luis alejandro aguilar p. abogado.€¦ · 07/02/2013 · is the sole shareholder of aguilar &...

Luis Alejandro Aguilar P.Abogado.

Aguilar & Aguilar, Abogados.407 Av. Francisco de Miranda, Edif. Panalpina, Piso 1, Ofic. 1-1, Los Ruices, Caracas 1071, Venezuela.Tel. +58-212-237.6877 , +58-212-237.8277, +58-212-237.7526. Fax +1-786-228.0559. Mob. +58-414-118.9381

E-Mail : [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected] (PGP Services Enabled).

Boca Raton, Florida, February 7, 2013.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.c/o James Gallo, Esq. , Legal Assistance,Division of Economic Justice,Investor Protection Bureau,Office of the Attorney General,State of New York Department of Law,The CapitolAlbany, NY 12224-0341.

Via: U.S. Mail

Re.: Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. / Dennis P. McNamaraRef. No.: 12/000672Matter ID: 1055568

Dear Mr. Gallo,

1 Thank you for your letter dated January 9, 2013.2 I will focus on two paragraphs of your letter.

“Because of the volume of complaints the Bureau receives and the limitsof our resources, the Bureau is unable to act on every complaint. Rather,the Bureau seeks to remedy repeated fraud or illegality by individuals andfirms that sell securities in or from New York State.

When the actions complained of appear to affect many investors or thepublic at large, the Bureau may decide to investigate or take enforcementaction. Any law enforcement action we bring on behalf of the state willbe directed at stopping illegal activities and punishing wrongdoers.”

3 The actions complained of do affect the public interests and public policies of the United Statesof America and public interests of the State of New York.

4 Pimjo Organization, as defined below, is an organization for charitable purposes that requiresprotection.

5 The actions complained of do affect the reputation and prestige of New York as a reliable

AH & A Services, LLC. 200 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 360, Key Biscayne, Florida 33149, U. S. A.

Tel. +1-305-361.7755. Dir. +1-561-459.1980. Fax +1-786-228.0559. Mob. +1-561-251.7697.Aguilar & Aguilar Limited.

Level 31, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.Tel. +64-9-363.3391, +64-9-889.2143 Dir. Fax.+64-9-358.7340 or +1-786-228.0559.

mailto:[email protected]




Luis Alejandro Aguilar P., Abogado. 2407 Av. Francisco de Miranda, Edif. Panalpina, Piso 1, Ofic. 1-1, Los Ruices, Caracas 1071, Venezuela.

February 7, 2013. Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq. Office of the Attorney General, State of New York.

worldwide financial center.6 The illegal actions taking place in Venezuela were and are being orchestrated in New York.7 In order to understand this case, it is necessary to explain two essential elements to apprehend

the status quo. One is the correct structure of the entities and its links with the persons which noteven Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. understands yet after more than a year and the other is the pointof inflection of the immediate conflict and the difference with the whole conflict.

8 The structure is depicted as follows:

9 The basic structure has been the same since July 7, 2009. 10 From top to bottom and from left to right, the explanation is the following:10.1 Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo is a Venezuelan citizen, resident of the United States of America,

lawyer empowered to take all decisions concerning legal matters. Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo






is the sole shareholder of Aguilar & Aguilar Limited, a New Zealand company.10.2 The directors of Aguilar & Aguilar Limited are Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo, Carlos Ignacio

Aguilar López and Adriana Vollmer de Marcellus, all Venezuelan lawyers.10.3 In accordance with a Deed of Nomination and Acknowledgement of Beneficial Interest, Aguilar

& Aguilar Limited is the sole shareholder of Carisma Prima Limited holding the shares of suchcompany in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of such person as finally determined inaccordance with the Plan of Revitalization dated January 17, 2012 or for the AlternateBeneficiaries if it is finally determined that the Plan of Revitalization dated January 17, 2012may not be carried out. The Alternate Beneficiaries are all charitable institutions that had beennamed as universal heirs of the deceased Josef Grootkerk Zeldenrust in his last will immediatelybefore to the last.

10.4 Carisma Prima Limited is the trustee of two New Zealand foreign resident trusts: The XavierTrust and The Joseph Trust. Both trusts were settled by non-resident New Zealand persons. Thebeneficiaries are such persons as finally determined in accordance with the Plan of Revitalizationdated January 17, 2012 or the Alternate Beneficiaries if it is finally determined that the Plan ofRevitalization dated January 17, 2012 may not be carried out. The Alternate Beneficiaries areall charitable institutions that had been named as universal heirs of the deceased Josef GrootkerkZeldenrust in his last will immediately before to the last.

10.5 The Xavier Trust is the limited partner of a commercial Dutch limited partnership known asPimjo Trust CV while the Joseph Trust is the General or Managing Partner of Pimjo Trust CV.

10.6 Pimjo Trust, C.V. is a "commanditaire vennootschap" (limited partnership) created under thelaws of The Netherlands in accordance with article 19 of the Dutch Commercial Code ("Wetboekvan Koophandel") on July 19, 2001 in accordance with a Deed of Incorporation executed beforeMr. Eelko Drewes Smit, civil law notary residing at The Hague, Netherlands.

10.7 The Deed of Incorporation of Pimjo Trust CV was amended on July 7, 2009 and is attachedhereto as Exhibit "1". The Deed of Creation as Amended on July 7, 2009 was further amendedon April 15, 2012 by the Unanimous Resolution of the Partners of Pimjo Trust CV of April 15,2012 which is attached as Exhibit "2". The Reinstated Deed of Creation as Amended on April15, 2012 is attached as Exhibit "3".

10.8 Pimjo Trust CV has two assets, namely: the Account and the checking account at UMB BankNA.

11 The point of inflection which originated the immediate conflict being brought to this Courtoccurred on January 17, 2012, when the Board of Directors of Aguilar & Aguilar Limited, a NewZealand company, being the sole shareholder of Carisma Prima Limited, a New Zealandcompany, approved the Plan of Revitalization of Pimjo Organization.

12 In order to ease the reading of this document, the term "Pimjo Organization" will be used to referto "Carisma Prima Limited as Trustee of the Joseph Trust acting in its capacity as General /Managing Partner of Pimjo Trust CV, originally a Dutch Civil Law (Continental Law) limitedpartnership, and as Trustee for the Xavier Trust acting in its capacity as Limited Partner of PimjoTrust CV".

13 On the very same day, in a meeting of shareholders of Carisma Prima Limited duly convened,






the shareholders of Carisma Prima Limited approved the Plan of Revitalization of PimjoOrganization and its implementation. The Plan of Revitalization of Pimjo Organization consistedof two main steps: the plan of intervention of the Board of Directors of Carisma Prima Limitedand the plan of institutionalization of Pimjo Organization. The plan of intervention of the Boardof Directors implied the expulsion of Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and of Messrs. JorgeMateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo fromtheir offices as directors of Carisma Prima Limited, their immediate cessation as directors andthe revocation of all their powers.

14 The reason for the dismissal of the abovementioned individuals was that there was uncontestableand definitive proof that those individuals were involved irremediably, by action or omission,knowingly and intentionally, in illegal actions that a court of law would consider as white collarcrimes and organized crime.

15 Basically, on March 26, 2012, Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and of Messrs. Jorge MateoRedmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo (i) declaredto Dennis P. McNamara their wish to be allowed to inspect the documents submitted byLuis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo to Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., (ii) alleged their ignorance of thestructure and of the documentation, (iii) mentioned that they should not have been dismissed asdirectors of Carisma Prima Limited, (iv) mentioned that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo hadresigned as director of Carisma Prima Limited, (v) implied that they should have the control ofthe ownership of Pimjo Organization and (vi) asked advise from Dennis P. McNamara in theform of question(s).

16 The whole and complete conflict starts in August 10, 2010 - the date of the first paramount event- when Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo discovered that Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter andothers falsified the financial statements of Chocolates El Rey, C.A., used those faked documentsto fraudulent and illegally maintain and increase the lines of credit with financial institutions anddefraud the shareholders, embezzlement of funds by Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter and otherirregularities.

17 The second paramount event occurred in February 2011 when Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardodiscovered the embezzlement of US$ 500,000.00 by Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter for hisown benefit, the misuse of funds of Chocolates El Rey, Inc., a Delaware corporation andregistered as foreign corporation in the State of Texas and prohibited a certain transaction ofpurchase of treasury stock which would have been a fraudulent act.

18 The third paramount event occurred in February 2011 when Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardoobjected to certain transactions performed by Chocolates El Rey, C.A.

19 The fourth paramount event - which triggered and initiated the conflict with Oppenheimer & Co.,Inc. and which unraveled the misconducts of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. - took place whenLuis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo was notified by John Gayle Pettus Jaso, Branch Manager of thesecret and illegal office operated illegally by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., on September 2011 thatthe Compliance Department of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. had "discovered" that he was servingas officer of non-party Fundación Pimjo, A.C. (event that was impossible to be believed) and thathe had to resign with the consequence that the Account lacked authorized signatories.






20 The fifth paramount event took place when the said John Gayle Pettus Jaso revealed theexistence of certain suspicious wire transfers made out of the Account about which Ms. AstridKristina Redmond Horn and Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús AlfonzoHernández and Germán Toro Arévalo refused to give explanations when requested. Thesuspicious will later on grow even further when Luis Ugalde, s.j. - a non-party jesuist priestdomiciled in Caracas, Venezuela, on March 16, 2012, will request to be paid out of the Accountfor amounts that were already included in the list of suspicious wire transfers alreadyeffectuated.

21 The sixth paramount event occurred on December 2011 when Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardoreceived uncontestable and definitive proof that Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and ofMessrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán ToroArévalo were involved irremediably, by action or omission, knowingly and intentionally, inillegal actions that a court of law would consider as white collar crimes and organized crime andthat Messrs. Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo had been portraying asindependent, uninterested, autonomous and self- directing directors of Carisma Prima Limitedwhen they were not.

22 The Plan of Revitalization of Pimjo Organization dated January 17, 2012 is attached hereto asExhibit "4". In my opinion, there is nothing but laudable in the Plan of Revitalization of PimjoOrganization dated January 17, 2012.

23 Regarding the motion to Intervene, I request authorization from the Court to intervene in thistrial with the objective of defending indirectly the interests of Carisma Prima Limited as Trusteeof the Joseph Trust acting in its capacity as General / Managing Partner of Pimjo Trust CV,originally a Dutch Civil Law (Continental Law) limited partnership, and as Trustee for theXavier Trust acting in its capacity as Limited Partner of Pimjo Trust CV.

24 The objectives that I pursue with my intervention are mentioned in the paragraphs below.25 To propose to the Court that the real truth behind this action is to futilely cover up illicit acts

performed by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. and to escape from liabilities incurred by Oppenheimer& Co., Inc.

26 To propose to the Court that the present action is being brought as a fraudulent use of thejudiciary system of the United States of America in order to cover up illegal acts performed byOppenheimer & Co., Inc. and to escape from liabilities incurred Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.

27 To propose to the Court that the present action is being brought in order to exert undue andunjust duress - bordering in a kind of extortion - against Pimjo Organization in order to coverup illegal acts performed by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. and to escape from liabilities incurredOppenheimer & Co., Inc.

28 To propose to the Court that this action is not really about Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. being unableto determine which entity and/or individual have the authority to instruct Plaintiff with regardto the Account. As a matter of fact, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. already knows - since July 19,2001 when Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. itself through its own employees created Pimjo Trust CVin The Netherlands and executed without authorization the original creation document of PimjoTrust CV and the "New Account Application" document dated October 11, 2001 - that the






account title is Pimjo Trust CV and that the individual who has authority to instruct Plaintiff withregard to the Account is such person who represents Pimjo Trust CV either because is theAttorney-in-Fact of Pimjo Trust CV or is the legal representative of the Managing Partner ofPimjo Trust CV who is Carisma Prima Limited as Trustee of the Joseph Trust. Therefore, simplelogic indicates that the issue consists in determining who is the human being who is theAttorney-in-Fact and/or legal representative of the Managing Partner of Pimjo Trust CV.

29 Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo is the only human being who has been Attorney-in-Fact and/orlegal representative of the Managing Partner of Pimjo Trust CV since the inception of CarismaPrima Limited.

30 To propose to the Court that it is untrue that Plaintiff is unable to determine which of thedefendants may be entitled to the assets or some portion of the assets in the Account since thereis no dispute that the account title and owner of the Account is Pimjo Trust CV and sinceOppenheimer & Co., Inc. has actively participated in Pimjo Organization from January 25, 1995until and including even today. There is no dispute about the corporate structure of PimjoOrganization since none but Plaintiff has concluded that the corporate structure of PimjoOrganization is the one depicted supra. To worsen off the position of Plaintiff, it was its duty toknow for certain the corporate structure of Pimjo Organization since its own employees and thespecific person with the duty to monitor the corporate structure of Pimjo Organzation was adirector with limited authority of the holding of Pimjo Trust CV. Plaintiff is aware of theexistence of the alternative dispute resolution clauses contained in the Deed of Creation of PimjoTrust CV that might have solved the underlying conflict swiftly. Indeed, in one circumstanceduring this conflict a binding solution with authority of res judicata with effects erga omnesmight have been obtained in 72 hours. Since Plaintiff was actively involved in the activities ofPimjo Organization because acting in it through its own employees, it should be held thatPlaintiff had constructive notice of all the terms governing Pimjo Organization and it is boundto them.

31 To propose to the Court that it is untrue that Plaintiff has no other means than this action ofprotecting itself against the threat of multiple liability from the defendants claims since it isOppenheimer & Co., Inc.'s duty to know at all times the identites, the characteristics, and thecharacters - up to and including its ultimate beneficiaries - of all its clients and it already knowsthose elements without doubt. Every time Plaintiff alleges its own ignorance is confessing itsgross negligence if not its intentions whose qualification might go well beyond the definition ofgross negligence. In this line of thought, I propose to the Court the principle "Nemo auditurpropiam turpitudinem allegans" barring Plaintiff to allege in its favor its own turpitude maximewhen at the very same time such actions constitute a gross violation of legal duties imposed, bythe federal laws of the United States of America aiming to protect the public interest, upon hewho pretends to plea such turpitude in its own benefit.

32 To propose to the Court that there is no threat of multiple liability from the defendants claimssince there are no threats from defendants. The alleged threats are unreal and invented in a sortof self-anticipated theatrical fear to pose as victim of circumstances beyond its control and havebeen expressed by "eventual claimants" - Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina






Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo - who are incapableof exercising, now or in the future, the representation of Pimjo Trust CV and PimjoOrganization. I would even propose to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. - save for thetestimonies of its Caracas Branch Manager John Gayle Pettus Jaso (who is the very first andefficient cause of this conflict as Plaintiff is concerned) - has no clue or evidence or proof of theidentities of Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael JesúsAlfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo or their counsels and the powers of such counselsand I would further propose to the Court that Plaintiff lacks any idea of the nature of such unrealand invented self-anticipated theatrical threats. Moreover, the only basis supporting a "threat"is mentioned in Exhibit F of the Complaint as per paragraph 26, page 6 of the AmendedComplaint filed January 14, 2013. The quoted text by Plaintiff was taken out of context.Actually, Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael JesúsAlfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo were requesting access to the documents thatLuis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo had delivered to Plaintiff. The complete quote taken verbatimshould have been:

"At this point, with no information in our possession, (LAA, as legal counsel,all of the Foundation's files have been in his possession and he has refused totum them over) we cannot accept just turning over this account to LAA.Therefore, we ask that you please remit copies of these for us to us to review.We wouldbe willing to travel to New York to meet with you and review theentire situation to try to arrive at some conclusion.Lastly, while we do not wish to enter into any legal proceedings, we feel wemust reserve our right to question the actions taken by LAA. We must alsoreserve our right to question any decision on your part to give him access to thefunds without allowing us to make a proper review of documentation whichyou indicate empowers him to make the changes he has apparently made.Please excuse us for any inconvenience, however, you must agree that giventhe size ofthe account and the implications of upsetting everything that we havebeen doing up until this time, it would be irresponsible to make any decisionswithout a proper review of the facts."

33 Two issues show up from the above quoted paragraphs: the right reserved was "…to questionany decision on your part to give him access to the funds without allowing us to make a properreview of documentation…" and the statement asserting that Plaintiff had acknowledged therights of Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo in the following sentence: "…review of documentationwhich you indicate empowers him to make the changes…"

34 The fact omitted by Plaintiff is that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo immediately upon knowingpartially the content of Exhibit F of the Complaint on August 2, 2012 did authorize several timesPlaintiff - starting August 7, 2012 - to allow the review of documents requested by Jorge MateoRedmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández andGermán Toro Arévalo on March 26, 2012. In one of those several opportunities Luis-AlejandroAguilar-Pardo wrote:






"I reiterate, repeat, restate, retell and iterate that, if you do not have doneit already, I am not oppossed that you allow them to make a properreview of documentation. If this is the problem, please tell them to makea list of the documents they wish to review and everyone is happy. I willreserve confidential and all every letter and communications exchangedbetween Oppenheimer and us. But any documents pertaining oficially toPimjo Trust CV or Carisma Prima Limited may be inspected by them. Soask them to make the list of documents they wish to see, I authorize thosecorporate documents, I will ask for approval to surrender thosedocuments to the exdirectors for their review."

35 There are two possibilities for Plaintiff to have reacted to this unmistakable authorization:Plaintiff did comply with my instructions in August 2012 and allowed Jorge Mateo RedmondSchlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán ToroArévalo to review the documents or Plaintiff disobeyed and failed once again to comply with myinstructions and did not allow the aforementioned persons to review the documentation. Underthe first possibility, in the absence of a threat received after the review of documents on or aftersuch review having taken place by Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina RedmondHorn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo - which should be dated afteron or after August 2012 - this action is baseless and unfounded for lack of threat. Under thesecond possibility, it is the very same Plaintiff who is causing damages to everyone due to itsown voluntary disobedience and gross negligence.

36 If Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús AlfonzoHernández and Germán Toro Arévalo believed that Plaintiff should have allowed them to reviewthe documents, such individuals should have filed a suit to compel Plaintiff to show and producethe documents requested for review. That action did not take place.

37 If Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús AlfonzoHernández and Germán Toro Arévalo believed that they should not have been expelled from theoffices of Carisma Prima Limited, they should have filed a suit in New Zealand to compelCarisma Prima Limited or its sole shareholder - to re-appoint them as directors of Carisma PrimaLimited. That action did not take place.

38 As a matter of fact, Plaintiff has not initiated any action before this one in more than a year andJorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús AlfonzoHernández and Germán Toro Arévalo have initiated none.

39 This Court may conclude what it is missing from the facts: nor Plaintiff neither Jorge MateoRedmond Schlageter, Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández andGermán Toro Arévalo have initiated any actions anywhere but, to the contrary, have beenrefusing mediations and have been running away from the courts of law, the mediators and thearbitrators of the United States f America, of New Zealand and of Venezuela.

40 Had Plaintiff acted as a true fiduciary, it would have filed this action on May 2012.41 I was informed by Mr. Michael Gibson, Counsel for Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was willing to

withdraw this action from this Court and re-file it in a State court.






42 For Plaintiff to be threatened by the eventual claimants - Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter,Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo -such persons should bring actions on behalf of Pimjo Trust CV against Plaintiff and for so doing,such persons must (i) assume control of the shares of Carisma Prima Limited either by force -which would be a fraudulent act - or either by an arbitration award or by a ruling of a court ofNew Zealand if the arbitration fails for whatever reason, (ii) cease Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardoas director of Carisma Prima Limited and revoke his powers and the Power of Attorney issuedto Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo, (iii) amend the Constitution of Carisma Prima Limited in orderto abrogate the anti-corruption and protection clauses existing in the Constitution of CarismaPrima Limited which impede them from being directors if they wish to be re-appointedthemselves as directors, (iv) abrogate the Plan of Revitalization of Pimjo Organization datedJanuary 17, 2012 embodied in the Constitution of Carisma Prima Limited, (v) defraud the lawsof New Zealand if they wish to be re-appointed themselves as directors of Carisma PrimaLimited since they are disqualified to serve as directors of Carisma Prima Limited or if theyappoint nominees to act on their behalf , (vi) amend the Deed of Creation of Pimjo Trust CVLimited in order to abrogate the anti-corruption and protection clauses existing in the Deed ofCreation of Carisma Prima Limited, (vii) abrogate the Plan of Revitalization of PimjoOrganization dated January 17, 2012 embodied in the Deed of Creation of Pimjo Trust CV, (viii)assume control of the Account and , finally, (ix) must sue Plaintiff for acting fraudulently inconcert with Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo to cause damages to Pimjo Trust CV. The possibilityof this events happening is zero.

43 To propose to the Court that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo has a legitimate interest in thesatisfactory solution of this case and that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo is actually entrapped forthe following reasons:

43.1 Failure to confront and contest the issue of the adulteration of the financial statements ofChocolates El Rey, C.A., a non-party third person in which I shared its directorship, amongothers, with Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández andGermán Toro Arévalo would have meant becoming accomplice of crimes against Ley Generalde Bancos y Otras Instituciones de Crédito of November 13, 2001, July 31, 2008, December 23,2009, August 19, 2010, Ley de Instituciones del Sector Bancario of March 2, 2011, Code ofCommerce, Ley Orgánica Contra la Delincuencia Organizada and Penal Code of Venezuela andbeing subject to convictions for prison terms and stiff penalties;

43.2 Failure to confront and contest the issue of the violations of foreign exchange violationscommitted by non-party Chocolates El Rey, C.A. would have meant becoming accomplice offaults and subject to prison terms, confiscation of assets, reimbursements and stiff penaltiesunder Ley de Régimen Cambiario of May 17, 1995, Ley Contra los Ilícitos Cambiarios ofSeptember 14, 2005, December 28, 2007, February 27, 2008 and May 17, 2010;

43.3 Failure to confront and contest the issues of the violations committed by Mr. Jorge MateoRedmond Schlageter in non-party Chocolates El Rey, Inc., a Delaware corporation, would havemeant liabilities under the laws of the State of Texas and/or of the State of Delaware andviolation of my fiduciary duties vis-à-vis the non-parties shareholders of non-party Chocolates






El Rey, C.A. under the laws of New Zealand facing prison terms;43.4 Failure to confront and contest the issues of the extraction of assets from non-party Amix Harbor

Chocolates Prima Limited as trustee of non-parties US Matrix Trust, The Japan Matrix Trust andThe Premium Brands Trust would have meant violation of my fiduciary duties vis-à-vis thenon-parties shareholders of non-party Chocolates El Rey, C.A. under the laws of New Zealandfacing prison terms;

43.5 Failure to confront and contest the issues of suspicious wire transfers ordered by Ms. AstridKristina Redmond Horn and/or Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageter, Rafael JesúsAlfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo with the assistance of Plaintiff's Caracas BranchManager John Gayle Pettus Jaso employee would have meant liabilities under Ley para laProtección de la Autodeterminación y Soberanía Nacional of Venezuela facing stiff penalties andviolating my fiduciary duties vis-à-vis Pimjo Organization under the laws of New Zealand facingprison terms;

43.6 Failure to confront and contest the issues of removing Mr. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageter - as announced on August 2012 - and / or Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and/or Messrs.,Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo as directors of Carisma PrimaLimited and the revocation of their powers to represent Pimjo Trust CV after having actualknowledge and spontaneous confessions in writing of being responsible of dishonest activitieswhich a court of law may find as illicit actions, would have meant liabilities of my fiduciaryduties under the laws of New Zealand facing prison terms;

43.7 Failure to denounce the existence of the secret branch office of Plaintiff in Caracas, Venezuelaand its involvement in illegal activities would have meant liabilities of my fiduciary duties underthe laws of New Zealand facing prison terms, violation of Ley de Abogados and of Código deEtica del Abogado Venezolano vis-à-vis Ley de Mercado de Capitales of October 22, 1998,August 17, 2010 and November 5, 2010 as well as eventually cooperating by acquiescence withactivities against the public interests and public policies of the United States of America andVenezuela facing sanctions and / or liabilities in Veneuela, United States of America and NewZealand and failure to comply with my duties to protect the persons and assets upon havingknowledge of the existence of illegal activities;

43.8 Failure to defend the assets of Pimjo Trust CV would mean exposure for violation of myfiduciary duties under the laws of New Zealand facing prison terms and exposure to personalliability vis-à-vis Pimjo Organization;

43.9 Returning to Venezuela might expose Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo to illegal and de factoretaliation from the Venezuela Nomenklatura if I do not cooperate and social retaliation if Icooperate with the Nomenklatura of that country. From a personal point of view, cooperatingwith the Nomenklatura of Venezuela would force me to act against my beliefs in passiveresistance and strategic nonviolent action. Since the Venezuela Nomenklatura is already awareof the facts and there is public knowledge of the links existing between the VenezuelaNomenklatura and irregular groups operating in Venezuela (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación deColombia "FARC", Frente Bolivariano de Liberación Nacional "FBLN", Fuerzas Bolivarianasde Liberación, Ejército Bolivariano de Liberación, Ejército de Liberación Nacional "ELN" and






urban insurgency groups) plus the possibility that those groups might mistakenly imagine thatI have control to move assets from the Account, the possibility of being kidnapped for ransomis larger than zero. Actually, I took actions to somehow protect myself which werecommunicated to Plaintiff who did nothing.

43.10 Failure to investigate, confront and contest the possibility of the existence of "tainted money"and being involved involuntarily in money-laundering activities would mean exposure forviolation of my fiduciary duties under the laws of New Zealand, exposure to personal liabilityvis-à-vis Pimjo Organization and immense problems with the agencies empowered withenforcing money laundering legislation around the globe;

44 To propose to the Court that Plaintiff is not a victim or passive agent of the status quo but, to thecontrary, is the active agent and first cause of the actual problem facing Pimjo Organizationwhich is, in fact, the real victim of Plaintiff actions.

45 To propose to the Court that Plaintiff has acted fraudulently.46 To propose to the Court that Plaintiff has acted in fraud against this Court and intends to

continue with its tactic of delaying the resolution of this case.47 To propose to the Court that, if it is finally determined that Plaintiff has not acted fraudulently,

it has incurred in unjustifiable gross negligence, have incurred in unjustifiable misrepresentationof the real facts and has grossly unfulfilled its duties of due diligence, "know your client"investigations, and protection of the security of the financial industry for more than 9 years notmentioning that has unfulfilled its duties vis-à-vis the Internal Revenue Service concealing thereal identity of the ultimate beneficiary. The answer to the question as to how this was possibleto happen may lie on the fact that it was against the own self- interests of John Gayle Pettus Jaso,Branch Manager of the illegal branch office of Plaintiff in Caracas, Venezuela, a citizen of theUnited States of America, to reveal the true final beneficiary. Therefore, Plaintiff - through itsemployee - devised the gimmick of revealing to the Internal Revenue Service that the finalbeneficiary of Pimjo Trust CV was Pimjo Trust CV itself and impeded any due diligenceinvestigations about Pimjo Trust CV. I venture to propose to the Court that all those elementsof false portrayal of Pimjo Trust CV as a natural individual (a widower and a retired humanbeing), using false addresses, declaring false final beneficiaries, declaring false ultimatebeneficial owner, using a secret account, informing false phone numbers and email addresses(the personal phone number of the client was declared and it appears as such in the computerrecords of Plaintiff as "212-237.6877" but connected to a false address in Amsterdam, TheNetherlands when "212-237.6877" is the office phone number of Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardoin Caracas, Venezuela and the email address declared and recorded in the computer system ofPlaintiff was "[email protected]" when the email address of Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo [email protected]) false marital status, false employment, false entity determination, falseinvestment strategies, false investment objectives, and false characterization of Pimjo Trust CVas a human being that have been discovered during the investigations made by Luis-AlejandroAguilar-Pardo where carefully implemented in order to cause an unjust damage to PimjoOrganization. Please note that my email address "[email protected]" was created on or afterJanuary 11, 2009 so that means that someone knowing and intentionally did indeed access the






records of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. to incorporate such false information in Plaintiff´s recordsafter that date.

48 To file a counterclaim against Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. for restitution of moneys,indemnification of losses and damages caused and punitive damages.

49 To file a cross claim against Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernándezand Germán Toro Arévalo for damages caused. I do not pretend at this very moment to file across claim against Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn since I consider that she - even withouther actually knowing it - is an innocent victim of the misdeeds of his own father Jorge MateoRedmond Schlageter.

50 To file a third-party claim against John Gayle Pettus Jaso and Dennis P. McNamara - employeesof Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. for their illicit actions performed both in New York and in Caracas,Venezuela. I will consider later on if I file a third-party claim against other officers ofOppenheimer & Co., Inc. who might have cooperated in the fraudulent actions and illicitactivities.

51 To move the Court to give actual notice to the proper authorities of the United States of Americaof the facts narrated in this document in order to initiate and take proper action against those whomay be found liable for the wrongdoings, if the court finds any.

52 The direct aggressor of Pimjo Organization in this case is Plaintiff Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.While the Plaintiff poses as an innocent victim of the circumstances, the real fact is that Plaintiffis the primary cause and sole responsible for the status quo both for its illegal business practicesperformed illegally and secretively in Venezuela and because Plaintiff - through its employees- failed to exercise its legal duties and responsibilities. Actually, I pose to the Court theproposition that the circumstances that Plaintiff proclaims being an innocent victim of wereactually a planned conspiracy to deprive the assets in the Account from its legitimate owner.

53 Contrary to what seems on the surface, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. is inadequately filing thisInterpleader Complaint with the hidden agenda of exhausting Pimjo Organization from humanand financial resources and benefiting from the passage of time vis-à-vis the statute of limitationsfor its transgressions.

54 Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo is the only person interfering with the objectives of Oppenheimer& Co., Inc. of not being held accountable for its transgressions. I venture to propose to the Courtthat Plaintiff is or was acting in concert with Ms Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and Messrs.Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo.

55 The Court should know that the day of the conference with the Court on January 22, 2013 wasthe 365th day of Pimjo Organization dealing with the "obstacle" of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.(since 2012 was a leap year). Plaintiff has had in its possession accurate and true documentationsupplied by Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo (by last the account, more than 92 as of September10, 2012) showing the real corporate structure and ownership of the Account and the trueauthority vested upon Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo continuously and without interruption -without solution of continuity - since the incorporation of Carisma Prima Limited on March 31,2008. From spontaneous confession, it is a proven fact that Plaintiff was full and totally unawareof the existence of those documents. Moreover, it seems that its employee John Gayle Pettus






Jaso, Manager of the secret and illegal Branch Office of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. in Caracas,Venezuela concealed those documents presumably for its own benefit. It is my opinion that, byconcealing the documentation, blocking the mandatory due diligence investigations and otherillegal practices such as deviating correspondence addressed to Pimjo Trust CV to addressescontrolled by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., John Gayle Pettus Jaso might have planned to continuehis illegal attempt of taking ownership of the Account initiated in July 19, 2001. Had Idisappeared, the existing documentation in the files of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. would haveallowed John Gayle Pettus Jaso to pose, direct or indirectly, as the owner in control of theAccount even though such documentation was fraudulently produced in 2001 and voided onNovember 29, 2001. From information received from an informant, a case similar like thishypothesis might have happened involving another Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.' s Caracas Branchoffice employee and broker dealer named Karl Krause, now deceased, who, apparently, obtainedcontrol of an account of a deceased client.

56 I refer to Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. as being an "obstacle" because my mandate was and is toreorganize and revitalize Pimjo Organization, expel from the Pimjo Organization individualswho, from information and belief, have incurred in white collar crimes and actions qualified asorganized crimes and to transfer the management and control of Pimjo Organization to newindependent, autonomous, responsible, accountable, honest and emotional and intellectuallyvaluable individuals, transparent and democratically elected to run Pimjo Organization undersound principles of corporate governance. This plan was adopted and approved on January 17,2012 and it is entitled Plan of Revitalization of Pimjo Organization. The Plan of Revitalizationof Pimjo Organization approved on January 17, 2012 has been incorporated within theConstitution (equivalent to the articles of incorporation and by-laws of U. S. corporations) ofCarisma Prima Limited and within the Deed of Creation of Pimjo Trust CV as essential part forthe very existence of both entities. Plaintiff has had actual knowledge and possession of suchplan since the early stages of this conflict. Unfortunately, the more I investigated, the moreOppenheimer & Co., Inc.'s miseries surfaced. Actually, it is ironic and cruel that PimjoOrganization´s primary foe and adversary is the one in custody of the funds without anysupervision and accountability whatsoever and without solving the fundamental issues that affectOppenheimer & Co., Inc. legitimacy. I attach hereto as Exhibit "5" a copy of the letter sent toDennis P. McNamara dated May 8, 2012 explaining how illogical Plaintiff behavior was.

57 I also refer to Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. as being an "obstacle" because it is virtually impossibleto communicate and to interact with human beings representing the Plaintiff who in 365 dayshave been incapable of understanding the facts and the nature of the entities involved in this caseand who are still so confused that have accomplished to cause so much damage and loss of timeand efforts to everyone including this Court.

58 The main adverse circumstances affecting Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. which transformed Plaintiffas a foe of Pimjo Trust CV were:

58.1 Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was operating in secrecy an illegal operation in Caracas, Venezuela.58.2 Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was operating in Venezuela in the financial industry - as fully reserved

and supervised industry as it is the financial industry of the United States of America - without






corporate and governmental authorizations. Around the globe, the local financial entities of everynation and the multinational financial entities have become extremely sensitive areas in orderto protect the public interests of all nations against the threats of terrorism, terrorism financingand money laundering. There is no excuse to have illegal and secret operations in the financialindustry anywhere in the world.

58.3 Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was involved in transactions prohibited in Venezuela, usurpingactivities highly supervised and controlled.

58.4 Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., due to its lack of control and supervision, allowed the existence ofparallel and undetectable flows of moneys not supervised by the governmental agencies of theUnited States of America and of Venezuela empowered to monitor and enforce anti- moneylaundering practices. Moreover, I pose to this Court that from information supplied by aninformant, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. created three identification codes to the accounts openedillegally in Venezuela whose ultimate objective was to conceal the real identities of the clientsfrom the authorities in Venezuela and from the authorities of the United States of America.

58.5 Mutatis mutandi, with the grace of the Court and with the sole purpose of illustrating the extentof the misconducts of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., just imagine a foreign corporation (whether ornot owned by terrorists) opening a secret office in downtown Manhattan with the purpose ofoffering unregistered foreign issued securities to a certain group of the population in the UnitedStates of America, capturing or obtaining funds in U.S. currency in exchange, funneling thosefunds to specific receivers without the knowledge of U.S. authorities, using means of commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state orcountry to another by means governed by the federal laws of the United States of America and/ or regulated by the federal government, with the federal regulatory and enforcement authoritiesnot being aware of the existence of those activities taking place.

58.6 The 29 misconducts detected so far involving Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. and its employees andofficers have been explained in extenso in complaint filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (Complaint Reference Number TCR1344465787941) and with the FinancialIndustry Regulatory Authority (Complaint Number 1960837) and have been presented in anutshell as follows:

"I handle the hypothesis that Carisma Prima Limited as Trustee of theJoseph Trust acting as Managing Partner of the limited partnership PimjoTrust CV might be involuntarily involved in a case dealing with (1)illegal money movements, (2) violations of foreign exchange controls, (3)lack of regulatory compliance and supervision, (4) actions contemplatedas crimes of organized groups qualified as organized associations underLey Orgánica contra la Delincuencia Organizada in Venezuela, (5)failures of mandatory anti-money laundering compliance programs andthe effects of reincidence after Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. NYSE HearingBoard Panel Decision 05-181 of December 29, 2005,(6) failures ofmandatory anti-money laundering compliance programs and the effectsof reincidence after John Gayle Pettus NYSE Hearing Board Decision






06-82 of June 27, 2006, (7) transactions performed without tradingauthorization, (8) money movements out of the account withoutauthorization or registered signatory, (9) opening and operating anaccount 26201338505041 at UMB Bank N.A. without authorization andauthorized signatory,(10)concealing from compliance officers vital dataof the client, (11) violation of conflict of interests rules and Code ofEthics, (12) intentional lack of KYC and compliance reviews, (13)illegalexercise of businesses in the financial sector in Venezuela withoutauthorization, (14) performing illegal banking activities such as wiretransfers expressly reserved to authorized banks, (15) concealinginformation concerning compliance duties, (16) redirecting clients´s mailto brokers controlled addresses different from client´s address, (17)acting as director of client without having cleared conflict of interestsand providing misleading and false information about it, (18) denial tosupply information concerning transactions done with account26201338505041 at UMB Bank NA, (19) supplying false informationabout the Final Beneficiary Owner in W- 8BEN form, (20) filingmisleading information to SEC in Form 10-K concerning the nature oftheir business and their locally operated entity in Venezuela, (21)performing actions against Ley Contra Ilícitos Cambiarios in Venezuela,(22) filing misleading information to SEC about operations in Venezuelaand sources of revenues, (23) recognizing and taking possession ofrevenue produced by illegal activities in Venezuela, (24) exerting undueand unjust pressure threatening client´s representative with aninterpleader action while blocking access to the account in order to,finally, cover up weaknesses due to intentional violation of laws ofVenezuela, (26) performing a movement of funds circa February 15,2012 while the account was allegedly restricted by Oppenheimer andthere was no authorized signatory (26) avoidance of income taxes inVenezuela in order to cover up other hypothesis mentioned before, (27)avoidance of value added taxes in Venezuela in order to cover uphypothesis mentioned before, (28) failure to recognize authority of clientclaiming lack of understanding of a "complex multi-national corporatestructure" created without authorization by Oppenheimer employees andwith the participation of those employees as directors of the "complexmulti-national corporate structure" until their forced resignation inNovember 2011, (29) possibly filing misleading information in forms U4.(30) I handle the hypothesis that the findings mentioned in the NYSEdecisions previously mentioned about transactions through wire transfersand intra-Firm journal transfers between unrelated clients "for noapparent economic benefit" might have involved the use of the account






26201338505041 at UMB Bank N.A., the client´s account inOppenheimer & Co., Inc. and that the economic benefit might have beenillegal foreign exchange transactions where the other part of the completetransaction was done in Bolivars exchanged in Venezuela. I reserve theright to add more circumstances."

59 I attach herewith as Exhibit "6" a copy of the 188-page expanded complaint filed on September10, 2012 with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America whichis materially identical to the complaint filed the same date with the Financial Industry RegulatoryAuthority of the United States of America save for names, dates, addresses and referencenumbers.

60 I propose to this Court to consider that this action involves a delicate issue of internationalcomity vis-à-vis the relationships between the common public interests and public policies of theUnited States of America and the public interests and public policies of República Bolivarianade Venezuela.

61 The Court must be informed that Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional of Venezuela (asort of political intelligence and enforcement secret service and presumably highly infiltrated byagents of the G2 secret service of Cuba) already knows of the activities performed byOppenheimer & Co., Inc. in Venezuela. The same knowledge is shared by several othergovernmental regulatory agencies in Venezuela , namely: the Ministry of the Popular Power forInternal Affairs and Justice, the Ministry of the Popular Power of Planning and Finance, theSuperintendency of Institutions of the Banking Sector, the National Superintendency ofSecurities, and the Office of the National Prosecutor of República Bolivariana de Venezuela.Why no action has been taken yet against Plaintiff is a matter subject to speculation but I propose- without affirming - to the Court two possibilities: One that took place in my presence onAugust 10, 2012 is that Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional of Venezuela is waitingfor my return to Venezuela to take actions against Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. as raiding Plaintiff'soffice and incarcerating its employees. Indeed, I was asked to report to the main offices ofServicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional of Venezuela upon my return to Venezuela. Theinterview - arranged by officers of the Ministry of the Popular Power of Planning and Finance,was with Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional of Venezuela's General SecretaryCoronel Rafael Ruiz - second in command - who showed extreme interest in the case. The Courtmust be informed that the only safe course of action to preserve the assets and personal freedomof Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., its Venezuela based employees, Ms. Astrid Kristina RedmondHorn, and Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández, GermánToro Arévalo and myself is for me not to return to Venezuela even if this action is resolved bythe Court. The other one, suggested by an individual known as "Nikon 1" who contacted me inOctober 2012, is because there might be funds in Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. that belong direct orindirectly to high ranking members of the Venezuelan Nomenklatura (PEPs or PoliticallyExposed Persons), contacted through the secret Caracas Branch Office of Oppenheimer & Co.,Inc. From information supplied by Nikon 1, there seems to be three numerical branch codes forthe accounts opened by the secret branch office of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. in Caracas,






Venezuela, and it seems that two of them are designed to conceal the identities of the clientsfrom the authorities in Venezuela if a leak occurs and one of those two last codes is used toconceal the identities of the clients, as per the informant, even from the authorities of the UnitedStates of America. Additionally, Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional of Venezuelaalready knows about the political activities of Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter andRafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández in Venezuela. The Court should be informed that it is possiblethat Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández, and GermánToro Arévalo might have improperly misused funds of Pimjo Trust CV to finance politicalactivism in Venezuela against the actual Venezuela Nomenklatura with the assistance of Mr.John Gayle Pettus Jaso. The Court should be informed - and I pose the following as anhypothesis - that if the authorities of Venezuela have decided not to take actions against PlaintiffCaracas branch office it might be because of existing links with the actual Nomenklatura inVenezuela. If such is the case, we might be facing issues which might be connected with theForeign Corrupt Practices Act of the United States of America.

62 The Court must be informed that while Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was posing as if "studying" and"verifying" the documentation supplied by Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo, its main concern wasto ascertain how illegal and fragile its status quo in Venezuela was by hiring the Caracas,Venezuela affiliate office of Baker & McKenzie and consulting Eugenio Hernández Bretón, Esq.on this specific matter.

63 The Court must be informed that this "Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.-negotiating/bargaining-parody"of the Interpleader Complaint to be filed at this very same U. S. Court for the Southern Districtof New York dates back to April 9, 2012. I can not imagine that during 281 days, Plaintiff hasbeen able to fail to consider the matter of proper jurisdiction before this Court.

64 Pimjo Organization has vehement and clearly demanded Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. to file theInterpleader Complaint since May 5, 2012 and Plaintiff have failed to comply. Plaintiff took 243days to file the first Interpleader Complaint even though the first draft of the complaint wascirculated by Plaintiff on August 2, 2012 that is: 141 days after circulating the first draft of thecomplaint.

65 Admitting my ignorance about Common Law and of the underlying mechanism of the action ininterpleader, I wrote on May 7, 2012 a 44-page letter to Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. demonstratingthat their actions were against common-sense and universal legal logic. Whether or not Ms.Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael JesúsAlfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo were, just or unjustly, ceased as directors ofCarisma Prima Limited, is a matter that pertains to the laws of New Zealand not to the laws ofthe United States of America. However, the fact that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo is the legalrepresentative of Pimjo Organization is uncontestable. Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn andMessrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán ToroArévalo have the burden of proof to prove that they are directors of Carisma Prima Limitedbecause a court of law or an arbitrator reinstated them as directors in full exercise of their officesand powers. But simile modo, in order for Plaintiff to disobey my instructions, it must assert andprove that I am not the sole Director and Managing Director continuously and without






interruption of Carisma Prima Limited and Attorney-in-Fact of Pimjo Trust CV. Moreover,Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.'s employee and Caracas Office Branch Manager assigned as BrokerDealer of the Account and encharged of regulatory compliance of the Account delivered hisresignation as Director of Carisma Prima Limited on October 31, 2011 to Luis-AlejandroAguilar-Pardo and requested me several times to incorporate my signature as authorizedsignature of the Account which I final and very carefully did on January 23, 2012.

66 At the beginning, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. tried to pose as an uninterested mediator but, inreality, it was a posture to gain time and contain damages. The Court should know that the first8-page draft of the Interpleader Complaint prepared by Plaintiff counsel Satterlee StephensBurke & Burke was emailed to me on August 2, 2012 circa 12:00 m., few hours before aninformal mediation meeting held in Caracas, Venezuela arranged by bona fide persons withMessrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter and Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández - which turnedout to be an occasion to deliver an ultimatum with the intention to force Luis-AlejandroAguilar-Pardo to desist . On August 5, 2012, Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo invested his timeto even correct the first biased draft of the Interpleader Complaint prepared by Plaintiff's counselSatterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP - plagued with mistakes - which, as said, was emailedto me on August 2, 2012 circa 12:00 m in synchrony with the informal mediation meeting to beheld that night. But still both Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff continue today incurring inseveral of those very same mistakes which were repeated in the Interpleader Complaint filed onDecember 20, 2012 and in the Amended Interpleader Complaint filed on February 14, 2013 andincredibly presented to the Court confusingly during the conference held on January 22, 2013. To name a few:

66.1 Characterizing me as a citizen of the United States of America while footnote 1 of page 4 of theAmended Interpleader Complaint stated: "Upon information and belief, Mr. Aguilar is a citizenof the nation of Venezuela" aggravated by the fact that they had a certified copy of my passportsince January 23, 2012.

66.2 Characterizing Carisma Prima Limited as a limited liability company (or as an equivalent of aU.S. limited liability company style of entity) trying to construe a theory similar to the incometax characteristic of a pass through and transparent entity.

66.3 Characterizing Pimjo Trust CV as a trust.66.4 Characterizing Pimjo Trust CV as a charitable trust when it is a commercial law entity.66.5 Paragraph 2 and 7 of the Interpleader Complaint are self-contradictory.66.6 Characterizing non-party Fundación Pimjo A.C. as beneficiary of Pimjo Trust CV (and even of

the The Xavier Trust and The Joseph Trust) having actual knowledge that Fundación Pimjo A.C.had been removed as beneficiary.

66.7 Characterizing The Xavier Trust as the trustee of Pimjo Trust CV.66.8 Characterizing The Joseph Trust as the trustee of Pimjo Trust CV.66.9 Charaterizing the underlying conflict as if there were a dispute between defendants.66.10 Charaterizing the underlying conflict as if there were a dispute with regard to the Account.66.11 Characterizing Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo as member of Carisma Prima Limited when in

paragraph 22 admits that Aguilar & Aguilar Limited (a New Zealand company) is the sole






shareholder of Carisma Prima Limited.66.12 Characterizing Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageter as member of Carisma Prima Limited when

in paragraph 22 admits that Aguilar & Aguilar Limited is the sole shareholder of Carisma PrimaLimited and having actual notice that the last will of Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageterexpressly includes the statement that the estate of the said Jorge Mateo Redmond Schalageterdoes not include any rights over Carisma Limited nor over Carisma Prima Limited.

66.13 Omitting to the Court the existence of Ms. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and Messrs. RafaelJesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo as co-actors.

66.14 Omitting to the Court that Germán Toro Arévalo - weird and strangely - withdrew "fromeverything" connected with Pimjo Organization on August 15, 2012 and became adversary ofMs. Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and Messrs. Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter and RafaelJesús Alfonzo Hernández supplying vital information for enforcing the conflict solution clausesgoverning conflicts in Pimjo Trust CV to Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo and about this case dueto the fact that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. withheld that information to Luis-AlejandroAguilar-Pardo and which was essential to the exercise of the system of resolution of conflictsembodied within the organizational documents of Pimjo Trust CV.

66.15 Paragraph 12 and foot note 1 on page 4 are self-contradictory.66.16 Omitting to the Court that - secretively, illegally and without authorization - the creation of

Pimjo Trust CV and the opening of the Account was undertaken by Plaintiff' s employees fortheir own benefit appointing themselves as limited partners of Pimjo Trust CV against the wishesof Josef Grootkerk Zeldenrust and his last will in order to misappropriate those funds and usingthe funds in the Account to create and maintain such entity and the related entities created bythem together with Pimjo Trust CV. I even propose to the Court the possibility that the documentopening the account with Plaintiff was falsely dated as executed in New York.

66.17 Omitting to the Court that - secretively, illegally and without authorization - Plaintiff's employeesand for their own benefit transferred all assets existing in the account of Pimjo S.A. to theAccount with the intention to circumvent the effects of the last will of Josef GrootkerkZeldenrust.

66.18 Omitting to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. allowed trading in the Account from July19, 2001 until May 19, 2005 and from December 18, 2006 until and including today without anytrading authorization having been granted by the owner of the Account and that Plaintiff allowedmoneys to be extracted from the Account without an authorization ever having been issued tothat effect.

66.19 Referring to Rafael Jesus Alfonzo Hernandez as Rafael Jesus Alfonzao Hernandez.66.20 Referring to Rafael Jesus Alfonzo Hernandez as Mr. Hernandez.66.21 Referring to German Toro Arevalo as Mr. Arevalo.66.22 The Power of Attorney mentioned in paragraph 20 was not issued on July 7, 2009.66.23 Characterizing that the removal of Ms. Redmond and the other ex-directors was a unilateral act

of Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo (mistakenly mentioning Aguilar & Aguilar when the propername is Aguilar & Aguilar Limited, a new Zealand company) and, again, referring to RafaelJesus Alfonzo Hernandez as Mr. Hernandez and to German Toro Arévalo as Mr. Arevalo.






66.24 Mentioning in paragraph 22 that the sole shareholder of Carisma Prima Limited removed Mr.Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo as director of Carisma Prima Limited which is would have beenimpossible under the laws of New Zealand since it is not allowed to have a company in existencewithout directors.

66.25 Omitting to the Court that, quite the contrary, resolution 7 of the SPECIAL RESOLUTION OFTHE SHAREHOLDER dated January 17, 2012 stated: " 7.-THAT the sole shareholder Aguilar& Aguilar Limited does hereby authorize the ratification of Luis Alejandro Aguilar Pardo asDirector and Managing Director of Carisma Prima Limited entrusted to and conferred on any andall of the powers exercisable by the board of directors to be exercised by the Managing Directoras he may think fit. AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following digital signature of LuisAlejandro Aguilar Pardo is hereby authorized as the approved electronic signature of the saidLuis Alejandro Aguilar Pardo, as Director and Managing Director of Carisma Prima Limited,to subscribe and sign any and all necessary forms and correspondence to be issued, sent, faxed,emailed or electronically filed as the said person seems fit". The language of the UnanimousJoint and Special Resolution of the Shareholder and Managing Director of that very same dateis even stronger and was kept in confidence in order to protect the legitimate interests ofinnocent persons and the reputation of the directors being expelled.

66.26 Characterizing that a dispute exists about which entities have authority over the Account. 66.27 Omitting to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. announced and revealed the existence of the

letter (Exhibit D of the Complaint) dated February 9, 2012 - not the existence of the conflict overthe authority to the Account neither the content of such letter - only on March 13, 2012 and evenpromised in writing on March 23, 2012 that the matter of authorizing the access ofLuis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo to the Account was to be solved the week after (between March26 and March 30, 2012). Actually, the full content of the letters in possession of Oppenheimer& Co., Inc. was made available to Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo by Mr. German Toro Arévaloafter August 15, 2012.

66.28 Omitting to the Court that upon having formulated the specific question, Oppenheimer & Co.,Inc. failed to inform that it had received conflicting instructions from the ex-directors.

66.29 Omitting to the Court that the "complex multi-national corporate structure" was created byOppenheimer & Co., Inc. 's employees who participated in it direct and actively from January25, 1995 and claiming repeatedly lack of knowledge of everything important and relevantconcerning its client when the truth is that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was obliged to know -because mandates of the laws of the United States of America - and because it was Oppenheimer& Co., Inc. who created Pimjo Trust CV in sordid circumstances in July 19, 2001 plus the factthat two employees of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. served as active directors or representatives ofpast and present entities of Pimjo Organization. With the grace of the Court, let me suggest thatanyone having the facts so wrong and confused will find the corporate structure a "complexmulti-national corporate structure".

66.30 Omitting to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. was caught lying on March 28, 2012 andreceived a complaint from Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo about that fact because having givenfalse and misleading information about its involvement concerning the secret account opened






at UMB Bank NA, Kansas City, Mo., by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. for Pimjo Trust CV. Thatwas the point of inflection that caused Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. to become adversary of PimjoTrust CV

66.31 Omitting to the Court that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo had requested Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.since May 5, 2012 to file the Interpleader Complaint.

66.32 Omitting to the Court that since circa August 3, 2012, Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo had askedrepeatedly Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. to include him as defendant in the interpleader complaint in order to defend Pimjo Organization from the very same Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. Of course,Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. did not proceed as requested.

66.33 Omitting to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. refused, at least twice and perhaps thrice,mediation.

66.34 Omitting to the Court that Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. does not answer my calls and has prohibitedLuis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo access to, at least, its premises located in Boca Raton, Florida ifnot to all its premises.

66.35 Omitting to the Court the existence of the complaints filed in SEC, FINRA and the Office of theAttorney General of the State of New York against Plaintiff.

66.36 Omitting to the Court the existence of the complaint filed in the Office of the Attorney Generalof the State of Texas against Jorge Mateo Redmond Schlageter et al. for misuse of funds ofnon-party Chocolates El Rey, Inc. for their own benefit.

66.37 Omitting to the Court that, having admitted that the principal offices of Pimjo Trust CV arelocated in Auckland, New Zealand, Plaintiff has failed to send correspondence and mail to PimjoTrust CV to its address in Auckland, New Zealand, since and including March 2012.

66.38 Omitting to the Court that Ms Astrid Kristina Redmond Horn and Messrs. Jorge Mateo RedmondSchlageter, Rafael Jesús Alfonzo Hernández and Germán Toro Arévalo refused more than thriceoffers for mediation, refused to be appointed (under protest) as attorneys-in-fact of Pimjo TrustCV, refused to be re-appointed (under protest) as directors of Carisma Prima Limited, refusedto appear for compulsory mediation at Centro Empresarial de Conciliación y Arbitraje (CEDCA)in Caracas, Venezuela, when formally served, failed to appear for mediation proceedings onAugust 15, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida and alleged by way of ultimatum on April 26, 2012 thattheir sole acceptable option was for me to transfer to them "the shareholder control of PimjoTrust CV".

66.39 Omitting to the Court that Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo had to maneuver and break the circlecreated by Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. which invariable lead to contact only broker dealer JohnGayle Pettus Jaso in Caracas, Venezuela with respect of the Account preventing me fromaccessing the Office of the Chief Compliance Officer of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc . For thatreason, I personally appeared in Plaintiff' s Branch Office located in Boca Raton, Florida in earlyFebruary 2012 and requested the protection from, and the intervention of, the Office of the ChiefCompliance Officer of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. naively thinking that such officer would haveinterest in mending the wrongdoings and misdeeds suffered by Pimjo Organization vis-à-visthe Account. I wish to point out that my strategy and actions were always transparent anddirected towards the chief officers of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. unknowing that such officers






were very well aware of all the illegal actions performed in Venezuela and decided to protectbroker dealer John Gayle Pettus Jaso and cover up his actions and the corporate business strategyof Plaintiff to attract customers and assets in Venezuela.

66.40 Omitting to the Court that Allen B. Holeman, Chief Compliance Officer of Plaintiff, followinginstructions of Dennis P. McNamara, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Plaintiff,delivered on March 6, 2012 to Luis-Alejandro Aguilar-Pardo copies of the statements of accountof the Account from year 2001 until February 2012 and copies of the account of Pimjo SA fromyear 2000 until 2001.

66.41 Omitting to the Court that the changes to the corporate structure were initially limited toincorporate the Rules on Combating Corruption. 2011 edition, promoted by the InternationalChamber of Commerce. Later on, and in coherence with the Plan of Revitalization dated January17, 2012 which was made integral part of all corporate documents of Pimjo Organization, thedescription of the First Beneficiary was modified and the ADR clauses in the Constitution ofCarisma Prima Limited incorporated.

66.42 Informant Nikon 1 suggested that the Account was being "churned" by Oppenheimer & Co.,Inc.'s broker dealer John Gayle Pettus Jaso. Informant Nikon 1 mentioned that the Account was"bread and butter" for broker dealer John Gayle Pettus Jaso. Only an expert will be able todetermine if this statement is true or false and for that purpose all account statements of theAccount are necessary.

Your Sincerely,

Luis Alejandro Aguilar P.

Encls.: As indicated.




luis alejandro aguilar p. abogado.€¦ · 07/02/2013 · is the sole shareholder of aguilar &...

Documents