Extradition requests for Garcia brothers received; court to hear case July 8

by Kobakila News

CHICAGO (May 18) – The United States Attorney’s office in Northern California in San Francisco informed U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton that the extradition record package from the Philippines has arrived.

This means that Ian Carl D. and Juan Paulo D. Garcia can no longer invoke a provision in the Philippines and U.S. extradition treaty that they should be released temporarily when the extradition package does not arrive 60 days after their arrest.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Hartley West has yet to turn over the package to defendants’ attorneys, Richard Tamor, counsel for Ian Carl D. Garcia, 30, and Julia Jayne, counsel for Juan Paulo D. Garcia, 27.

To give the defendants’ lawyers time to review the extradition package, Judge Hamilton “excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from May 13, 2009 to July 8, 2009 for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel.”

Because the government counsel will also be out of the country between June 13 and June 28, 2009 and Ms. Jayne expects to be in trial on another case from June 22 through July 7, 2009, Hamilton set the hearing of the case on July 8, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. “for motion setting.”

In her order, Hamilton said “there is good cause for the extension of time described above, and that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and the prompt disposition of criminal cases.”

The Court “further finds that failure to grant the continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and would unreasonably deny the parties continuity of counsel.”

Ever since their separate arrests in Las Vegas, Nevada and in Pontiac, Michigan last February 26, 2009 for bulk smuggling when they tried to bring into the United States $100,000 in 2003, the Garcia brothers have been seeking ways to obtained temporary freedom.

When the extradition package has not arrived 60 days after their arrest, it opened up the possibility that they could gain temporary freedom based on the extradition treaty.

According to the extradition treaty between the Philippines and the United States, “a person who is provisionally arrested may be discharged from custody upon expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of arrest pursuant to this Treaty if the executive authority of the Requested State (U.S.) has not received the formal request for extradition and the supporting documents required in Article 7.”

The Garcia brothers were subsequently provisionally arrested on plunder charges filed against them in the Philippines along with their youngest brother, Timothy Mark, 25, Depakakibo Garcia, their father, Carlos F. Garcia, former Philippine Armed Forces Comptroller, and their mother, Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, 58.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clarita D. Garcia is awaiting the ruling of U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh for the Eastern District of Michigan on her motion to reverse the order of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, who denied her bail, while her extradition proceedings are pending.

Mrs. Garcia has filed a motion de novo (review) of the Magistrate’s Denial of Bail filed by her lawyers Harold Gurewitz and Michael S. Cafferty.

She wanted Judge Steeh to grant her bail based “on relevant case law discussed in her attached memorandum, the Fifth and the Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the additional reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Bail.”

Mrs. Garcia argued that when Judge Whalen denied her bail, it was due to her “statement to a customs officer in California in 2003, when her sons were arrested that her family had substantial income, but her 2009 pretrial services interview dated March 4, 2009, she stated that she was without funds or assets other than a vehicle and because the Court found Ms. Garcia to be transient.”

She is asking the court to review the “Magistrate’s order because its basis for denial was not reasonable based upon the facts. First, Mrs. Garcia’s family financial situation five years ago in 2004 is not distinguishable from her own financial assets and income in 2009.

“Second, Ms. Garcia’s residential history does not show transient or evasive moving patterns.”

Leave a Comment