Dear Fellow Investors; March 25, 2009


We were unprepared for the volume and swiftness of your responses to our latest EBS message. It was heartening to learn that so many investors remain interested in what we have to say and encourage us to continue. Judging from the quality and content of your messages it is obvious that there are many attorneys among you. Your analyses and suggestions are especially valuable.

We decided to follow up with more discussion of the topics to which you gave the most attention in your replies. Both legal approaches drew favorable commentary. This is understandable because each one sets the stage for the victims in this case to finally have their day in court. Throughout the Oswaldo trial we were obliged to endure the frustration of vicarious participation and impotency. To go on the offensive certainly has its appeal.

Most of you gave high priority to legal action, but a significant number felt that it would be more fruitful to seek a political solution. All that’s well and good. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, we consider both to be essential to achieve a resolution that would satisfy everyone – except, possibly, the fiscalia. The chief advantage of a court case might well be the leverage it could provide in the political arena. We think that there is a growing sentiment among the legal profession and the political hierarchy in this country that this case represents a horrible indictment of the judicial system that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. The courtroom would present the perfect venue for disclosure of the origins of this case and the complete cast of characters who promoted it. This was not revealed during the Oswaldo trial. Though the information was suspected it was unverified at that time.

A major difference between the legal action we would take and the arbitration case brought by the Canadians is that their strategy is to prove that the CR government was negligent in protecting the investors and, therefore, should be responsible for restitution of their losses; whereas we would argue that the investors were victimized by the inept and illegal mishandling of the case by the Ministerio Publico and would seek to have OV pardoned and the charges against LEV dropped, creating the opportunity for him to repay us. It has always been our position that our best chance to recover our investment is to be paid by LEV. Even if we were to prevail in the courtroom it seems unlikely to us that we would ever receive a penny from the government – at least not during our lifetimes.

The fact that there was no mention in the EBS message of our efforts to secure political support should not be taken to mean we have not been involved in that effort. The reason is that there are some matters that cannot be made public at this time without jeopardizing the outcome. As a matter of fact, before we progress to the point of legal action we have a plan to “make a presentation” to persons of influence in the government. Should we be successful, perhaps legal action would be unnecessary.

There are a couple of things that we would like to be kept in mind by those inclined to judge our accomplishments – or lack thereof. Our operating budget has been $0.00 for at least the past four years. Prior to that all donations that we received from investors were spent on attorney fees. Consequently, there are times when this financial reality restricts our choices. We are still able to operate – but it is a challenge. This is not an attempt to solicit funds because all of us in the UCCR are in the same boat with you and recognize that all we have to contribute is our time.

Secondly, we have all experienced some degree of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from disillusionment with the judicial system, which we had counted on for six years to rescue us along with “The Brothers”. It has taken us a while to retool. Finally, we have all agreed on a plan, which does not depend upon LEV and will not compromise any initiative that he may be pursuing. We also know that the Canadian case is well under way and may help us by breaking some new ground.


We at the Board of the UCCR think there are only two remaining options:
1. Do nothing.
2. Do something.
For those of you who favor #2, we invite you to join us by donating your moral support as well as your constructive criticism.

Until next time, UCCR

 

Tuesday, 07. April 2009