Proposed Purchase & Sale Agmr' CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
LATHAM WAT K I N
January 26, 2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Jorge Gonzalez
Ms. Cristina Cuervo
Murray Dubbin, Esq.
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
Tel: (213) 485-1234 Fax: {213}891-8763
www.lw.com
FIRM ! AFFILIATE OFFICES
B~tqn [ l,jlew,J®r~e¥~.
Brussels ~lewty~3~k
Chicago Northern Virginia
Frankfurt Orange County
Hamburg Pads
Hong Kong San Diego
London San Francisco
Los Angeles Silicon Valley
Milan Singapore
Moscow Tokyo
Washington, D.C.
File No. 038000-0001
Proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement of Leasehold Interest of
Agreement of Lease between the City of Miami Beach and Pelican
Development, LLC
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing to you in connection with the pending request by Pelican Development to
sell its interest to Ocean Boulevard, LLC. In particular, we are writing to respond to the
confidential due diligence report dated January 13, 2004 prepared by Kroll Inc. concerning our
client, Mark Siffin. While Mr. Siffin recognizes that the allegations contained within the Kroll
report understandably raise the City's concern, we ask that you consider the information set forth
in this letter. Specifically, we hope that through the information contained in this letter and
through our upcoming meeting we are able to satisfy you that the pending sale remains in the
City's best interest.
We have represented Mr. Siffin since 1997 in connection with several matters, including
some of the events and real estate ventures addressed in the Kroll report. Indeed, we were also
retained to help Mr. Siffin respond to the array of false allegations contained in the Nevada
Supreme Court opinion in People of Nevada v. Mazzan: the same case cited by Kroll in its
report.
As set forth below, while Mr. Siff'm respects the City's need to conduct due diligence, the
Kroll report fails to provide the City with a complete and accurate description of the facts that
would typically underlie a due diligence assessment. Instead, the Kroll report paints a false
picture of Mr. Siffin, predicated on misstatements, omissions of material facts and laced with 20
year old allegations constructed from rumor and speculation. As you will see below, apart from
a yc~uthful indiscretion fi.om 30 years ago, where Mr. Siffin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to
probation, he has never been convicted of any crime. Unfortunately, however, he has been
plagued for 20 years by an array of false allegations that continue to be repeated, and he has been
unable to prevent the continued repetition of these allegations. What makes the Kroll report
particularly troubling is that the investigator simply repeats the same allegations and fails to note
that Mr. Siffin has never been afforded an opportunity to contest and/or respond to them.
LA\I 195321.4
January 26, 2004
Page 2
LATHAM&WATKINS'L~
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
Perhaps most troubling is the investigator's failure to note that: (a) the scurrilous allegations of
Mr. Siffin's potential involvement in a 1978 murder in Reno, Nevada were made by attomeys for
a convicted murderer as they searched for any excuse to have the defendant's conviction and
death sentence overturned; and (b) the convicted murderer, Jack Mazzan, subsequently admitted
in 2002 that he had, in fact, committed the murders at issue. In short, the Kroll investigator
did not note that the scurrilous allegations were conclusively proven to be false by Mazzan's
2002 guilty plea, and the complete repudiation of the fictitious allegations leveled by his
attorneys.
We have attempted to address the entire array of allegations contained in the Kroll report
and we look forward to discussing these issues with you on January 28, 2004.
Allegations of Criminal Wrongdoinp
A. Mr. Siffin's 1972 Detention And l~i.~ 1973 Guilty Plea
The Kroll report cites to a 1978 DEA report of investigation that, in turn, claims that
Mr. Siffin was arrested "in 1971 or 1972" in Morocco allegedly in possession of hashish.
Despite the fact that the DEA report was prepared almost 6 years after the relevant event, it fails
to report the far more relevant fact: namely, that while Mr. Siffm was detained by Moroccan
authorities, he was never convicted of any crime in Morocco. The Kroll report instead implies
that Mr. Siffin was convicted of drag related offenses in Morocco.
In 1973, at the age of 23, Mr. Siffin was charged with possession with intent to distribute
heroin. He was summoned to court by mail, a procedure typically reserved for less serious
matters. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a teim of probation. The very
document relied upon by Kroll (see Exhibit 2 to the Kroll report) reveals that Mr. Siffin received
a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. He successfully completed his te,n of
probation in 1976 (See Exhibit 1). Contrary to the suggestion in some prior correspondence,
Mr. Siffin was never sentenced to jail time in connection with this conviction. The documents
attached to this letter make clear that he received probation and, in fact, successfully completed
probation in approximately 18 months (from 1974 when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced,
until 1976, when his probationary term concluded).
This 30 year old personal use drug conviction, suffered by a man who came of age in the
1960's, represents the only crime for which Mr. Siffin has ever been convicted. While Mr. Siffm
regrets ever experimenting with drugs, he freely acknowledges this error in judgment. Mr. Siffin
went on to become a parent, and a successful businessman who has contributed significantly to
the public good.
B. The 1985 Sonoma Court ,fy Traffic Stop
In 1985, Mr. Siffin was pulled over by the California Highway patrol and arrested for
allegedly driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. (Kroll Exhibit 4). The
arrest was based upon a "field test" of Goldenseal, a dietary supplement found in health food
LA\I 195321.4
· January 26, 2004
Page $
LATHAMe, WATKI N S~
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
stores, that Mr. Siffin had in his possession, which initially tested positive for a controlled
substance. Subsequent testing confim~ed that the substance was not, in fact, an illegal substance.
We have endeavored to uncover additional records relating to this incident, but the
records have been destroyed. In any event, there typically are not records revealing the absence
of subsequent charges.
C. The 1982 Charges Dismissed By The Government
Kroll correctly reports that, in 1982, Mr. Siffin was indicted by a federal grand jury in
Illinois and charged with allegedly being part of a marijuana distribution conspiracy. A copy of
the indictment is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Kroll report. A careful review of that document
reveals that Mr. Siffin was charged only in Count 1 of the indictment based on his alleged
affiliation with an individual named Robert Miller.
What the Kroll report fails to report is that the charges against Mr. Siffin were dismissed
by the United States Attorney's Office in Illinois prior to the commencement of any trial. (See
Exhibit 2).
As demonstrated by the attached letter from Dan O'Day, a lawyer who represented
Mr. Siffin in that case, the charges against Mr. Siffin were predicated solely on the alleged
statement of a single witness, who denied ever providing evidence against Mr. Siffin.
(Exhibit 3). Once the United States Attorney's Office learned of the lack of any evidence
connecting Mr. Siffin to the alleged conspiracy, they dropped the charges. Mr. O'Day's
statement further reveals that Mr. Siffin was the object of an extortion attempt that appeared to
be linked to the charges that were dismissed against him.
D. The 1985 Indianapolis Charees Dismlased By The Governmen!
The 1982 federal charges described above were not the only time that charges against
Mr. Siffin were dismissed. Although the Kroll investigation failed to note a 1985 arrest and
indictment for allegedly purchasing a gun, in the interest of full disclosure, we felt it important to
address that incident here. In 1985, Mr. Siffin was charged for being a felon, based upon his
1973 drug conviction, in possession of a firearm. In particular, Mr. Siffin was charged with
allegedly directing his wife to purchase a gun. These charges were also dismissed by the
government in advance of any trial once it became clear that the charges against Mr. Siffin
appeared to be connected to the prior effort described by Mr. O'Day to extort money from him.
(See Exhibits 3 and 4).
E. The False Alle£ations By Mazola! In Reno
Perhaps the most disturbing allegations that Mr. Siffin has been forced to endure stem
from a 1978 murder in Reno, Nevada that ultimately gave rise to the Nevada Supreme Court's
LA\I 195321.4
January 26, 2004
Page 4
LATHAM~'WATKINS~
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
opinion in Pe_.~ple v. Mazzan. The opinion was issued in 2000, following nearly 20 years of
appeals by the defendant, Jack Mazzan, as he sought to overturn his conviction and void his
death sentence. (See Kroll Exhibit 6). As part of their successful campaign to persuade the
Nevada Supreme Court to overturn their client's conviction, Mazzan's attorneys suggested that
other individuals, including Mr. Siffin, may have had some involvement in the crime.
Unfortunately, the Nevada Supreme Court was sufficiently deceived by the efforts to divert
attention away from the considerable evidence against Mazzan, that it agreed to grant him a new
trial.
Mr. Siffin, of course, had absolutely no knowledge that his name had surfaced in
connection with the Reno matter until he was contacted by Reno authorities in 2000. Mr. Siffin
had never met or even heard of the defendant, Jack Mazzan, and knew nothing of any of the
events that had transpired in 1978. Mr. Siffin had simply been friends with another man, who, in
turn, was close friends with the man murdered by Mazzan. Despite the fact that this was
Mr. Siffin's only connection to any of the events or individuals involved in the Reno matter, the
defendant's attorneys seized upon this tenuous thread to falsely accuse Mr. Siffm in an attempt to
clear their client. Once Mr. Siffin learned of the opinion, he cooperated fully with Reno
authorities. (A sample of the correspondence with the Reno D.A.'s office is attached collectively
as Exhibit 5). Indeed, authorities in Reno stated publicly that Mr. Siffin was never a suspect in
the Reno killing.
Most importantly, in 2002, after additional evidence surfaced linking the defendant to an
additional murder (the original victim's girlfriend), Mazzan pleaded guilty to the original 1978
killing. Attached as Exhibit 6 are the various articles revealing Mazzan's subsequent guilty plea
and confession. The Kroll report fails to indicate that the very allegations leveled by Mazzan's
attorneys against Mr. Siffin were, of course, conclusively proven to be false by Mazzan's
subsequent guilty plea. Kroll instead implies that there might have been some merit in the
patently false allegations.
F. ..The 1978 DEA Reports of Investigation
The Kroll report attaches considerable significance to four 1978 DEA reports of
investigation (DEA-6 reports) which were contained in the original Reno investigative files.
Mr. Siffin saw these reports for the first time in 2000 - 22 years after they were written and
secretly filed. The DEA reports contained in the Kroll report are deeply troubling to Mr. Siffin
as they reflect wholly unsubstantiated "suspicion" and innuendo. Like the scurrilous allegations
in the Reno case, the DEA reports are predicated upon Mr. Siffin's having contacted someone (a
wholly innocent act) who, in turn, was "alleged" to have been involved in narcotics trafficking.
Mr. Siffin, of course, was never contacted or provided with any opporttmity to respond to
the allegations or the "suspicions" contained in these reports. Instead, the false rumors and
"suspicions" were perpetuated each time anyone ran Mr. Siffin's name through the DEA
database. While Mr. Siffin does not seek to cast any aspersions, even a cursory review of the
DEA reports reveal that they lack any semblance of critical analysis and, in many instances,
LA\1195321.4
· January26,2004
Page 5
LATHAM&WATKINS~
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
attach nefarious import to wholly innocent events such as Mr. Siffin's purchase of land or his
purchase of a truck.
Having been placed in the database for associating with another individual suspected of
selling marijuana, Mr. Siffin has never been afforded any opportunity to demonstrate that the
DEA's rumor and speculation were simply false. The ultimate proof of that fact is that the 1982
federal charges against him were dismissed by the government before trial. It is highly unusual
for federal charges to be dismissed voluntarily by the government, and it is a strong indication of
the complete lack of any credible evidence to support the "suspicions" contained, and ultimately
repeated, in the DEA reports cited by the Kroll investigator.
II. The Real Estate/Civil Lawsuits
A. Court of Common Pleas~ Ohio,
In addition to the information provided by Philip Nicely (see Exhibit 8), I would add that
. Latham & Watkins represented a joint venture composed of Lupert-Adler and MAE-
Independence, LLC in acquiring rights to assets akeady subject to loans issued by Fremont
Investment & Loan. The joint venture borrowed funds fi.om Fremont to acquire these assets,
which were akeady in the process of a real estate dispute. I concur with Mr. Nicely that such
matters are common in the context of real estate transactions. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a letter
indicating that settlement of this dispute is being negotiated.
B. Wayne Williams v. Maefiela
Latham & Watkins represented Sunset Millennium LLC, a joint venture of which
Maefield was the operating partner during the construction of a subterranean parking garage and
retail facility adjacent to a residential condominium in West Hollywood. The construction was
conducted in compliance with the conditions established by the City after an extensive public
hearing and review process. In addition, Sunset Millennium entered into a separate settlement
agreement with the Condominium association for additional construction mitigation measures.
Mr. Williams was a resident of one of the condominiums who objected to the construction noise
and, despite the approvals by the City and by the association, filed an individual lawsuit to seek
additional compensation for the noise. This lawsuit was handled by Sunset Millennium's
contractors. The case has been dismissed, and attached at Exhibit 9 is a copy of the dismissal.
C. Media- California
The Sunset Millennium project was a major three phase mixed use project approved by
the City of West Hollywood in 1999 as complying with its Sunset Boulevard Specific Plan, and
which included a hotel, retail/parking as noted above, and office components. After 9-11 when
the hotel and hospitality market was dramatically affected by the World Trade Center tragedy,
the proposed hotel operator did not agree to go forward to build the hotel and discussions
commenced with the City about substituting residential development instead. Though City
LA\1195321.4
January26,2004
Page 6
LATHAM~WATKINS~
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
representatives stated in the press at that time that they were opposed to residential uses, the
discussions continued and a City newsletter indicates the City is now welcoming such
applications from sUnset Millennium (see Exhibit 7). The Kroll report is inaccurate and
misleading to suggest any impropriety whatsoever in a developer initiating discussions about
potentially applying for a different land use in the face of changed economic conditions for a
project. Such changes could only occur if the City approves them.
The project also included significant signage rights, including both offsite signage and
onsite signage which had been purchased by Clear Channel, a national advertising company.
The City's approval of the conversion of four of the total of 21 signs from onsite retail signage to
offsite retail signage for one component of the project in the summer of 2001 was later
challenged by a referendum petition filed with the City. Under California law, a referendum can
be requested by filing of petitions to call for a special election to reconsider City approvals. The
petition gatherers, which were funded by a rival billboard company, submitted enough signatures
that the City Council decided to repeal their prior approval of the conversion to offsite signage,
leaving the onsite approvals in place. Several lawsuits were filed in connection with the signage
by the various interest groups, and were all settled following the City's repeal of the approvals.
Such litigation is very common in connection with such election issues.
The report also referenced an allegation that Mr. Siffm "bought a 'yes' vote", which is
another misleading and incorrect allegation. Opponents of the billboard approvals challenged
Sunset Millennium's charitable contributions, including one to a City fund for a veteran's
memorial which the Mayor strongly supported. Under California law, contributions to charitable
and City sponsored causes by individuals and businesses -- including developers involved in the
community -- are both fully legal and very common. There is no substantiation whatsoever of
any legal impropriety in connection with these contributions.
Finally, it is correct that Mr. Siffin is no longer the managing member of Sunset
Millennium. After devoting several years to that project, he agreed with his partner to withdraw
from that venture. Mr. Siffin determined that his other ongoing real estate investments,
including a property outside Kansas City and property in Noblesville, Indiana, needed more
personal attention. In JUne 2002 he began acquiring assets from Fremont, which had been the
construction lender on the West Hollywood project, such as the Ohio property referenced above
and subsequently purchased the Miami Beach property for which he is now seeking to acquire
parking in the City. Mr. Siffin also purchased a landmark commercial building in downtown San
Francisco from Fremont which is currently being renovated, with the approval of the City, to
high-end residential and retail uses to revitalize a long-vacant historic structure. These projects
are described in more detail in Exhibit 11 hereto.
IlL Conclusion
Any suggestion that Mr. Siffin or his business ventures are being used to launder drug
money or for any improper purpose is completely incorrect. As Philip Nicely, Mr. Siffin's
longtime attorney in Indiana has previously pointed out, real estate development is commonly
[A\1195321.4
January2$, 2004
Page 7
LATHAM&WATKINS~,
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE
TO CITY INQUIRY
conducted through separately established single purpose entities which can be individually
responsible for each project. Mr. Siffin's business activities are transparent in that his daughter
Mae Siffin's name is used for many of his entities, then a specific geographic or project identity
is added or provided. Mr. Siffin's company Maefield Development is described in the attached
document (Exhibit 11) and a list of the entities he has created, in some cases with other partners,
is also provided as Exhibit 12. Mae-Ocean Boulevard LLC is another in this series of entities
and, like the other assets Mr. Siffin has purchased from Fremont, is a redevelopment financed
largely through a loan also provided by Fremont. Through these ventures, Mr. Siffin has
endeavored to provide commercial, residential, and retail services to various communities by
investing in real estate development and reinvesting the proceeds from those developments into
other projects. He looks forward to the successful revitalization of the Ocean Boulevard
property and to a positive relationship with the City of Miami Beach in connection with the
project.
We appreciate your willingness to consider the information set forth in this letter, and we
hope it allays whatever concerns you may have had after reading the Kroll report. We remain
willing to address any other issues that you may wish to discuss during our meeting on
January 28.
CC:
Mark Siffin
Gerald Schwartz, Esq.
Philip Nicely, Esq.
Lucinda Starrctt, Esq.
Very truly yours,
David J. Schindler
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
LAM 195321.4
COT,.~ ~, Y' coLT2"TLAW OFDiviSioNBERGE~: .'co~Ty: .' '::i,
~ rI ~n '" ' .. ,~
· ft.v.. _ . . .. : ' .}~
'"'.~ -= ..... I ~~.~"'.'.'.'"' · "':~
~7~ ~ · '""." "";::-il
..... : ..... ~ .~.,. ~.~X?~ ........ :::L :1:72. / '..~ 2~'2~ (~) ".']
T~Zi~''~' t ~0~ -oss. 0~= s. - ~d ct.. ' ..' s-~7~4~7~ "'~i
~ Se~e=' 1973 ~ ~_~__. ~C . '. ~
........................................................ : ~ ~.~-~ :~u. ........................ /~
~ .... ~ec~e= ~2, ~g~3 ' ' ' -:']~
~, .................. ~. ~. ~. ~ ........ . ::~
I ,,~,,~, .......... ~. ~,..~.. ],mw..~..~. ~.~ .......... · ~]
I ~=,=, .................................................................................................. ..................................................................... ... ..................... ¢~;~.~
$,. ". .~.
~ 2nd cc~: ~ a ~o~on b~ ~e S~e ~e co~ vas ;~
z~SO~ FO~t T~OS~O~ OF S~NTEN~ C~e ~:LIO(~) ~ ~
Good ~Zy bad,round. ' . ~
' . :i
I '~'~ ~.~;~ .... ...~J
APR 1 5 ]97[;
MONROE CIRCUIT COURT ]I~--~'Ol.."-~-'~,'O~D~,..~'~-x,' ~z~s~Y 07631
pROBATION DEPT.
~1 - ~-~7~0
$IFFIN, !!ark A.
In reply refer to:
Case No. C 8075 (E) - NJ
April 9, 1976
};onroe Circuit and Superior Courts
Probation Department
Adult and Juvenile Division
Court House
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
AYTENTIO~: James C. Snoddy, Adult Probation Officer
Dear Nr. Snoddy:
The Honorable Fred C. Galda, Bergen County Superior Court,
granted approval to terminate Probation for Mark A. Siffin
effective ~.:arch 26, 1976.
You ;say therefore close your interest in the case. Please
accept our t~]anks for supervising this man for us.
GVT:es
cc: ~-~. Vaughn C. Overstreet
Indianapolis, In~iana
Sen~Probation Of ~icer
cc: :.;r. Fred D. ?ant
Tr=nton, i,~=w Jersey
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SIFFIN,
Defendant.
Case No. CR 82-20043
DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT AGAINST MARK A. SIFFI~
Now comes united States of America, by and through its United
States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois, Gerald D.
Fines, and its Assistant united States Attorney, Warren E. White,
and dismisses without prejudice the indictment against MARK A.
SIFFIN in the above-styled and numbered cause, pursuant to Rule
48(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
~ Respectfully submitted,
United States Attorney_ , ·
~ ~_.~~ Y ~ARREN E. WHI -- ~e
Leave Granted.
Entered this ~day o~' 1982.
/JUDGE, UNI'£":u STA~:~ DISTRIC [JRT
united States Attorney
P.O. Box 87
Danville, IL 61832
Telephone: 217-446-8546
FTS-958-5555/56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1 U.S.v,HILLER, ET AL Page 26
CRIMINAl. DOCKET
'"~ DATE PROCEEDINGS (continued) V. EXCLUDABt
· (al lb)
{Dorumem No.) f .~'
12/17/82 ~227 APPLICATION of Govt for Arrest Warrant for Material; ': ~ ~ ? .
Witness, Melvin Jackson
~228 0~ for vagrant =o issue for Melvin Jackson, bat1
ee~ a~ $10.000 O.K.~ tn lieu of bat1~ Melvin Jackson ~ .
be ~ranspor=ed b~ USM, etc.. to Danvtlle~ Ill. ~ e~c. ..~' *
(gesseD,~gls.)
//229 ~ Issue for arrest of Helvin Jackson pursuant
to O~der (~228) Orig & gert copy of Warrant and~ ~_.~
~231 0~ for warrant. ~o issue for ~°n~ld cU~, batl se~
.a~ $10~000 cash, tn lieu of b~l~ Cur~ ~o be
transported bE USM~e~c.~ =o Danvtlle~ I1.~ etc.
(Lessea, ~gls. )
~232 ~ tssue~ for arres~ of Ronald'ofCUr~warran~pursuan~and *
~o Order (~231) Offs & =er~ co97 cer~ ~.
c~y of Or,er (~231) ~o ~SM,
12/20/82 ~233 ~P~CE BO~ OF ~SS ~elvtn Jac~on - $10,000 O.
12/22~82 ~23~ ~PLI~TIO~ for Arres~ ~arrant for ~=ertal ~ttness,
~235 O~ for wa~an~ =o issue for Te~ Htle~ ball se~ aE
I
12/27/82 ~IL~ certified c~y of 12/16 dkt enC~ Co
Mcgowen re passport of Dft Siffim (Siffin)
12/28/82 CONFE~NCE C~L - Re DFT SIFFIN 2 12/18/82
11:30 a.m. Warren ~ite, AUSA, for Govt 12/28/82
Arty Daniel O'Day, for Dfc Siffim
D~.has mo obi to Govt dismissal. Leave granted.
Copy of Order (J237a) ~=iled to all counsel of record
~- ~ (Locke)
2 t2/2/82
[/24/83
JfiN-27-04 TUE 02:41 PM C, F, G, & 0 FRX NO, 3096375788 P, 02/02
STATEMENT OF DAN O'DAY
In 1982, in thc Central District of Illinois, Danville D[vidon, Mark Siffm was indicted for
conspiracy to distribute more then one thousand pounds of marijuana, along with a number of
other defendxuts. Assistant U~dted States Attorney Warren White was the prosecutor. The case
w~s before Sudge Harold Baker in Danville, Illinois.
We fiwestigated the allegations in tl~e indictment on behalf of our client, Mr. $1ffim Vqe
detem~[~ed tha~ there was ortly eno witness against him, The name of this witness escape~ me.
We visited the witness and he advised us that he knew nothing about $iffln's alleged
involvemem in tko alleged con~piraoy. We advised Mr, White of this discussion, As I recall, Mr.
White fl~en h,~l the. witness t~k with federal agents abo~t $iflin's involvement and we were
ad,~ised by White that the witness once again [topi/cared Siffm. We went back to see the witness
atxd he advised us once again he- knew of no involvement by ~qiffin. We once agaLn advised
White of this hot and White a~eed to and did dismiss the indictment against Siffin.
D~trlng the period that ~he indictment was still pending in Danville, Siffin received a not,
containing a phone number and a request tn pay a sum of money in exchange for information
about what was h;ppening in a Grand Jury/nvestigafion. We advised Siffiu to call the FBI and
report the note, which Siffm did. FBI agents came to see him and mid him that they need~ to
obtain the original and all copies of the note. Thinldng this was peculiar, we ~vised Siffm to
retain a copy oFthe note, cont,zdrfing the phone number, which he did,
In 1985 Siffin was indicted in Federal Court in Indianapolis, Iudima. The ,ha~ge~ there
wm'e that ~ a convicted felon based on his 1973 New l~'sey case, he l~u'ehased tome guns at a
Galyan's spelt'lng goods store. I-Ils wife, EII~, was also indicted. The allegations were that
Ellen went to the sporting goods store with Mark, a felon,, and bought the guns for him. The
tlxderal ckarg~q were that Ellen SLffin aldeeI and sbedded the purchase and possess[on of the
weaFons by Mark, The whole case turned on whether or not Mark actually dlrect~d the purchase
irt the sram, A witness who worked at Oalyan~s claimed that he saw Mark direct Ellen as to
which weapons to purchase. In this csse we hired a former FBI agent named Don Sort.x~son to bo
our investigator. Mr, $orenson and I visited this witness fi'om the Oalyag's ~orting good ~tore
at his home. While interviewing him we afleed him for his phone number, which w2s unlisted.
He provided it.
Az it tamed out, ,he unlisted telephone number provided to us by thc witne.~ in the
Indianapolis gun case (th~ clerk from Galyen's) matched the phone number from the 1982 case
of lbo person Mto asked to receive' monies in exchaug~ for information about the Orand Jury.
We advised ~ke prosecutor of this fact in the Indianapolis case and witMn days that indictment
wa.q dlsmis.~ed ~s well.
I)^T~,D: Januarya~ ?,
Signed,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. )
)
MARK A. SIFFIN, )
ELLEN D. SIFFIN, )
)
Defendants. )
NO. IP 86-76-CR
ORDER
The United States of America having filed herein its
WMotion for Leave of Court to Dismiss Indictment" pursuant to
Rule 48(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Court
having read said Motion and being fully advised in this matter
with respect to said Motion, now
GRANTS the United States of America's Motion for Leave to
Dismiss, and dismissal of, the Indictment returned in this
cause on or about July 23, 1986, and further, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Indictment returned
herein on or about July 23, 1986, be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED.
S~. H~h Dillin, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
DATE:
Copies to:
C. Joseph Russell, Assistant United States Attorney
274 U. S. Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Patrick A. Tuite, Esquire
THE LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK A. TUITE, LTD.
Suite 900, 19 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Darrell McGowen, P.C.
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
Suite 2000, 111 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Lesa J. Lux, Esquire
MEARS, CRAWFORD, KENNEDY & EICHHOLTZ
120 Monument Circle, Suite 301
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
United States Marshal
United States Probation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUT}{ERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK A. SIFFIN,
ELLEN D. SIFFIN,
Defendants.
NO. IP 86-76-CR
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
Comes now the United States of America, by and through its
counsel, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of
'Criminal Procedurg, and respectfully moves the court for an
Order granting leave to dismiss, and dismissing, the Indictment
in the above-captioned case. In support of this Motion, the
United States of America would respectfully show the court as
follows:
1. On or about July 23, 1986, the Grand Jury for the
Southern District of Indiana returned a three (3) count
Indictment against both Defendants in the above-captioned
case charging the Defendants with violations of Title 18,
United States code, Sections 922(h)(1), 922(a)(6)' ~924(a)
and 2.
2. The United States of America now believes that
the Indictment herein should be dismissed in the interest
of Justice.
WHEREFORE, the United States of America, by and through its
counsel, hereby respectfully moves the Court for leave to
dismiss the Indictment returned herein on or about July 23,
1986, for an Order dismissing said Indictment and for all other
relief right and proper in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
4~ohn ~niel Tinder
~ States Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the
foregoing GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO DISMISS
iNDICTMENT, upon the Defendants herein, by mailing a copy
thereof to the following counsel of record: Patrick A. Tuite,
Esquire, THE LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK A. TUITE, LTD., Suite 900,
19 South LaSalle street, Chicago, Illinois 60603; Darrell
McGowen, P.C., McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY, Suite 2000, 111 West
Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, and Lesa J. Lux,
Esquire, MEARS, CRAWFORD, KENNEDY & EICHHOLTZ, 120 Monument
Circle, Suite 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, on this 29th
day of December, 1986.
office of the United States Attorney
274 U. S. Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Telephone: 317-269-6333 - FTS: 331-6333
LATHAM & WATKIN$
A'~-rORNEY$ AT LAW
~33 VV~T FIFTH STREET, SUITE 4000
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA ~10071-~C)07
'rE:LEPHONE (213) 4B.~-IE34
April 3, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE 775/325-6702 AND FEDERAL EXPRESS..
Deputy D.A. Tom Barb
Marshall County District Attorney's Office
75 Court Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Re: Mark Siffin
FiLE NO. 029539-00~0
Dear Mr. Barb:
Enclosed please find copies of the complaint, answer, counterclaim and various
supporting documents filed in Hovious v Siffin, CV7904-031B. As you will note from the copy
of the lease attached as an exhibit to the Hovious complaint, Mr. Siffin executed the lease in
Bloomington, Indiana on December 19, 1978. Mr. and Mrs. Siffin were renting a house from
Mr. and Mrs. Hovious while they were constructing their house on the farm in Indiana.
Very truly yours,
David J. Schindler
of LATHAM & WATKINS
Enclosures
LA_DOCS\509061.1 [W97]
LATHAM & WATt/INS
Ag-rORNEY$ AT LAW
~33 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 4000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
FAX (2131
April 11, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Deputy D.A. Thomas Barb
Marshall County District Attorney's Office
75 Court Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Detective David Jenldns
Reno Police Department
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89506
Re: .Mark Siffin
Dear Mr. Barb and Detective Jenkins:
Enclosed please find a copy of a declaration executed by Michael Bowlen. I have
the original of Mr. Bowlen's declaration. If you have any additional questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
David J Schindler
of LATHAM & WATKINS
Enclosure
LA_DOCS~512941 .I [w97]
LATHAM & WATKINS
A~-rORNE¥$ AT LAW
~33 WEST FIFWH STREET. SUF~E 4000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9~71-~007
June 9, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
FILE NO. 029539-0000
Deputy D.A. Tom Barb
Marshall County District Attorney's Office
75 Court Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Robert Langford, Esq.
JoNell Thomas, Esq.
Robert Langford & Associates
616 South 8th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Re: ~
Dear Messrs Barb and Langford and Ms. Thomas:
Enclosed please find a copy of the executed declaration of Michael Bowlen.
Very truly yours,
David J. Schindler
of LATHAM & WATKINS
Enclosure
L^_DOCS~39062.1 [W97]
Search - 49 Results - "mazzan" Page 1 of 2
Associated Press Online February 16, 2002 Saturday
Copyright 2002 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
Associated Press Online
These materials nqay not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press
February 16, 2002 Saturday
SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS
LENGTH: 291 words
HEADLINE: Plea Deal for Convicted Killer
BYLINE: SCo~-r SONNER; Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: RENO, Nev.
BODY:
A convicted killer who was freed two years ago on a technicality after 20 years on death row
pleaded guilty Friday to the 1978 slaying, and can now pursue his release based on time
served.
For years, .lohn ".lack" I~lazzan insisted he didn't stab Richard Minor .~r. But in court Friday,
as part of a plea deal in another murder case, he admitted he killed Minor during a fight over
drug-deal profits.
"I was dazed and I was in a rage at the time," I~lazzan said.
Mazzan, 54, was convicted of the slaying in 1979 and sentenced to death. The Nevada
Supreme Court reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial two years ago based on the
prosecution's failure to share information with the defense.
But prosecutors said they had a strong case against I~lazzan in another murder - the 1978
killing of Minor's girlfriend, April Barber.
No one had been accused in Barber's death until last year, when prosecutors said they had
new DNA evidence and charged l~lazzan after he was temporarily freed from prison.
Awaiting his new trial, Mazzan was free on bail and driving a taxi in Reno. He's been held
since the new charges were filed and soon will be returned to the state prison system.
In exchange for the plea in Minor's death, prosecutors said they would drop murder charges
in Barber's death.
"I believe we had a fairly strong case and Mr. Mazzan realized he had a strong possibility of
*ending up with two consecutive life sentences," District Attorney Richard Gammick said.
.ludge Peter Breen on Friday sentenced Mazzan to life in prison, with credit for his time
served.
Because Mazzar~ has already served the 10 years required to be considered for parole, he
can pursue his release immediately through the state parole board.
http://www.~exis~c~m/r~s~arch/r~trieve?-m=97c6f~ 7f492a~99995~8~92a4~4a57~&d~cnu~.~ 1/23/2004
Page 1 of 2
'Search - 49 Results - "mazzan"
Copyright 2002 Associated Press All Rights Reserved The Associated Press State & Local Wire
Copyright 2002 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press State & Local Wire
These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press
February 25, 2002, Honday, BC cycle
SECTION: State and Regional
LENGTH: 640 words
HEADLINE: Hazzan prosecutor says plea deal was sudden, satisfying
BYLINE: By SCO'I-r SONNER, Associated Press Writer
DATEL:[NE: RENO, Ney.
BODY:
Jack Hazzan, who suddenly confessed to the murder that sent him to death row in :[980, will
probably spend significant time in prison before he wins parole made possible in the new
plea-bargain agreement, prosecutors say.
Insisting he was innocent for more than 20 years, l~lazzan suddenly reversed himself in
Washoe County District Court Feb. 15 and described how he stabbed Richard Minor Jr. to
death at ~linor's apartment in December :[978.
"It's satisfying knowing we were after the right guy and he did it and he finally admitted it,"
Chief Deputy District Attorney Tom Barb said in a recent interview.
The Nevada Supreme Court had freed Hazzan from death row in 1999 and ordered a new
trial after ruling local prosecutors had withheld key information from Hazzan's lawyers
regarding possible other suspects in Minor's death.
l~tazzan was free on bail and driving a taxi in Reno when prosecutors arrested him again last
year and charged him in the unsolved murder of April Barber, a former Mustang Ranch
prostitute and girlfriend of Minor who was killed about the same time as Minor.
l~lazzan had been scheduled to be tried for both deaths April 15. His lawyers had won
approval from Judge Peter Breen to take depositions from two men the Nevada Supreme
Court had singled out as one-time suspects in the case, including a man who now is a
wealthy developer in Los Angeles.
But Breen refused the defense lawyers' request Feb. 8 to throw out DNA evidence that
prosecutors said linked Barber to a pair of Hazzan's tennis shoes.
That ruling may have had an impact on Hazzan's thinking, prosecutors said.
"I don't know what caused the change of heart but that certainly didn't help their point of
view," Barb said.
http://www.lexis.com/researcbJretrieve?_rn=97c6fl 7f492ac99995cS0e92a4e4a571 &docnur... 1/23/2004
'Search - 49 Results - "mm" Page 2 of 2
"They might have seen the handwriting on the wall that he was about to be convicted for two
murders .... 1[n prior trials, he testified he washed those shoes," he said.
Under the plea agreement - which wasn't formalized until just before his plea in court -
I~lazzan was sentenced to life in prison with credit for time served in exchange for dropping
the second murder charge,
He will be eligible to apply for parole immediately upon his return to the state prison.
"1[ think he's still got time to do," Barb said. "! don't think he will just check-in and then walk
out the front door."
I~lazzan told police originally he had stayed at l~linor's apartment the night of the murder
because his car wouldn't start, and awoke to see two men who he couldn't identify leave the
apartment following the killing. Defense witnesses testified Ninor had been involved in
marijuana trafficking and was feared for his safety because of a drug deal gone bad.
"The evidence in the police reports provided support for I~azzan's defense that someone
else murdered Minor because of his drug dealing," the Supreme Court said in reversing the
conviction in :~999. ":it also provided a basis to impeach the thoroughness of the state's
investigation of the crime."
"The Supreme Court bought the appellants argument hook, line and sinker so that's what we
were fighting," Barb said.
"But there was never any evidence that there were two other people there. It would have
been impossible for two people to do what they said they did without tracking stuff all over
everything, And we never found any blood or anything outside the crime scene,"
Prosecutors offered a similar plea bargain arrangement a year ago after l~lazzan was
charged in Barber's death, but I~lazzan showed no interest and there had been no further
'talks until a week before the guilty plea.
"It happened quickly," Barb said. "His lawyers approached us and asked if he would consider
pleading guilty to a count, would we dismiss the other one."
"We said 'OK,' but that he would have to stand up and tell us what happened. That was part
of the deal."
http://www.~exis.c~m/resear~h/retriev~?-m=97c6f~ 7f492ac99995c8~e92a4e4a5~ ~ &d~cnur... 1/23/2004
~earch - 49 Results - "mazzan" Page 1 of 2
Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada) May 24, 2002 Friday
Copyright 2002 DR Partners d/b Las Vegas Review-Journal
Las Vegas Review-.lournal (Nevada)
May 24, 2002 Friday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: B; Pg. lB
LENGTH: 538 words
HEADL/NE: Ex-death row inmate admits committing two slayings
BYLINE: Sean Whaley
BODY:
By SEAN WHALEY
REVIEW-3OURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- A former death row inmate who is now seeking parole admitted for the
first time Thursday that he killed two people in a 1978 crime spree in Reno.
During a parole hearing at Nevada State Prison, .lohn '.lack' I~lazzan said he killed Mustang
Ranch prostitute April Barber as well as Reno resident Richard Minor .lt. in a dispute over
drugs and drug profits.
lflazzan, who spoke softly while manacled hand and foot, said he would move to Florida to
care for his elderly mother if released.
'I would consider parole a gift,' he said.
Minor's father, Richard Minor Sr., spoke in opposition to parole for I~lazzan, saying he has
never showed remorse for his crimes.
'The 3ack I~lazzans of the world sometimes beat the system,' Minor told members of the
Board of Parole Commissioners at a 45-minute parole hearing. 'Has he shown any remorse?
If he has, I haven't heard it.'
The Parole Board will announce its decision within 10 days. Four of seven commissioners
must vote to release Mazzan, who is 55. If denied, he could wait up to five years for another
hearing.
I~lazzan was sentenced to death in the Minor slaying. But Lis sentence and conviction were
reversed by the Supreme Court in .lanuary 2000 after the court found that evidence that
could have helped him in his defense was withheld from him at his original trial.
lflazzan pleaded guilty in February just before his retrial was scheduled to get under way.
Until then, he had steadfastly maintained he was innocent of the crime.
In exchange for pleading guilty to the Minor killing, I~azzan was sentenced to life with the
chance for parole.
Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick also dismissed a murder charge 14azzan
was facing in the Barber slaying. I~lazzan said it was Barber who put him in touch with Flinor
for the purpose of buying drugs.
http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=97c6fl 7f492ac99995c80e92a4e4a571 &docnur... 1/23/2004
Page 2 of 2
'Search - 49 Results - "mazzan"
Since 14azzan has served more than 20 years for the Minor killing, he was immediately
eligible for parole. His hearing was at the Nevada State Prison in the capital where he is
incarcerated.
Minor's father submitted a petition with 500 names on it from Reno residents opposing
Mazzan's release.
The father, a former district judge and justice of the peace who now works as an attorney in
Reno, sa*id Mazzan has claimed that the late 1970s were crazy times and drug use
contributed to the crime.
He said his son did use drugs but had a steady job, no criminal record and did not deserve to
die.
While drug use may have been prevalent, and included his son, 'everybody was not engaged
in murder and robbery,' he said.
Gammick also spoke in opposition to Mazzan's parole.
Commissioners questioned contacts Mazzan made with his former death row colleagues
while briefly on bail when he was awaiting retrial in the Minor killing.
t4azzan acknowledged he sent Christmas cards to some death row inmates, who are housed
at Ely State Prison in eastern Nevada, after his release on bail. He also took phone calls from
one death row inmate, Tom Wilson, one of four Reno men who admitted to the 1979 slaying
of undercover Reno police officer .lames Hoff.
t4azzan told the parole commissioners that the contacts were a terrible mistake that he
would not repeat.
http://www~~exis.c~m/r~s~arch/retriev~?-m=97c6f~7f492ac99995c8~~92a4e4a57~&d~cnur 1/23/2004
Se~t By: THE AFR[AT CONSULTING GROUP; 818 558 7688;
Jan- 1 5- 04
SUNSET HILLENNIUH
...~ovee Sunset. Millenn~Jm P~)~ .~wii
into ph~ b/vo if the F~ann~
ommission and C~ Caunat
~ogrove it in the coming monthsThe
Dro~ect to be developed by Sunset
MiJJenrlium Holdings, LLC. will occupy
city blocks on the south side of Sunset
BouievarcL fr~m Alta Loma Road to La
Ciene~a Boulevard lthe"Middie PapceF')
and from La Ciene~a Boulevard to Park
Sunset Hotel (the"East Parcel").The grafz
Er~ronmental impact Report will be
ready for public review in January 2004.
The proposed Middle Parcet will con,st
of a pedeS~m~riented deve~ent of
~et,~Vres~aurants and t,~vo residerraai
bu~ldin~sThe two residential towe~ to be
designed by Kanner Architect~ will each be
ten t)oors and have a ~ of i 85 units. The
Midde Parce~ will con, in 1,150 par~nE
spaces in a below Sunset Bouleva~ Fade
parking s~uCur~The surface parking lot
frame and stucco buildin§ of 42,500 square
feet will be demolished and mIJaced wth
the new
The proposed E~-t Parcei will contmn a
total of 235,000 square feet of two
hotels (aW Hotel and a Mzrriott Hotel),
fetal shops and restaurantsThe hotels to
be designed b7 the archkt, ectural firm
C, ensler, will be ten (loc~-s ezch and have
a total of 300 roomsThe retai) and
restaurants wit) have ou~oor dining ~reas
with a landscaped view corridor from
Sunset Boulevard. The e~csting Peterson
office building and related parking will be
demolished and replaced with the
exi~ng new P~ect
To connect ail three blocks to~ether and
to hemp mi'Jgate Ita~c and reduce
neighborhood intrusion, a proposect
Vehku~ar Access COmdor (VAC) will
connect from the ixesent House of Blues
p~rking lot behind the Monck~an and
C~fton hote)s ofrecUy into the East
Parcel's parkin~ s'o-ucture. A new below
grade tunnel under La Cienel~ Boulevard
will conn~.-t, the East P~rcel parking
s'a-ucture with the Middle Parcel parking
structure. The VAC will then connect the
Middle Parcel parking structure to the
e)ast~West Parcel paddng with an on
grade connec~on on Alta Loma Boulevard.
For more information about the Sunset
Millennium Project cal~ Ray Reynolds in
the City's Economic Development
Department at (323) 848-6354 or call
Sunset Millennium Holdings, LLC hotline
at (,310) 364-4345.
WEST HOLLYWOOD GATEWAY
The West Hollywood Gateway
Proiect--.me Oty's first malor re-.,.,~
development project--on the comer
Task Forte Studies
Benefits of Mixed-Use
in West Hollywood
L~st ~1, ~t the ~irecdon af the
Ck7 Council. star or.md a
Mixed-UseT~k Forc~ comprised
develap~r~, communit7 meml~rs and
l:~ines~ peopl~ to look ~t d~e
SpeCifK~/, ~ ~sk torc~ will a.~i~t in
~nd parking opportunities and ~our
economic deveiopmen~TheTa~k
Force will present findin~ and
mcommend~l:ion$ to ~he Cit7
Coundl in eatJ,/2.004. For mom
inf~, ..~don cor~ct. Emmeline
~ ~t (]23) 848-6487 or Sus~
Haly I~ne ~ (~23) 848-~476.
2:14PM;
Page 3/5
of La Brea Avenue and Santa Monica
Boulevard is set to open this Spring. ~n
addition to flagship stores Target and
Best Buy, other retail establishments will
include Beverages and More, Payless
Shoes, Zekes Barbecue, Starbuck's. Ben
and Jerry's, Daphne's Greek Caf~.Jamba
JuiCe and Cingular Wireless.
The opening of Target and Best Buy
wiil create more than 400 new jobsmThe
City ~s working with T~r~et and Besg, Buy
as wetl as other retaiiers to recru~West
Hollywood residents.
For more information on available
jobs at the Gateway ProJeCt call )Ca e.
Martjn at (323) 848-6465.
PA¢IR¢ DF. SIGN CEIITER
Cesar PeJli's grand .vision for the
Pacific Design Center is a few steps
closer to reality now that the City has
approved the deveoomem of the ~nal
phase, the "Red" Building. if built, the
400,0C(3 square-foot red buildin~ will
have flexibility in its uses. mean~n~
special events and room for accessory
uses SL~ch as retail and restaurant space.
The proposed buildin§ will house 1.290
parking spaces, bringing the grand total
of par~in§ spaces at the Pacitic Design
Center to 3. J 4 [. As part of the
developmerft a[reement the City will
be given 183 surface Jot parking spaces
for public use be~inning]anuary 21.
2004.When the Red buiidin~ is
erected, the City will receive a total of
400 paridng spaces for public use.The
fiat r~te for the public parking at the
PDC will be $31day until July 21.2004,
at,er which it will be a $4/day fiat rate
fee for the next year.
BOSE
McKINNEY
& EVANS
· ATTORNEY.~ AT LAW
Memorandum
TO:
lq~OM:
DATE:
Pdt:
Mark Siffiu
~ttam Miller
El~-e Choflos, Esq., Baker & Hostetler
PhiliP A. Nicely
November 12, 2003
6200 Oak Tree Blvd. - LAM-Independence, LLC
I have now had the opporlamlty to review all the various doc~nnmts in connection with
the foreclosure of the 6200 Bui~alng, the subsequence conveyance of that bui~dlng to LAM-
Iudependence, LLC. I will make the following comments:
Chronological Sequence of Evems
I. October 23, 2000- Loan from Heller Financial to 6200 Oakh~e (there was a
Note A and a Note B, but I don't think any of that is
relevant to the issues, but the total amount of the loall was
$1~,130,000.00).
February 15, 2001 -
3. March 28, 2002 -
Fremont acquired the Loan thus inming to all the rights
and obligations of the ofiglnd lender.
Fremont files a Compl~int for Money Judgment,
Foreclosure, Appointment of Receiver and other relief.
4. June 25, 2002 -
Fremont files an Amended Complaint for Money
Judgment, Foreclosure, Appointment of Receiver and
other relief. (At this time, according to the Complaint
principal amount owed was $12,324,198.00. In addition,
default interest and other fees also existed~
5. June 26, 2002
I2uM-Independence purchased a 100% participation
interest in the loan to 6200 Oaklree from Fremont.
6. August 22, 2002 3n.~wer to the Complaint was filed by 6200 Oakir~.
Downtown * 2700 first Indiana Ptcsza · 135 Notlh Puntm/tvada Street *, ~nd'mnapoli$, Indlana 46204 · (317) 684-5000 ,, FAX ~17) 684-5173
a, · ' · indian is, Indiana 46240 ~, (317) 684.-5300 * FAX (317) 684-5316
NorthOfllce·600~.96 Sh'eel SuiteS00 _ apol. . .,, 973.1229 o FAX: (317) 223-0220
Washington, DC · 700 Norlh One Lafayelte Centre * 1 '120 20th .Sheet, N.W. ~, Washingt~, DC20036 {202)
Page Two
7. Febr~s_ry 2003
8. January 29, 2003
9. .january 30, 2003
10. March 20, 2003
11. May 8, 2003
Motion for Approval of Additional Protective Advances
in the amount of $2,500,000.00 was filed. (On June 4,
2002, an order was issued for a protective advance of $2.5
million, thus tho total protociivo advunoe was
$5,oo0,0oo.004-
A comp]sint was filed by Fremont against Louis Walner
as the guarantor of the loan:
West Way Management Company was eliminated and CB
Richard l~llis was inserted'as the manager.
A forbearance letter for the execution of an Agreement for
Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure was executed. Applicable
provisions of the letter included (a) deliveaing into escrow
a deed conveying the property to Fremont or an entity
named by Fremont prior to Effective Date'(lvl~-Ja 26,
2003) ('l'he deed that was delivered into escrow was the
deed to LAM-Ind~endence, LLC); Co) the deed could be
to Fremont or an entity ~amed by Fremont; (c) the deed is
t~ be immediately recorded on the Escrow Termination
Date (May 10, 2003) unless the tiff= company had
received the purchase price; (d) 6200 could acquire the
property upon the payment of $15,252,210.75 plus some
other costs and expenses; (e)6200 could ~ead the
Escrow Termination Date to June 24, 2003 upon the
payment of $150,000.00; (0 the Deed-In-Lien Agreement
and the deed would grant 6200 the right of faa refiml to
purchase the propeay up through March 26, 2004.
The Deed-h-Lieu Agreement was executed and included
the following provis/oas: (a) an extension fee of
$150,000.00; (b) unless 6200 would pay off the pay-off
amount by May 16, 2003 ("Esemw Ter~'~ion Date~ or
as might be extended to June 24, 2003, rifle company was
to record the deed; (c) the Escrow T~o~;nation Date was
extended to June 24, 2003 (whim the deed was to go into
escrow, it was to go in either for the lender or leader's
designee- the grantee in the de. ed that was in ~scrow was
LAM-Independence and thus clearly 6200 had to know
that LAM-hdependence was getting the property); (d)
Page Three
6200 had a right of first refussl end the lenguage provides,
"In the event the Deed is recorded end Leader or Lender's
Des~guee (in either case the Fee Holder) acquires fee title
to the Property in accordance with the t~,,~ of this
Agreement, etp.:: The right of first offer terro~-ates as of
March 26, 200~i (e) 6200's fights 'are limited to sale by.
the Fee Holder o£the Property to ~mrelated third parties.
t2. June 25, 2003
The deed is ~iren out of escrow end recorded with the
grantee being LAM-lndepe.odence, LLC. A .copy of the
deed is attuned.
In short, LAM-Independence's participation interest was acquired in june 2002, almost a
year prior to the deed-in-lien agreement. The deed-in-lieu agreement provided that the deed
could go to Fremont or its designee. At the t~me, however, the deed had to go to LAM-
Independence. All lmew that LAM-indePendence was the grantee under the deed and by
recording the deed should know that LAM-lndapendence was not a b~k-
Second, in the Deed-In-Lieu Agreement and in the Letter Agreement, Fremont, even had
it still been the owner of the loan, could convey the Property to whomever it desired. There was
no restrict/on as to whom the Property could be conveyed.
The above are the pertinent dates and facts. Further, even if Fremont had represented to
6200 at the 6me of execution of the deed-in-lieu that if it was the owner of the loan or if it ~
represented that at eny time, it is en irrelevent representation because Fremont could deliwr the
deed or cause the .deed to be delivered to whomever it desired. There was no limitation on the
designee in the agreement. The Deed-in-Lieu Agreement represents the entire agreement
between the parties end there is no other agreement. As a consequence, 6200 has no grounds for
a lawsuit. Further, there could not poss~ly have been eny sinister motive considering LAM-
Independence bought its 100% participation almost a year before the deed-in-lieu. So, LAlvl-
Independence had no idea what was really going to end up occurring.
Finally, the right of first refusal was only valid through March 2004; thus, no malter who
owns the property, all they have to do is hold it for approximately nine montti~md the right of
f~vst refusal goes away.
This is a bogus lawsuit or a shakedown lawsuit; I would suggest thst to initially get this
matter off dead center, we simply send a letter to counsel for 6200 and advise tb~,~ of the facts
end the situation and suggest that they dismiss their lawsuit and also suggest that it is a frivolous
lawsuit I would then suggest that, with the facts, we file a motion for summary judgment end
ask for fee~ as a result of the fr/volous lawsuit being filed.
+2tG51516_'E~_ ~ klAC~ LLP
u~ wmud~'_ DEE~
~uY~ mmTY mm~
TI*IlS tNDEI~iTIRE Wi'1'NE88E~: ?hal: 81C)00 OAK ~ BLVD., LI.C, an ohio
INDEPIENDF:NCP-, u.~, I uemwam
2003, ~ Gmnt~'
Tax ~
day ~ M~,
~ my hand and Notarial
My Cornml~M~ Explre~:
8end tax~~o ~md mailing address
152~ Blue day Way
Lo~Ang~, O. lifomi~ ~
+~1F=~51~1F:~8 FF~a'JTZ LaCkS) LL.P
9B3 PB~ NOU 10 '83 11:5B
C1,,~ No.: g62..0~ 01706-001
D/T.,o~ 01/07/02.
O/fr~Ho.: 01202-029
PAG~ 01/~7
OE, C' 16.2DQ2 ~
Very traly you~
81/82/2884 13:83
Z2/31/2BB3 Z2:42
31036B77i1
BB5~B~B277
p.o,~E 82/97
PAGE 92
WALKER, H&ee-ER?Y & E£HAR
8300 No~m~-
~--~[i.~ ~ 5.5437
Piet~ DUBUd~ RgA ~
o/o CJi_. ~,*- ~ Wa]cet~ of Califom;*; Ia:.
8490 W. b~.~ ~tvd., Suite 7..00
P.O. ~
we~ Ho~d, CA~O~
Los A~I~ CA ~X~?
11845 Wear Olym.~ie Blvd., Sai~ 625
0~/82/2604 ~3:~3
November 2~, 2002
......... ~.~,]~.g~. ............
B1/82/2004 13:B3
12/3~,/2B63:12:
B~538~B277
94/67
e4
,R~E Off AT;t_. ~
1. In cn~;,4,~-ation of ~he Imymcnt of FRtx~n Tlxnm~ dollars
the n~:i~ of wMch I hereby acknowl~ I telm~ rendt, __,~q~. t, hold kezndcs~ and
Millcuuium compl~ ~ ocem~ f~m 2000 m 2002 {u W~s~ Hollywomt, Caligxnf~ and.
of Cal~for~ Co~u~ of Los ~ ~
pa. o.i'~,, ~ [
/
tumid'make in ~oid so8~ ~ ~ h
01~e~/~OOa, 13:83
13.
81/02/2884 13:83
· ~.9£t2U~d Z2:~2
PAGE 86/87
b~ow u my own :Em a6-.t.
DATJBD:~
DE CASCO & ~
.3
/-
Og:3$na Frmt-Bk~R & ~OSTETLER LLP, F,G Z15-$g$=g?40 +
2OO4
T-$75 P.O0~'O03 F-4~g
44114-3485
We aru interoated in r~ew~ng such doemncn:s s: ~he c~rlicst possible
edocuments rn~bccoFiedormnoved from me pm.~y It
esp~ tlllt suosequen~y w~ wm ~ ,~, ~..,...-. ~r'
is without lm~udio~ I~ mo ~vc ti~ o~ s~ pamm m m~
lot mo [mow, through Mr. Labovitz, when I n~Y ~ my ~,q)t~s~tati
ss
DEVELOPMENT
Maefield Development and its affiliates constitute a fully
integrated, privately owned Real Estate Company formed in
September 1991. Since its formation, the company has focused
on the acquisition and development of undervalued
underutilized properties with an emphasis on master planned
residential communities and retail shopping centers.
Maefield is a completely vertical service and
development organization with substantial expertise in site
selection, user operational planning, traffic feasibility,
architectural and engineering design, pemdtS and approvals,
construction, building management, landscaping and post-
occupancy construction. Over the past 12 years, the company
has established an impressive track record having successfully
acquired, entitled and developed or sold in excess of 1.5 million
square feet of retail space, 3,000 single-family homes and 880
units of multi-family housing.
See the attachment for current projects by Maefield.
The Strand on Ocean
Miami Beach, Florida
The Strand is an ocean front development covering nearly one block on Ocean Drive
in the world famous Art Deco District of South Beach. Located between 10th and
11th Streets, it has amazing ocean views of the Atlantic and Lummus Park. The
project consists of 35,000sf of street level retail and restaurant space with 76 luxury
condo/hotel resort residences on the upper levels. The development will renovate
four existing historic buildings back to their original art deco facades and build one
new contemporary building. Construction is estimated to be completed June 2005.
The Landmark - Union Square
San Francisco, California
The Landmark is a renovation of the historic Home Telephone Company Building
located at 333 Grant Avenue in San Francisco, California. The project consists of over
9,000sf of street level retail space and 39 luxury condominiums. This 7-story
building, Historical Landmark No. 141, was designed by Earnest Coxhead and built in
1908. With its classic architectural far;ade, the building, undeniably a landmark, is
centrally located and provides easy walking access to the world renowned shopping
district of Union Square, the Financial District, and the Gates of Chinatown.
Noble West
Noblesville, Indiana
Noble West is a mixed-use development covering over 600 acres at 146th Street and
Hazel Dell Road in Noblesville, Indiana. The project consists of 300,000sf of retail
space, 470,000 sf of medical office space, 520 multi-family residences and 950
single-family homes and an elementary school.
Olathe Pointe
Olathe, Kansas
Olathe Pointe is a lifestyle oriented retail development covering 42.5 acres at ll9th
Street and Blackbob Road in Olathe, Kansas. The project consists of 450,O00sf of
retail space. Surrounded by commercial and multi-family residences, the site is the
only undeveloped parcel in this prime retail intersection of ]ohnson County.
First Energy Building
Independence, Ohio
Owned through partnership with Lubert-Adler Real Estate. First Energy Building
covers ~12.8 acres at 6200 Oak Tree Boulevard in Independence, Ohio. The property
consists of a 334,200sf Class A office complex.
The Arbors at Woodgate
Bloomington, Indiana
Woodgate is a community of 365 single-family homes on 116 acres, located in
Bloomington, Indiana. Phase I, completed January of 1998, consists of 56 lots with
prices ranging from $115,000 to $175,000. Phase II, completed July of 200)., and
consists of 65 lots with prices ranging from $108,700 to $180,413. Phase III consists
of 80 lots with prices starting from $112,3).5 to $[76,665. Only 6 lots available in
Phase III. Phase IV under construction.
LAM-DACRA, LLC - Own 26.56% of loan secured by property
owned by Dacra Design Moor, LLC and McCrory Design Buick,
LLC located at 175-19:L NE 40th Street, 77 NE 41st Street, 3831
NE 2nd Avenue and 3841 NE 2nd Avenue located in City of Miami,
County of Dade, Florida.
Executed Agreements
V.T. Tnc.- contract to purchase for 66 acres located at 119th
Street and Renner Road in Olathe, Kansas for $14,000,000
McCray - contract to purchase 27 acres located at 119th Street
and T-35/Kansas City Road in Olathe, Kansas for $9~068,000
Pelican Development - contract to purchase parking garage
located at :LOth and Collins Streets in Miami Beach, Florida for
$:L2,000,000. Payment will be made by either cash or financing
provided by Fremont Investment & Loan.
Summary of Entities
January 2004
Maefield Development Corporation EIN# 35-1837121
An Indiana S-corporation owned by Mark Siffin (63%) and Alec Petro (37%)
- Articles of Incorporation filed and approved September 5, 1991.
- Developer of Woodgate subdivision in Bloomington, Indiana. (Monroe County)
Residential subdivision. Phases I & II are completed - 120 lots. Phase III contains
69 completed homes, 1 model and 11 houses under construction.
Infrastructure work for Phase IV started in August 2003. 86 lots available Spring
2004.
Maefield Development~ LLC BIN# 35-2039425
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved September 1, 1998
Partner with Apollo Real Estate Advisors, LP to form
Sunset Millennium Associates~ LLC EIN# 95-4707196
- Project located on Sunset Strip in West Hollywood, California.
- Sales price of signage rights on buildings exceeded purchase price of
properties.
- As acquired, comprised of three office buildings.
- Proposed development is refurbishment of two office buildings and
construction of retail space, parking garage and hotel.
- Maefield Development, LLC redeemed 100% of its interest in the project
in April 2002.
Noble West~ LLC
EIN# 20-0134762
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alee Petro
(30%)
Articles of Incorporation filed and approved July 28, 2003.
Formed to oversee management of road construction project located at 146th Street
& Hazel Dell Road in Noblesville, Indiana.
~ EIN#
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved February 12, 2003.
Registered to conduct business in Kansas February 24, 2003.
Organized to conduct 1031 exchange for property to be sold by Hazel Dell, LLC
and acquired by MaeCrest, LLC.
MAE-Independence, LLC EIN# 03-0463660
An Indiana liability company owned by Mark Siffm (70%) and Alec Petro (30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved June 20, 2002
Page 1 of 4
Summary of Entities
January 2004
The managing member and 10% owner of _MAE-LAF L_.~__~.~_LC EIN# 71-0892005
- A Delaware entity formed by Adler (90%) and MAE-Independence,
LLC (10%) will own the following:
1. LAM-Northridge, LLC - which will owns the note on Northridge,
CA property. Note paid in full November 30, 2002.
2. LAM-Independence, LLC - which will own the note on the
Cleveland, Ohio property. Property acquired June 25, 2003.
Articles of Organization filed and approved June 27, 2002.
Summary of members of MAE-LAF, LLC:
Name and Address
Lubert-Adler Real Estate
Fund III, L.P.
435 Devon Park Drive
Building 500
Wayne, PA 19087
Lubert-Adler Real Estate
Parallel Fund HI, L.P.
435 Devon Park Drive
Building 500
Wayne, PA 19087
Lubert-Adler Capital
Real Estate Fund III, L.P.
435 Devon Park Drive
Building 500
Wayne, PA 19087
Lubert-Adler Real Estate
Equity Fund III, L.P.
435 Devon Park Drive
Building 500
Wayne, PA 19087
MAE-LAY
328 S. Walnut Street Suite 2
Bloomington, 131 47401
Percenta e Interest
73.65420%
1.65861%
10.8793%
3.80781%
10%
Page 2 of 4
Summary of Entities
January 2004
MAE-Ocean Blvd, LLC EIN# 74-3051721
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved June 20, 2002
FLA qualification as foreign LLC September 3, 2002 (Doc #M02000002305)
100% owner of Ocean Bird LLC EIN# 51-0427004
- Owns property at 1024-1060 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139.
(Dade Co.)
- Formed in State of Delaware September 2002
MaeDeavor LLC EIN# 75-3068823
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved June 20, 2002
California qualification as foreign LLC June 28, 2002
- Owns property located at 333 Grant Street, San Francisco, CA 94108. (San
Francisco County)
MaeVenture L.a..~LC EIN# 05-0560852
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Article of Organization filed and approved December 27, 2002
- J00% owner ofMAE-FAL LLC EIN# none assigned
A Delaware single member LLC wholly owned by MaeVenture, LLC
Articles of Organization filed and approved December 30, 2002
- Qualified in Florida April 1, 2003 (Doc # M03000001049)
100% owner of LAM-DA CRA LLC E1N# 05-0560857
A Delaware single member LLC wholly owned by MAE-FAL, LLC
- Articles of Organization filed and approved December 30, 2002
- Qualified in Florida April 1, 2003 (Doc # M03000001042)
Junior Participant (Fremont Inv & Loan is Senior Participant) at
26.56% of Outstanding Loan Amount (Original = $29,750,000
Closing = $28,236,950.39)
MaeCrest LLC EIN# 35-2106484
- An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and ^lec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved December 13, 1999.
Registered to conduct business in Kansas June 4, 2002.
Owns property located at 119th Street and Blackbob Road, Olathe, KS.
Page 3 of 4
Summary of Entities
January 2004
EIN# 35-2019804
Hazel Dell LLC
An Indiana limited liability company owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alec Petro
(30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved June 9, 1997
Owns property located at 146th Street and Hazel Dell Road, Noblesville, Indiana.
Woodgate Subdivision Community Assoc. Ine EIN# 35-1926419
- An Indiana Nonprofit Corporation formed to manage Homeowners Association for
Woodgate subdivision.
Articles of Organization filed and approved March 31, 1993.
Controlling interest held by Maefield Development Corporation until all lots in
Woodgate are sold.
~ EIN# 35-1937929
- An Indiana S-Corporation owned by Mark Siffin (70%) and Alee Petro (30%)
Articles of Organization filed and approved November 9, 1994.
Acquired and developed Silver Thorne subdivision in Carmel, Indiana.
Silver Thorne Homeowners Association~ Inc, EIN# 35-1986635
An Indiana Nonprofit Corporation formed to manage Homeowners Association for
Silver Thorne subdivision.
Articles of Organization filed and approved December 15, 1995
Silver Thorne subdivision acquired and built by Golf Corporation an Indiana S-
Corporation owned by Mark Siffin and Alec Petro. Golf Corporation dissolved
upon completion of development.
Owned and managed by homeowners in Silver Thorne subdivision. Maefield
and/or Mark Siffin have no ownership in this entity. Last home sold in this
subdivision October 2001.
Per Indiana Secretary of State website, not listed as officer- see attached.
Fox Chase Homeowners Association~ Ine EIN#
An Indiana Nonprofit Corporation formed to manage Homeowners Association for
Fox Chase subdivision.
- Articles of Organization filed and approved May 19, 1997.
Fox Chase subdivision acquired and built by SPC Development Corporation an
Indiana S-Corporation owned by Mark Siffin and Alec Petro. SPC Development
dissolved upon completion of development.
Owned and managed by homeowners in Fox Chase. Maefield and/or Mark Siffm
have no ownership in this entity. Last home sold in this subdivision June 2000.
Per Indiana Secretary of State website, Mark Siffin listed as Incorporator but bolds
no officer positions - see attached.
Page 4 of 4