On the periphery of the never-ending saga of the Ambassador Letelier assassination in 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the appointment of a guardian for the defendant in the case Gonzalez-Vera, et. al. v. Townley, et. al., docket no. 09-5134.

The appellee in this case, Michael Vernon Townley pled guilty to conspiracy to murder a foreign official in connection with the 1976 assassination of former Chilean ambassador and foreign minister Orlando Letelier. After spending five years in prison, he entered into the Witness Security Program, WSP. In the years following his incarceration and during his subsequent time in the WSP, Townley was linked to the July 1976 brutal murder of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, a United Nations diplomat.

Soria's widow, Laura Gonzalez-Vera sued Townley for damages. Townley defaulted on the suit and the district court entered a $7 million judgment against him. Gonzalez-Vera asked the Attorney General to help collect the judgment. The WSP director to whom the Attorney General had delegated the task concluded that it was "not unreasonable for [Townley] to pay $75 per week" toward the judgment. Gonzalez-Vera rejected this offer and sued Townley in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court then dismissed the case, stating that Gonzalez-Vera lack[ed] statutory authorization to bring this suit. The district court recited 18 U.S.C. §§ 3523(a), 3523(b)(1), and 3523(b)(3) as follows:

3523(a): If judgment is entered against an individual in WSP and that individual has not made reasonable efforts to comply with the judgment, their location may be disclosed to the plaintiff.
3523(b)(1): Upon a decision by the Attorney General to deny disclosure of the defendant's identity and location, a petitioner can bring an action into district court to collect on the judgment.
3523(b)(3): If the petitioner a) holds a judgment entered by a Federal or State court and b) if the Attorney General has declined to disclose the current identity and location to the petitioner, a guardian may be appointed.

Gonzalez-Vera argued in the district court that sections 3523(a) and 3523(b) are two independent mechanisms to assist with enforcement of an outstanding judgment. The court disagreed and Gonzalez-Vera appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the basis that the district court had misinterpreted the statutes.

On February 23, 2010, the Circuit Court agreed with the district court, stating that the language in the statute's segments meant for one to follow the other. They added that if the court agreed with Gonzalez-Vera's interpretation, every case in which the protected person's identity are not disclosed would allow for a guardian, including cases where the protected person has made reasonable efforts to satisfy the judgment. They stated that, given the statute's language and structure, and the risks of disclosing a protected person's identity and location even to a court-appointed guardian, we think it clear that Congress intended to make guardianship available only where the Attorney General find that the protected person is failing to make reasonable efforts to satisfy the judgment. -- Laura Valle, Legal Assistant, Berliner, Corcoran, & Rowe, LLP, Washington, DC.