In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 30 – In one of the FARC cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Samark Jose Lopez Bello is seeking to intervene, back on June 22 Judge J. Paul Oetken held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it, see below.

 On July 9 in a parallel case before Judge Andrew L. Carter, the plaintiffs reported on cash turnovers by UBS, BB&T (now Truist), Raymond James and others to the tune of $51 million. But Citibank has not turned over the funds, and that is the rub. The case is Stansell et al v. Revolutionary Armed forces of Colombia (FARC).

   On June 22 before Judge Oetken, surprisingly, Citibank which appeared in a parallel case before SDNY Judge Andrew L. Carter, was not present.

These despite a June 5 filing that the case would be addressing issues "regarding whether the Citibank assets are 'subject to TRIA attachment and execution.'"

  Judge Oetken called this a "metaphysical" issue, a word then repeatedly used by counsel.

 Now in last August, Citibank has filed this proposed order: "This stipulation is made by and among Plaintiffs Olivia Pescatore et al. (the “Pescatores”), Garnishee Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”), and Intervenors Samark Jose Lopez Bello and Yakima Trading Corp. (collectively, the “Intervenors”). The Pescatores, Citibank, and the Intervenors are collectively referred to as the “Parties.”  WHEREAS, on or about February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs Keith Stansell et al. (the “Stansells”) served a writ of garnishment on Citibank in the Southern District of Florida;  WHEREAS, on March 18, 2019, Citibank filed an Answer to the writ in the Southern District of Florida;  WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, Citibank filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim and Crossclaims in the Nature of Interpleader joining the Intervenors and SIX as potential adverse claimants to a certain blocked custody account (the “Blocked Account”);  WHEREAS, on April 30, 2020, the Southern District of Florida entered an order transferring the proceedings related to Citibank to the Southern District of New York in the matter of Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”), No. 16 Misc. 405 (the “Stansell Case”), which is currently pending before the Honorable Andrew J. Carter;  WHEREAS, on or about May 14, 2020, the Pescatores caused a writ of execution to be served on Citibank in the Southern District of New York relating to the Blocked Account;  WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, with the consent of all parties in the Stansell Case, Citibank filed a Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim and Crossclaims in the Nature of Interpleader joining the Pescatores as additional adverse claimants to the Blocked Account;  WHEREAS, on August 17, 2020, the Pescatores filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment in the above-referenced matter (the “Pescatore Turnover Motion”) seeking turnover of the Blocked Account;  WHEREAS, on August 25, 2020, the Pescatore Turnover Motion was reassigned to Judge Carter, who is presiding over the Stansell Case;

  NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that: 1. The time for any responses to the Pescatore Turnover Motion shall be adjourned until a briefing schedule on the Pescatore Turnover Motion is set by further order of the Court." Watch this site.

 Back on June 26, after 5 pm, this was filed to Judge Oetken: " Re: Pescatore, et al. v. Palmera Pineda, et al., No. 1:18-mc-00545-JPO Dear Judge Oetken: On June 22, 2020, this Court held a telephonic conference with the Pescatore Plaintiffs and Intervenors Samark Jose Lopez Bello and Yakima Trading Corporation (“Intervenors”). During the call, the Plaintiffs notified the Court that they wished to seek an extension of time to complete the execution and turnover proceedings related to their judgment against the FARC terrorist organization and its agents and instrumentalities. See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(e). Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby move for this time extension pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5234(c), which is detailed below, and respectfully request that this extension be ordered on or before July 3rd to preserve Plaintiffs’ priority under New York law. Plaintiffs seek an extension under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5234(c), which states: (c) Priority of other judgment creditors. Where personal property or debt has been ordered delivered, transferred or paid, or a receiver thereof has been appointed by order, or a receivership has been extended thereto by order, and the order is filed before the property or debt is levied upon, the rights of the judgment creditor who secured the order are superior to those of the judgment creditor entitled to the proceeds of the levy. Where two or more such orders affecting the same interest in personal property or debt are filed, the proceeds of the property or debt shall be applied in the order of filing. Where delivery, transfer, or payment to the judgment creditor, a receiver, or a sheriff or other officer is not completed within sixty days after an order is filed, the judgment creditor who secured the order is divested of priority, unless otherwise specified in the order or in an extension order filed within the sixty days. (emphasis added).

This extension is necessary because Plaintiffs will be unable to complete their execution within the 60 day time period. The Intervenors seek to raise several legal issues that are likely to delay the resolution of any execution and turnover proceedings. In addition, Plaintiffs recently obtained discovery concerning the nature of the Intervenors’ assets, and Plaintiffs have agreed to share this information with the Intervenors. Therefore, to ensure the Plaintiffs maintain their priority and rights, if any, to the assets of the Intervenors in relation to any other judgment creditors, Plaintiffs believe it is vital to obtain a time extension pursuant to § 5234(c) so that this Court can fully resolve the legal rights of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the time requirement in § 5234(c) to complete execution be tolled until this Court rules otherwise. Plaintiffs have not previously requested any extensions of time, and the Intervenors do not oppose this motion and reserve their rights to assert all available defenses."

The Judge Carter case has a conference in July.

This case is PESCATORE et al, 18-mc-545 (Oetken).

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for