by the deceased. First of all, it was the prosecution that arranged any plea bargains, and plea bargains have been regularly used by the courts. Even if the matter is now under consideration, it was completely valid at the time Mr. Faulkner was representing Plaintiff.

Plaintiff states that he had no knowledge that Charles W. Faulkner was

End of page 9

deceased, yet his complaint, dated June 15, 1998, makes it clear that he had that knowledge. Defendants oppose amending the complaint to include the Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles W. Faulkner, since the claim was not timely made, and the alleged cause of action against the deceased is frivolous in nature, and neither Sheila Regan Faulkner nor Faulkner & Faulkner or their employees, if any, have any involvement in this matter.

Sheila Regan Faulkner is not a proper party to this action. She is employed part-time as an attorney by the Hennepin County Public Defender's office, and she has no private practice of her own. She knows absolutely nothing about the Lambros case, except what is published as Exhibit A and B. She is the Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles W. Faulkner, and the period for filing claims against the estate expired March 30, 1998. She was a partner in Faulkner & Faulkner, which was also not involved in the representation of Plaintiff, and she was the wife of Charles W. Faulkner, none of which makes her responsible for the incarceration of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is asking for a default judgment based on Defendants failure to respond to the Commercial Lien which he filed with the Ramsey County Re~r on October 20, 1997, just two weeks after the death of Sheila Faulkner's husband, Charles W. Faulkner. Sheila Faulkner contacted the Ramsey County Recorder and she was told that the lien was invalid and she shouldn't worry about it. She later received FAX from the County Recorder, with the opinion from the County Attorney's office reassuring her that it was of no consequence. See Exhibit C.

Also, Plaintiff has made a motion to accept Defendants failure to file a timely response to his Request for Admissions as admissions. The court certainly has discretion to do so. Although this was discussed in Defendants prior memorandum, it will be addressed again. The Court, in Gutting v. Falstaff Drewing Corporation,

End of page 10

710 F.2d 1309 (C.A.8 Mo. 1983), stated that deeming admitted matters at issue in request for admissions is a form of sanction and may be appropriate in certain cases of discovery, citing Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 36 (a,b) 38 U.S.C.A. However, the court allowed an extension of time to file an answer to the request for admissions, holding that it would be inequitable to deem the requests admitted and penalize her (Mrs. Gutting) because of her attorney's compliance with the rules of professional responsibility. In that case, the attorney withdrew because of a conflict of interests. Although that was a consideration in this case, we rely more on Pickens v. Equitable Life Assurance Society. 413 F.2d 1390 (5th Circ. 1969) where failure to reply to request for admissions is "clearly inadvertent", the policy is "to favor substantial justice over technical contentions". and Hadra v. Herman Blum Consulting Engineers 74 F.R.D. 113 (N.D. Tex. 1977) where the court held, "the court must strike a balance between the interests of justice and diligence in litigation".

This action was initiated by Plaintiff Lambros on July 17, 1998, when Sheila Faulkner was served with three copies of the Complaint, plus a Request for Admissions, which she initially did not realize was attached to the complaint. There was then counsel's inadvertent failure to change her address, and the confusion between counsel and Defendant Faulkner regarding who was responding to the Request for Admissions. Admissions have now been answered and are enclosed herein. Discovery is still in its early stages, and an extension of time to answer the Request for Admissions, does not prejudice the Plaintiff, but it will ~substantially create a disservice to the presentation of truth at trial", as held in American Petro. Inc. v. Shurtleff. 159 F.R.d. 35, (D.Minn. 1994) and White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Waterhouse, 158 F.R.D. 429 (D.Minn. 1994).

However, Defendants have provided the information to counsel regarding Plaintiff's answers to interrogatories, but Defendants object to answering the interrogatories and move the court for a protective order at this time. The Court, in

End of page 11

Shetka et al v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt and Salmen v, T. Jav Salmen, 454 N.W. 2d 916 (Minn. 1990) held that the financial condition of nonculpable partners in a law firm was not discoverable before entry of judgment. Plaintiff's interrogatories dwell primarily on divulging the financial condition of the parties, as well as extremely personal information not relevant to any court action, and could not conceivably lead to the discovery of facts relevant to the issues in the case, or narrow the issues for trial, as discussed in Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451(1946), cited in U.S. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 52 F.R.D. 14. Also, Plaintiff's interrogatories far exceed the limit of 50 established in L.R.33.1.

Dated: December 12, 1998

Signed:
Donna Rae Johnson ID# 50945
Attorney for Defendants
700 St. Paul Building
6 West Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: (651) 297-6400
FAX: (651) 291-2675

End of page 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Plaintiff

vs.

ADM/AJB

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendant's (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE # 98-1621

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO.
U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 698 (1995).

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

AFFIDAVIT OF SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY

Sheila Regan Faulkner, being first duly sworn, on oath, states as follows:

1. That I am the widow of Charles W. Faulkner, and I was a partner in Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorneys at Law, and I am the Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles W. Faulkner.

2. My husband, Charles W. Faulkner died October 6, 1997. He was an attorney, hired as a part-time public defender by the Federal Public Defender's Office, which assigned him to represent John Lambros.

3. I am also an attorney, and I have never been employed as a Federal Public Defender, but I am employed part time by Hennepin County as a Public Defender. We both practiced in these fields separately, and we were each paid separately, under our own social security numbers, not the Federal ID No. of Faulkner & Faulkner.

4. Besides being on the Federal Public Defender Panel, my husband was on The Hennepin County Public Defender's Conflict Panel part time. He was also on the Commitment Defense Panel for the Hennepin County Bar Association, and the Hennepin County Family Court Paternity Panel. After he began working with these panels, our law firm, Faulkner & Faulkner, handled primarily civil cases, only occasionally handling private criminal cases. The Federal Public Defender Panel only assigned cases randomly, and sometimes he handled as few as two a year.

5. I had only casual knowledge of any of Charles W. Faulkner's criminal defense work, and I did not actively work on any of his

End of page 13

cases I have absolutely no information regarding my husband's representation of John Gregory Lambros, except for the 8th circuit case decision which I recently reviewed, and my husband's letter to Mr. Lambros and the plea agreement, which were attached as exhibits by Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff did not file a timely claim with the Estate of Charles W. Faulkner in the Ramsey County, Minnesota probate court, or within the Federal court, within the four month time period for claims to be filed, which ended March 30, 1998, nor did he notify me of any claim.

7. I had no notice until the Plaintiff's action was served on me on July 17, 1998, four months after the claims period had passed. As Personal Representative, I complied with all notice and publication requirements set forth by Minnesota Statutes and the Ramsey County Probate Court.

8. I was notified by the Ramsey County Recorder and the county attorney that Plaintiff's attempt to file commercial liens against us was invalid, so no response was required. After I was advised that the commercial lien had no validity, I turned my attention to other matters concerning the estate.

9. My husband had errors and omissions insurance for himself only. The errors and omissions insurance which covered Charles W. Faulkner, individually, denied coverage, stating that the policy was a "claims only" policy, and that the policy had lapsed when this action was initiated.

10. Faulkner & Faulkner has no malpractice insurance coverage, since I am employed as a public defender through Hennepin County, which provides insurance coverage for my individual actions. I was

End of page 14

not a practicing attorney for Faulkner & Faulkner after my automobile accident, but I acted in an administrative capacity and, occasionally, as a consultant.

11. Faulkner & Faulkner dissolved upon the death of Charles W. Faulkner.

12. I have completed Plaintiff's Request for Admissions.

13. I respectfully refuse to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories at this time, and I urge the court to grant me a Protective Order, since Plaintiff is requesting the most personal identity information from me, and requesting all our financial information without any court decision having been made regarding the Defendants culpability in this matter. Further affiant sayeth naught.

Signed: Sheila Regan Faulkner

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of December, 1998
Signed and stamped by notary.

End of page 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Plaintiff

vs.

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendant's (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE # 98-1621

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO.
U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 698 (1995).

DEFENDANT SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Defendant SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, in response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, states as follows:

End of page 16

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

As to yourself, the Defendant, state:

(a) your full name and all other n~names by which you have been known, your date of birth, and your social security number;

(b) your current address and your permanent address;

Defendant objects to this question on the grounds that the answer would not lead to the discovery of facts relevant to the issues in the case.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify your relationship with the law firm FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorney-at-Law.

ANSWER:

Partner

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Identify each person:

(a) who work at Law Office Management Inc., Suite 500, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 5415, in the years 1994, 1993, and 1992;

(b) who was employed or contracted by Attorney Charles W. Faulkner, in the years 1994, 1993, and 1992;

(d) who was employed or contracted by Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorneys-at-Law, in the years 1994, 1993, and 1992;

(e) who was contracted during the legal representation of Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros;

(f) who was present during any portion of the legal representation of

End of page 17

Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros, other than those persons identified in response to subpart e above; and

(g) who has any knowledge of the facts of the legal representation of Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros, other than those persons identified in response to subparts e and f above.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Question One.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Identify each instance in which you have been arrested in your lifetime. As to each arrest:

(a) identify the state and county where the arrest occurred;

(b) identify all criminal charges filed against you as a result of the arrest, including the case numbers and disposition of the charge; and

ANSWER:

(a) none

(b) none

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Identify all lawsuits to which you have been a party. As to each lawsuit, state:

(a) the nature of the lawsuit;

(b) identify when the lawsuit was filed, including the case numbers and disposition of the lawsuit; and

ANSWER:

See Answer to Question One.

End of page 18

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Identify, in chronological order, each intoxicating substance that Defendant Charles W. Faulkner ingested during the legal representation of Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros. As to each substance:

(a) state the nature of the substance, state the method of ingestion, the quantity ingested, and the time of ingestion;

(b) state the location at which you witnessed or have knowledge of Charles W. Faulkner ingesting the substance; and

ANSWER:

See Answer to Question One.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

State your gross income and adjusted gross income to the United States government for the years 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this question on the grounds that it is premature, and that Defendant is a non-culpable partner whose financial condition is not relevant until judgment has been rendered. Shetka v. Kueppers et al.454 N.W. 2d 916 (Minn. 1990)

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

State Charles W. Faulkner's gross income and adjusted gross income to the United States government for the years 1997,1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Question One.

End of page 19

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

State Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorney-at-Law's gross income and adjusted gross income to the United States government for the years 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Question 7.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Identify, in chronological order, each person, firm, organization, business entity, or other employer that has provided you with employment during your lifetime. As to each employer, state:

(a) the employer's business location, mailing address, and the employer's current telephone number;

(b) the dates you were employed there, the title and description of your job or position; and

ANSWER:

See Answers to Question One and Question 7.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Identify each personal injury, including any medical condition or disease, that you have suffered in the last ten (10) years. As to each injury:

(a) state the date of the injury, the nature of the injury, and the cause of the injury;

(b) state where you were located when the injury occurred and what parts or portions of your body were injured;

(c) identify the health care professionals who treated the injury, and identify the health care institution where you received treatment for the injury.

ANSWER:

See Answers to Question One and Question 7.

End of page 20

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Identify all assets within the estate and/or will of deceased Attorney Charles W. Faulkner.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this question on the grounds that it is premature, since no judgment has been rendered.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Identify all business and personal insurance coverage you, Charles W. Faulkner, and Faulkner & Faulkner possessed during your lifetime. As to each policy, state:

(a) identify the name and nature of each insurance policy;

(b) the insurance company's business location, mailing address, and the current telephone number;

(d) the dates and nature of all claims filed; and

(e) the outcome of all claims filed.

ANSWER:

See Answers to One and Seven.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Identify all lawsuits to which Charles W. Faulkner has been a party. As to each lawsuit, state:

(a) the nature of the lawsuit;

(b) identify when the lawsuit was filed, including the case numbers and disposition of the lawsuit; and

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to answering any additional questions because they exceed the 50 questions allowed pursuant to L.R. 33.1

End of page 21

INTERROGATORY NO. l5:

Identify all lawsuits to which Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorneys-at-Law has been a party. As to each lawsuit, state:

(a) the nature of the lawsuit;

(b) identify when the lawsuit was filed, including the case numbers and disposition of the lawsuit; and

c) what was the final outcome of the lawsuit.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Identify all assets you have. As to each asset, state:

(a) state the nature of the asset;

(b) state the location of the asset;

(d) state all liens and/or debts on the asset.

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Identify all assets within Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorney-at-Law. As to each asset, state:

(a) state the nature of the asset;

(b) state the location of the asset;

(d) state all liens and/or debts on the asset.

End of page 22

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Identify each person, firm, organization, and business entity that has knowledge of the contents within the ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE of deceased Attorney Charles W. Faulkner. As to each, state:

(a) full name, and all other names by which known;

(b) current mailing address;

(d) dates of association and knowledge with the ESTATE/WILL

BUSINESS INSURANCE of deceased Attorney Charles W. Faulkner.

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

End of page 23

Signed: Sheila Regan Faulkner

Notary: Subscribed and sworn before me this 14th day of December, 1998.
Signed by Notary Donna Rae Johnson with Notary Stamp

End of page 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Plaintiff

vs.

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendant's (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE # 98-1621

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO.
U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 698 (1995).

DEFENDANT SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, in response to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions from Defendant, states as follows:

End of page 25

ADMISSION NO. 1:

Faulkner & Faulkner was a law firm located at Suite 500, 701 Fourth Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 in the following years, 1992, 1993 & 1994.

ANSWER:

Admit .

ADMISSION NO. 2:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner worked at Faulkner & Faulkner in 1992, 1993 & 1994, and was a partner in the law firm.

ANSWER:

Admit.

ADMISSION NO. 3:

Attorney Sheila Faulkner, the wife of C. W. Faulkner, worked at Faulkner & Faulkner in 1992, 1993 & 1994 and was a partner in the law firm.

ANSWER:

Complex question cannot be admitted or denied.

ADMISSION NO. 4:

Faulkner & Faulkner employed and/or contracted individuals and corporations/companies as attorneys, paralegals and investigators.

End of page 26

ANSWER:

Occasionally we did.

ADMISSION NO. 5:

Faulkner & Faulkner represented Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, No. CR-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota in 1992, 1993 & 1994 through sentencing.

ANSWER:

Deny.

ADMISSION NO. 6:

Faulkner & Faulkner was paid on a hourly basis by the U.S. Federal Government to represent Plaintiff Lambros in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05).

ANSWER:

Deny.

ADMISSION NO. 7:

Faulkner & Faulkner did not subpoena witnesses during the representation of Plaintiff Lambros.

ANSWER:

Faulkner & Faulkner did not represent Lambros.

ADMISSION NO. 8:

Faulkner & Faulkner did not contact Brazilian Attorneys Carlos Roberto

End of page 27

Schlesinger, Brazilian Order of Attorneys, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil #30.054 and Attorney Nelio Roberto Seidl Machado, Brazilian Order of Attorneys, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil #23.532 who represented Lambros during extradition proceedings from Brazil to the State of Minnesota in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05).

ANSWER:

See answer to admission 7 above.

ADMISSION NO. 9:

Faulkner & Faulkner did not contact or interview employees at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota or the U.S. Marshals that escorted Plaintiff Lambros to Abbott Northwestern Hospital during the representation of Plaintiff Lambros in the years 1992, 1993 and 199a~.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Admission No. 7 above.

ADMISSION NO. 10:

Faulkner & Faulkner did not understand or know or apply the law as to the criminal sentence Plaintiff Lambros could receive if convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05).

ANSWER:

See Answer to Admission 7 above.

ADMISSION NO. 11:

Faulkner & Faulkner informed Plaintiff Lambros that he could only receive a

End of page 28

mandatory life sentence without parole if he was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05).

ANSWER:

See Answer to Admission 7 above.

ADMISSION NO. 12:

Faulkner & Faulkner are guilty of the following injuries to Plaintiff Lambros due to the ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698 (1995):

a. breach of duty (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary);
b. failure to exercise due diligence;

c. negligence;

d. improper advice;

e. failure to interview and subpoena witnesses;

f. failure to consult with and communicate with Plaintiff Lambros;

g. failure to understand or know or apply the law.

ANSWER:

Deny.

ADMISSION NO. 13:

Employees of Faulkner & Faulkner have received letters from clients as to failure to communicate regularly.

ANSWER:

Deny.

End of page 29

ADMISSION NO. 14:

Sheila Regan Faulkner has not responded to the COMMERCIAL LIEN pleadings she was served, from Plaintiff Lambros. The title of the COMMERCIAL LIEN pleadings are: 1) October 16, 1997, A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN AND AFFIDAVIT and the October 16, 1997, PARTIAL LIST OF PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED AND HELD IN ESCROW FOR FUTURE SATISFACTION OF THIS COMMERCIAL LIEN, MAKING THIS LIEN A SECURITY REPRESENTING LIEN CLAIMANTS EQUITABLE INTERESTS. Served on October 20, 1997 to S.R. Faulkner vis U.S. Certified Mail No. P-009-652-488. 2) February 6, 1998 NOTICE OF DEFAULT, "A SECURITY (16 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN THAT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 20, 1997, and AFFIDAVIT with exhibits, served on February 13, 1998 via U.S. Certified Mail No. P-192-019-247, RETURN RECEIPT that was signed and returned to Plaintiff Lambros. 3) April 5, 1998, DEMAND FOR PAYMENT, A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN THAT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 and AFFIDAVIT served on S.R. Faulkner on April 6, 1998 via U.S. Certified Mail No. Z 109-975-356, RETURN RECEIPT signed and returned to Plaintiff Lambros.

ANSWER:

Admit. Advised by clerk of court and the county attorney that claims had no validity.

ADMISSION NO. 15:

Faulkner & Faulkner carried insurance coverage against claims based on negligence in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

End of page 30

ANSWER:

Deny.

ADMISSION NO. 16:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner carried insurance coverage against claims based on negligence in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

ANSWER:

Deny. Policy was "claims only" policy which expired on Faulkner's death.

ADMISSION NO. 17:

Attorney Sheila Regan Faulkner carried insurance coverage against claims of negligence in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

ANSWER:

Deny.

ADMISSION NO. 18:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner is dead.

ANSWER:

Admit.

ADMISSION NO. 19:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner had life and/or term life insurance when he died.

End of page 31

ANSWER:

Admit.

ADMISSION NO. 20:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner made a disposition (will) of his real and personal property to take effect after his death.

ANSWER:

Admit.

ADMISSION NO. 21:

Attorney Charles W. Faulkner researched the law as to the criminal sentence Plaintiff Lambros could receive if convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(06), before plea bargain negotiations started between Plaintiff Lambros and U.S. Assistant Attorney Douglas Ray Peterson and reviewed the March 7, 1990 letter from the U.S. Marshals, District of Minnesota, to the Chief Postal Inspector with U.S. Assistant Attorney Douglas Ray Peterson.

ANSWER:

Sheila Faulkner does not have sufficient information to admit or deny.

ADMISSION NO. 22:

Plaintiff Lambros did not have knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information that affected his decision and willingness to go to trial? (See, U.S. vs. JOHNSON, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (In the context of a defendant acceptance of a plea of guilty, the harmlessness inquiry naturally should focus on "whether the defendant's knowledge and comprehension of the FULL AND CORRECT

End of page 32

information would have been likely to affect his willingness to plead guilty.) & U.S. vs. HERNDON, 7 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993) (the relevant question is not whether the mandatory minimum had an effect on the sentence . . . [but] whether AWARENESS of a mandatory minimum would have affected the defendant's decision to plead guilty.")

ANSWER:

See Answer 21 above.

ADMISSION NO. 23:

Faulkner & Faulkner has not responded to the COMMERCIAL LIEN pleadings as they were served by Plaintiff Lambros.

ANSWER:

Admit. See Answer 14 above.

ADMISSION NO. 25:

Sheila Regan Faulkner, Defendant in this action agrees with all statements within Plaintiffs initial Declaratory Judgment Action/Complaint filed and served to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in this action and all statements within the Commercial Lien filings she has received to date.

ANSWER:

Deny.

End of page 33

Signed: Sheila Regan Faulkner

Notary: Subscribed and sworn before me this 14th day of December, 1998.
Signed by Notary Donna Rae Johnson with Notary Stamp

End of page 34

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is: http://brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://brazilboycott.org