VILLALOBOS UPDATE
To Claim or not to Claim:
The following is bulletin by the UCCR, the Villalobos investor's group, clarifying misinformation that had been printed in another online news publication concerning the liability of claimants, as the trial of Osvaldo Villalobos, one half of the "Brothers" team, approaches in February.

The UCCR letter said:

"This letter is being sent by the UCCR in response to the lead article published in your Tuesday, December 19th, edition. We feel that the article contains inaccurate or misleading information and appears to have the intention of discouraging filers of claims against the Villalobos brothers from withdrawing their claims in advance of the trial next February. The article implies that those who withdraw claims run the risk of some financial penalty imposed by the court for the benefit of Oswaldo and that in some cases such judgments may have already been made without the knowledge of the former claimant.

Our legal research reveals that Articles 118 and 78 of the Criminal Procedural Code establish that in the event of withdrawal, the party which initiated the civil action will be responsible to pay his attorney fees as agreed upon between them, or as determined by the court, based upon the work performed. It is acknowledged that the filer has the right to continue or to withdraw as he chooses. No reference is made to judicial empowerment to castigate the filer who has decided to withdraw. It should be obvious that in the event such a ruling has occurred in this case, the claimant’s attorney would have surely been notified.

It is clear to us that there are no negative consequences to withdrawal unless viewed, perhaps, from the perspective of some lawyers presently representing claimants.

There is, however, much to the benefit of all investors, if you believe as we do, that Enrique Villalobos is our only hope to ever see our money again, and that you trust his stated intentions. The numerous filers who managed unwittingly to convert this case into a “complex” one have only succeeded in prolonging the agony of all investors. Many who were enticed by the government to file in the hope of sharing the few millions the government could get its hands on did not fully realize at the time what they were signing. They now represent the core of the prosecution case against the Villalobos’. Lacking hard evidence with which to prove the validity of their charges, the government lawyers are preparing to use instead the existence of the claims to demonstrate guilt in much the same way as lamb producers promote their product with bumper stickers that claim you should: “Eat Lamb! 10,000 coyotes cannot be wrong!” ( as if the more coyotes there are, the more convincing the proposition.)

Finally, the filers who cling to their claims mistakenly believe they have nothing to lose by doing so. They should understand that, if he is exonerated, Oswaldo does not relinquish his right to counter sue in civil court. To his credit he has announced that he would not seek damages from those who have challenged his integrity and caused him great financial loss. Even so, a change in circumstances could provoke a change of heart with resultant years of litigation before a final settlement is reached with individual investors. The decision as to whether or not one ought to withdraw should be a simple one- depending upon whether the investor thinks there is a greater possibility to recover his money from the Costa Rican government or from Enrique Villalobos.

For the UCCR it has been a no-brainer since the beginning. We have supported the person that many of us knew personally to be a man of his word, one with whom we had entrusted our money and one who would still be managing it for us except for the unjust intrusion of the government. When the book is written on this saga it will reveal the irony that the very governmental institutions that were supposed to be looking after investor interests handled matters in such a way that procedures were ignored, rights were abused, and Enrique was obliged to take the actions he did to preserve the privacy of his investors and to protect his assets (our money) from confiscation."