# Appendix — Garner v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0227%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 424 U.S. 648 ## Text APPENDIX ae ee c Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1974 No. 74-100 ROY D. GARNER, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED AUGUST 9, 1974 CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 18, 1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1974 No. 74-100 ROY D. GARNER, Petitioner, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPENDIX a ; } ‘ b. y INDEX TO APPENDIX Index to Clerk’s Transcript .................. Notice of Motion and Motions (1) For . Severance and Separate Trial; (2) For Copy of Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings; (3) Affidavit of Alan Saltzman; (4) Points and Authorities; (5) To Compel Government To Disgorge Evidence Favorable to Defend- ant Re Guilt or Innocence [filed November i O66 ke Ie seis. . babe ceeetes Affidavit of Alan Saltzman .............. Memorandum of Points and Authorities .... DT 4 e« ctubundbe66 66 s-d6¢ (0066s Proposed Corrected Indictment See UNE G, TOTES cecccccccccvcccccces Application for Order Compelling Testimony (of Clarence A. “Jack” Swank) - 18 U.S.C. § 2514 [filed October 29, 1970] .............. Affidavit of Robert L. Meyer (United States Attorney) ................ Order us above dated October 29,1970 ........ 26 27 INDEX TO APPENDIX ii. Page Judgment and Commitment [filed November 16,1970) .....-- eee eeeeeees sa 28 Notation re opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (majority and dissenting) and the order denying Petition for Rehearing by that court ......... Tht whale te db ered we 29 Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript: R.T. p. 59,1. 3 - p. 67,1. 10 (re & 605 and the use of ee toll records) ..... wes ee ree ere 30 R.T. p. 248, 1. 24- p. 264, 1. 16 (re Daily Racing Form and its status as a business record pursuant to SUVS ae DP cccce: ease eee 36 R.T. p. 420, 1. 18 p p. 423,1.4 (re testimony of Clarence A. “‘Jack”’ i. ree or rer rrr rT 49 R.T. p. 1201, 1. 8- p. 1209, 1. 18 (re introduction of income tax cccedeceesere’s cane cudde dee 51 R.T. p. 1365,1.9- p. 1366,1. 12 (use of Mr. Garner’s income tax returns on argument to the jury) .......... 58 Exhibit 19 - Income Tax Returns ..........+-- 60 > eee sews sue ddewee bets 72 - OO Serer ror rier tre eT 69 9. eee: een rr eee ee 61 INDEX OF CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT In the United States District Court, Central District of California. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. ROY D. GARNER, Defendant. Case No. 5356 (F) Criminal Application for Order ered Testimony, filed 10/29/70 ........... Pe Dee 237 Certified Copy of Indictment, filed 1/22/70 .... 40 Certified Copy of Judgment and Commitment, filed 11/16/70 ....... reewedé deekeeesed ux 275 Certified Copy of Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Case No. 4790-Crim.), filed 11/26/69 ........ 2 Certified Copy of Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars (Case No. 2790-Crim.), filed 11/26/69 .............. Certified Copy of Notice of Motion and Motion for Discovery (Case No. 4790-Crim.), filed Pn i 6cu coud tak eee Sat Se T ey ee 15 Certified Copy of Notice of Motion and Motions for Severance and for Separate Trial; for Copy of Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings; Affidavit; Points and Authorities: to Compel Government to Disgorge Evidence Favorable to Defendant re Guilt or Innocence (Case No. 4790-Crim.), filed 11/26/69 ........ 32 Certified Copy of Notice of Motion and Motions for New Trial/Judgment of Acquittal/ An Arrest of Judgment; Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Case No. 4790), filed 5/18/70 . 83 Index of Clerk’s Transcript Certified Copy of Statement of Docket RE a ee eee Defendant’s Proposed Instructions (1 through ee eee rl, Pe dig a bias Defendant’s Proposed Jury Instructions a aed | SO Ai Oe ee Defendant’s Requested Instruction No. 6, CD? “Le Lode awe ee See PTT Defendant’s Trial Memorandum Re Admissibility of Telephone Company ee ec e es eseues Designation and Appearance Counsel, Pe. t66 tee ees bebe sade ees eee Designation of Record on Appeal, te cecet deeeckau és bbe tesdhes é Exhibit to Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for New Trial, filed 5/28/70 Exhibit to Supplementary Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for New Trial, filed 6/12/70 ................ ... Instructions - filed 11/5/70 .............. Government’s Requested Special Instructions, jj neceens une uee needs s ae ewes Memorandum of Law, filed 2/17/70 .......... Minute Order (Case No. 4790-Crim.), cert cea be ene due cweba deb ee Minute Order (Case No. 4790-Crim.), ee 247 74 79 190 82 277 125 Index of Clerk’s Transcript Minute Order, dated 5/28/70 ..............4.. Minute Order, dated 6/12/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 6/22/70 ...... ieipecnee Minute Order, dated 8/5/70 5... eee ee eee Minute Order, dated 8/17/70 .............4... Minute Order, dated 10/5/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 10/27/70 .............. Minute Order, dated 10/28/70 .............. Minute Order, dated 10/29/70 =... .. 2... eee Minute Order, dated 11/2/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 11/3/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 11/4/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 11/5/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 11/6/70 ................ Minute Order, dated 11/16/70 .............. Motion for Bail for Witness, filed 7/24/70 ...... Notice of Appeal, filed 11/16/70 ............ Noti¢e of Motion and Motion to Quash ee ED eae ce eeus- eb eeaes Opposition to Defendant’s Motions for New Trial, Judgment of Acquittal, and Arrest of PE eT svessedscceesss wees 109 Index of Clerk’s Transcript Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, etc., filed 10/21/70 ................ Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Objections to Introduction of Defendant’s Past Income Tax Returns, filed 2/17/70 ... ..... Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for New Trial and Judgment of Acquittal, filed PETE Kec bneercbnceeeceveetnesevaesees Proposed Corrected Indictment, filed 8/4/70 Requested Voir Dire Questions and Motion (contained in question No. 29), filed 2/3/70 Second Supplementary Exhibits and Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for New WEP GEEETE cece secccecscasebcuneses Supplementary Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for New . Serer re keebveusees Supplementary Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for New DC 8 cisceierveeesceees ea lO errr rere Terrerrer eee eked 199 67 267 178 55 163 147 129 266 Original and 2 copies of Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings had on October 27, 28, 29, 1970 (volumes 1, 2 and 3); Novem- ber 2, 3, 4, 5, (volumes 4, 5, 6 and 7); November 6 and 16, 1970 (volume 8) Certificate By The Clerk 1, Emory G. Hatcher, Clerk of the above entitled Court, hereby certify the documents listed herein, together with the other listed items, constitute the record on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the above entitled case. Dated and Signed: February 9, 1971. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS 5. (1) FOR SEVERANCE AND SEPARATE TRIAL; (2) FOR COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS; (3) AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN SALTZMAN; (4) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; (5) TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO DISGORGE EVIDENCE: FAVORABLE TO DEFENDANT RE GUILT OR INNOCENCE In the United States District Court, Central District of California. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, vs. CLARENCE A. SWANK; ROY D. GARNER, et al., Defend- ants. Criminal No. 4790(F). {FILED NOVEMBER 26, 1969] TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 18, 1969, at 10:00 o’clock A.M., as previously orally noticed in Court, before the HONORABLE WARREN J. FERGUSON, the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER, will, through counsel, move the Court for orders as follows: (1) Directing a severance and separate trial as to the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER, from the other Defendants; (2) Directing the United States Attorney to have transcribed all grand jury proceedings leading up to the instant indictment and to provide a copy thereof to counsel for the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER; (3) Directing the U.S. Attorney to disclose to counsel for ROY D. GARNER all evidence known to him favorable to the Defendant on the issue of his guilt or innocence. The within motions are based on the within affidavit Notice of Motion and Motions 6. attached hereto, the Points and Authorities attached hereto, the records and files in the above-entitled cause, and any and all other matters which may be presented prior to or at the time of the hearing of said motions. Respectfully submitted, Alan Saltzman Attorney for Defendant Affidavit of Alan Saltzman State of California ) ) ss. County of Los Angeles ) ALAN SALTZMAN states under oath the following: 1. That he is an attorney retained to represent the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER, in the within action: RE: SEVERANCE MOTION. Your affiant is informed and believes and there- on alleges that the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER, would be placed in a dilemma so far as presenting his case to the jury is concerned if he were tried with any of the other co-Defendants because of the statements and conduct of the said co-Defendants, and because of the fact that it might become encumbant upon counsel for any co-Defend- ant to argue his client’s innocence based on the guilt of ROY D. GARNER, which would operate to the obvious prejudice of ROY D. GARNER, and that, therefore, fairness demands that the moving party, ROY D. GARNER, be tried Affidavit of Alan Saltzman 7. separately. Your affiant is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that there are acts, declarations and conduct which the Government proposes to offer during the course of the trial which would be admissible only against one of the co-Defendants, and that it would be impossible for the jury to consider said evidence only against the declarant or actor. Your affiant further believes that certain co- Defendants have made certain admissions or statements to witnesses which would be hearsay as to the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER, but that the jury would not be able to exclude such admissions by one co-Defendant when considering the guilt or innocence of the Defendant, ROY D. GARNER. Your affiant has been informed by the U. S. Attorney that there are certain statements which have been made by one or more of the Defendants which implicate Defendant, ROY D.GARNER ._.. [At the time of the preparation of this appendix, the subsequent page of the Affidavit of Alan Saltzman was found to be missing from the copy of the Clerk’s Transcript furnished counsel. At time of printing, this page had still not been obtain- ed. The record will be supplemented with this information. | Memorandum of Points and Authorities Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Severance) 8. Memorandum of Points and Authorities 9. (Transcript of Grand Jury Testimony) Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures provides for separate trials if the Defendant would be preju- diced by the joinder of Defendants Transcript of Grand Jury Testimony: In United States vs. Youngblood, 379 Fed. 2d 365 (1967), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals establishes the without the Court’s aid, because powerless itself to compel the testimony of witnesses. It is the Court’s process which summons the witness to attend and give testimony, and it is the court which must compel a witness to testify, if after appearing he refuses to do so.” rule that upon the request of defense counsel, the court shall order that he be allowed to examine the grand jury testimony of any witnesses who testifies at the trial. The Re: Disclosure of Evidence Favorable Re: Guilt: In Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (decided May 13, 1963), the Supreme can establish that disclosure would jeopardize national secunty Court stated as follows: Court notes that an order will not be made if the Government or other significant interest. The Court expressly establishes that defense counsel is not required to show a “particularized need” for the Grand Jury Transcript. The “particularized need”’ standard authorized in Dennis vs. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 Supreme Court 1840, 16 L Ed. 2d 973 (1966) is held to be not mandatory and is discarded because of the buraen placed on the trial judges in applying it. Said burden consists of an in camera search for inconsistencies. The Court further declared that an alternative ground for allowing dis- covery of the Grand Jury Transcript is the language of Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures which gives to trial courts discretion to authorize disclosure of the transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings In Brown vs. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 48, 3 L. Ed. 2d 609, 616, 79 S. Ct 539, the Court states: ““A grand jury is clothed with great independence in many areas, but it remains an appendage of the Court, powerless to perform its investigative function “We now hold that the suppression by the prose- cution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates Due Process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Respectfully submitted, ' /s/ Alan Saltzman Attorney for Defendant INDICTMENT 10. [18 U.S.C. 8371: Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 1084: Interstate Transmission of Wagering Information; 18 U.S.C. § 1952; Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering; 18 U.S.C. § 2: Aiding and Abetting.| In the United States District Court, Central District of California, December, 1968 Grand Jury. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v CLAR- ENCE A. SWANK (aka JACK SWANK); LYLE K. BE %GE; BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN; NICHOLAS P. DE SISTO, JR.; WAYNE DONAWAY (aka BABE DONAWAY); ROY D. GARNER; HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM; EMERY L. LONG; GEORGE SCOVILLE; Defendants. No. 5356 Crim. {FILED JANUARY 22, 1970] The Grand Jury Charges: COUNT ONE {18 U.S.C. § 371] Commencing prior to January |, 1968, and continuing to the date of the return of this indictment, defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK (also known as JACK SWANK), LYLE K. BERGE, BERNARD IL. BERNSTEIN, NICHOLAS P. DE SISTO, JR., WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), ROY D. GARNER, HAROLD W. GOLD- BAUM, EMERY L. LONG, GEORGE SCOVILLE, and their unindicted co-conspirators William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), Lois J. Rusch, Lynn Marmor (also known as Lennie Moore), and Kenneth M_ Brandyberry (also known as Kenneth Miller), agreed, confederated and conspired together to commit offenses against the United States as follows: (a) To engage in the business of betting and wagering 7 Indictment 11 and to use wire communication facilities for the transmission in interstate commerce of bets and wagers and information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084; (b) To travel in interstate commerce and use facilities in interstate commerce with intent to (1) distribute the proceeds of unlawful activity, namely: a business enterprise involving gambling and bribery offenses in violation of the laws of California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and of the United States; and (2) promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity; and thereafter to per- form and attempt to perform acts specified in (1) and (2) above, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952; (c) To carry into effect, and attempt to carry into effect a scheme in commerce to influence by bribery sport- ing contests, namely: horse races, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme was to influence said contests by bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sec- tion 224. The object of the conspiracy was as follows: defendants and their unindicted co-conspirators would arrange to fix horse races, by means of bribery, injecting stimulants in horses, and other means, and would secure information regarding particular horses and jockeys from sources unavailable to the general public. Based upon these arrangements and this information, defendants would attempt to place and place wagers on particular horses In order to maintain high pari-mutuel odds, and in order to avoid others not party to the conspiracy placing wagers on the Indictment 12. same horses, wagers were placed with bookmakers, away from the track, shortly before starting time of the race in which the particular horse was running. Defendants and their unindicted co-conspirators would travel in interstate commerce and use - facilities in interstate commerce for the purpose of arranging for wagers to be placed, and to place and attempt to place wagers. Defendants and their unindicted co-conspirators would use wire communication facilities to transmit in inter- state commerce wagers and information assisting in the placing of wagers. To effect the objects of the conspiracy, defend- ants and their unindicted co-conspirators committed divers overt acts in the Central District of California, including the following: 1. Onor about May 23, 1968, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “Mister Fourway”’, entered in the seventh race at Golden Gate Fields, Albany, California, on May 23, 1968. 2. Onor about September 25, 1968, defendant EMERY L. LONG telephoned defendant ROY D. GARNER in Upland, California. 3. Onor about September 25, 1968, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), telephoned defendant ROY D. GARNER in Upland, CAlif- ornia. 4. Onor about September 25, 1968, defendant EMERY L. LONG caused the injection of amphetamine, a stimulant drug, into the horse ““Deerwood Duke,” entered in the twelfth race at Pomona Fairgrounds, Pomona, Indictment 13 California, on September 25, 1968. 5. On or about September 25, 1968, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), telephoned unindicted co-conspirator Lynn Marmor, (also known as Lennie Moore), in Houston, Texas. 6. On or about September 25, 196%, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), telephoned defendant BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN in Bever- ly Hills, California. 7. On or about September 25, 1968, defendant BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN telephoned defendant HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM in Las Vegas, Nevada. 8. On or about September 25, 1968. defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), telephoned defendant LYLE K. BERGE in Buena Park, California. 9. On or about Septernber 25, 1968, defendant LYLE K. BERGE telephoned unindicted co-conspirator Kenneth M. Brandyberry, (also known as Kenneth Miller), in Downey, California. 10. On or about September 25, 1968, unindicted co- conspirators William O. Lawler (also known as Bankroll Bill), Lynn Marmor, (also known as Lennie Moore), Kenneth M. Brandyberry, (also known as Kenneth Miller), and defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), LYLE BERGE, BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN and HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “Deerwood Duke,” entered in the twelfth race at Pomona Fairgrounds, Pomona, California, on September 25, 1968. 11. On or about September 27, 1968, defendant Indictment 14. EMERY L. LONG, in Las Vegas, Nevada, telephoned defend- ant ROY D. GARNER, in Upland, California. 12. On or about November 28, 1968, defendant ROY D. GARNER telephoned defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), in Los Alamitos, California. 13. Onor about November 28, 1968, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), telephoned unindicted co-conspirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), in Gardena, California. 14. On or about November 28, 1968, unindicted co- conspirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “‘Maretazo II,” entered in the ninth race at Bay Meadows Racetrack, San Mateo, California on November 28, 1968. 15. On or about December 3, 1968, defendant ROY D. GARNER telephoned defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), in Los Alamitos, California. 16. On or about December 3, 1968, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK) telephoned unindicted co-conspirator William Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), in Gardena, Calfornia. 17. Onor about December 4, 1968, unindicted co- conspirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “‘King Kildare,” entered in the fifth race at Bay Meadows Racetrack, San Mateo, California, on December 4, 1968. 18. On or about April 18, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), Indictment 15 telephoned defendant WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19. Onor about April 18, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), mailed money orders and cashier’s checks totaling $4,200.00 to defendant WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY ), in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 20. Onor about April 10, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), gave cash totaling $4,000.00 to defendant NICHOLAS P DE SISTO, JR. 21. Onor about April 10, 1969, defendant NICHO- LAS P. DE SISTO, JR. traveled to Cleveland, Ohio. 22. Onor about April 10, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill) telephoned defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE in San Jose, California. 23. Onor about April 10, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), mailed money orders and cashier’s checks totaling $1,000 to defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE in San Jose, California. 24. Onor about April 18, 1969, defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE traveled to Reno, Nevada. 25. Onor about April 18, 1969, unindicted co-con- spirator William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), NICHOLAS P DE SISTO, JR., and GEORGE SCOVILLE attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “‘Prize Candy,” entered in the second race at Gulfstream Park, Hallandale, Florida, on April 18, 1969. Indictment 16. COUNT TWO [18 U.S.C. 68 1084, 2) On or about September 25, 1968, at 5:38 p.m., defend- ant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, know- ingly used a wire communication facility, namely: a telephone, for the transmission in interstate commerce from Gardena, California, within the Central District of California, to Houston, Texas, of bets and wagers and information assisting in the plac- ing of bets and wagers on sporting events and contests. At said time and place, defendant ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the commis- sion of the offense alleged above. COUNT THREE [18 U.S.C. 881952, 2] On or about September 25, 1968, defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and Lynn Marmor, (also known as Lennie Moore), used the telephone, a facility in interstate commerce between Gardena, California, within the Central District of California, and Houston, Texas, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the pro- motion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely: a business enterprise involving gambling and bribery offenses in violation of California Penal Code, Sections 337a, 337b, and 337f; Texas Penal Code, Articles 648 and 652a; and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 224 and 1084; and thereafter defendant CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and Lynn Mar- mor, (also known as Lennie Moore), performed and attempt- ed to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and Indictment 17. facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity, including the follow- ing: CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and Lynn Marmor, (also known as Lennie Moore), attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “Deerwood Duke,” entered in the twelfth race at Pomona Fairgrounds, Pomona, California, on September 25, 1968. At said time and place, defendant ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the com- mission of the offense alleged above. COUNT FOUR [18 USC. §8 1084; 2) On or about September 25, 1968, at 5:39 p.m., defend- ants BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN and HAROLD W. GOLD- BAUM, being engaged’in the business of betting and wager- ing, knowingly used a wire communication facility, namely: a telephone, for the transmission in interstate commerce from Beverly Hills, California, within the Central District of California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, of bets and wagers and information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on sporting events and contests. At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the commission of the offense alleged above. COUNT FIVE [18 U.S.C. 68 1952; 2] On or about September 25, 1968, defendants BER- NARD I. BERNSTEIN and HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM used Indictment 18. the telephone, a facility in interstate commerce, between Beverly Hills, California, within the Central District of California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely: a business enterprise involving gambling and bribery offenses in violation of California Penal Code, Sections 337a, 337b, and 337f; and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 224 and 1084; and thereafter defendants BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN and HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM performed and attempted to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity including the following: defendants BERNARD I. BERNSTEIN and HAROLD W. GOLDBAUM attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “‘Deerwood Duke,” entered in the twelfth race at Pomona Fairgrounds, Pomona, California, on September 25, 1968. At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and pro- cured the commission of the offense alleged above. COUNT SIX [18 U.S.C. § 1952] On or about September 27, 1968, defendants EMERY L. LONG and ROY D. GARNER used the telephone, a facility in interstate commerce, between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Upland, California, within the Central District of Califor- nia, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and Indictment 19 carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely: a business enterprise involving gambling and bribery offenses in viola- tion of California Penal Code, Sections 337a, 337b and 337f; and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 224 and 1084; and thereafter defendants EMERY L LONG and ROY D. GAR- NER distributed the proceeds of said unlawful activity. COUNT SEVEN [18 U.S.C. 88 1084; 2) On or about April 18, 1969, William O. Lawler, (also known as “Bankroll Bill’”’), and defendant WAYNE DONA- WAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, knowingly used a wire communication facility, to wit: a telephone, for the transmission in interstate commerce from Gardena, Califor- nia, within the Central District of California, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, of bets and wagers and information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on sporting events and contests. At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D. GARNER ided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the commission of the offense alleged above. COUNT EIGHT [18 U.S.C. 681952; 2) On or about April 18, 1969, William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), used the mail, a facility in interstate commerce, between Gardena, California, within the Central District of California, and Philadelphia, Pennsyl- Indictment 20. vania, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carry- ing on of an unlawful activity, namely: a business enterprise involving gambling offenses in violation of California Penal Code, Section 337a; Title 18, Pennsylvania Statutes, Section 4607; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084; and thereafter William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant WAYNE DONAWAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), performed and attempted to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the pro- motion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity, including the following: William O. Lawler, (also known as Bankroll Bill), and defendant WAYNE DONA- WAY, (also known as BABE DONAWAY), attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “Prize Candy,” entered in the second race at Gulfstream Park, Hallandale, Florida, on April 18, 1969. At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the commission of the offense alleged above. COUNT NINE [18 U.S.C. 681952; 2) On or about April 10, 1969, defendant NICHOLAS P. DE SISTO JR.., traveled in interstate commerce from Los Angeles County, in the Central District of California, to Cleveland, Ohio, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establish- ment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely; a business enterprise involving gambling offenses in violation Indictment 21 of California Penal Code, Section 337a; Ohio Revised Code, Section 2915.05; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084; and thereafter defendant NICHOLAS P DE SISTO, JR. performed and attempted to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity, including the following: defendant NICHOLAS P DE SISTO, JR. attempted to place and placed wagers on the horse “Prize Candy,” entered in the second race at Gulfstream Park, Hallandale, Florida, on April 18, 1969 At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured the commission of the offense alleged above. COUNT TEN {18 USC. 681952; 2) On or about April 18, 1969, defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE travelled in interstate commerce from San Jose, California, to Reno, Nevada, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, name- ly: a business enterprise in Los Angeles County in the Central District of California, involving gambling offenses in violation of California Penal Code, Section 337a; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084; and thereafter defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE performed and attempted to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of said unlawful activity, including the following: defendant GEORGE SCOVILLE attempted to place and placed wagers PROPOSED CORRECTED INDICTMENT 23. Indictment 22. on the horse “Prize Candy,” entered in the second race at Gulfstream Park, Hallandale, Florida, on April 18, 1969. ie In the United States District Court, Central District of At said time and place, defendants CLARENCE A California. SWANK, (also known as JACK SWANK), and ROY D. int UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROY D. GARNER aided, abetted, counselled, induced and procured GARNER, Defendant the commission of the offense alleged above. No. 53564WF)-Crim. [FILED AUGUST 4, 1970] A TRUE BILL Plaintiff, United States of America, herewith submits a proposed corrected indictment for the re-trial of the above INA MORRIS defendant. The “corrections” consist of the striking of all allegations which have been rendered surplusage by prior FOREMAN proceedings and rulings of the Court, including the following: (1) References to other defendants and other offenses no longer on trial have been removed from the heading; (2) The names of defendants Berge, Bernstein, De Sis- to, Donaway, Goldbaum, Long and Scoville have been removed from the list of conspirators at lines 26 - 29 of page |; (3) All references to William O Lawler as “(also known io as Bankroll Bill)” have been removed ' as (4) The overt acts alleged to have been performed by persons other than those still named as co-conspir- ators have been removed, including overt acts num: bered 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19, 21 and 24; (S) Count Three through Ten have been eliminated . WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, JR. United States Attorney Respectfully submitted, ROBERT L. MEYER United States Attorney Proposed Corrected Indictment 24. DAVID R. NISSEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division /s/ GERALD F. UELMEN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America | Accompanying the aforesaid was an affidavit of service showing service August 4, 1970 on Burton Marks and a corrected Indictment reflecting the changes proposed and indicating charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 1084: Interstate Transmission of Wagering Information; 18 U.S.C.82: Aiding and Abetting. | APPLICATION FOR ORDER 25. COMPELLING TESTIMONY 18 U.S.C. 82514 In the United States District Court, Central District of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROY D. GARNER, Defendant. No. 5356(WF)}-CD. [FILED OCTOBER 29, 1970! The United States of America hereby moves the Court for an Order instructing CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK to testify and produce evidence pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2514, and respect- fully represents as follows: 1. CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK is appearing as a witness in the above-captioned case, a trial on an indict- ment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1084 and conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 224, 1084 and 1952. 2. This application is made in good faith, with the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, by the United States Attorney, in whose judgment the testimony of CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK is necessary to the public interest. WHEREFORE, the United States of America requests the Court to order CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK to answer questions and produce evidence relating to all matters pertinent to the pending trial, pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2514. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT L. MEYER United States Attorney Application for Order 26. Compelling Testimony DAVID R. NISSEN Assistant U. S. Attorney Chief, Criminal Division /s/ GERALD F. UELMEN Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America Affidavit of Robert L. Meyer State of California ) ) ss County of Los Angeles) ROBERT L. MEYER, being first sworn, deposes and says: 1. Lam United States Attorney for the Central Dis- trict of California. 2. This application is made in good faith with the approval of the Attorney General of the United States. 3. In my judgment the testimony of CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK sought is necessary to the public interest and material to the case of United States v. Roy D. Garner, No. 5356-(WF)-CD, presently in trial. /s/ ROBERT L. MEYER Notarized by Kathryn A. Clark on the 28th day of October, 1970. ORDER 27. (Compelling Testimony of Clarence A. “Jack’’ Swank) In the United States District Court, Central District of California. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROY D. GARNER, Defendant. No. 5356-4(WF)-CD. [OCTOBER 29, 1970] The United States of America, having made written and oral dpplication for an Order compelling CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK to testify and produce evidence in the trial of the above case, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2514; and CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK, having declined to ans- wer questions by claiming his privilege against self-incrimina- tion; and The application for immunity having been approved by the Attorney General of the United States and made by the United States Attorney in whose judgment the testimony sought is necessary to the public interest, it is ORDERED that CLARENCE A. “JACK” SWANK appear forthwith and testify and produce evidence with respect to all matters under inquiry in said trial. DATED: This 29 day of October, 1970. /s/ WARREN A. FERGUSON United States District Judge JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT 28, Judgment and Commitment 29. surety. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of this judgment and commitment to the United States Marshal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as the commitment of the defendant. In the United States District Court, for the Central District of California. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROY D. GARNER No. 5356-Criminal. [FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970} On this 16th day of November, 1970, came the attorney for the government and the defendant appeared in person and by counsel, Burton Marks, Retained IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant upon his plea of Not Guilty, and a verdict of Guilty, has been convicted of the offense of Conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States /s/ WARREN J. FERGUSON United States District Judge by: /s/ K. J. Murphy, Jr., Deputy Clerk Code, Section 371, as charged in count one of the Indictment in ten counts filed the 22nd day of January, 1970, and the court having asked the defendant whether he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced, and no sufficient cause to the contrary being shown or appearing to the Court, IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant is guilty as charged and convicted. IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant is hereby commit- ted to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized NOTATION RE NINTH CIRCUIT The majority and dissenting opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appear in the Appendix for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari as Exhibit “A.” The Order denying the Petition for Rehearing appears as Exhibit “B”’ to said petition. representative for imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years on count one. IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant shall become eligible for parole at such time as the United States Board of Parole shall determine as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 4208 (a) (2). IT IS ADJUDGED that the execution of sentence herein is stayed until November 30, 1970 at 2:00 p.m., the defendant’s bond exonerated upon his surrender or upon posting an appeal bond in the amount of $10,000 00 personal EXCERPTS FROM REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT 30 [Page 59, line 3 - page 67, line 10} I understand you have some motions on matters outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Marks. MR. MARKS; Yes, your Honor. | will try to be brief The Court received the opposition that I have to the introduction of certain telephone calls, and the Government’s opposition I would like to be heard in two respects. Number one: I would like to orally argue in support of my position; And secondly, I would like to suggest to the Court that I think we are going to be able to arrive at a stipulation - - well, let me give you my argument and then my suggestions. As I see the thrust of Mr. Uelmen’s opposition to my motion, which he deems a motion to suppress, and which I suggest may be an objection to the introduction of the evi- dence because it is not at all clear that a violation of Rule 605 would come within the purview of Rule 41 - - Section 605 would come within the purview of Rule 41 as a suppres- sion motion. Assuming that it does, or assuming that an objection to the introduction of the evidence is [60] appropriate, | suggest that it is obvious, not only from the Government’s argument and the intended use that these communications with various telephone records are going to be put together, that they are expressly intended to divulge communications. If my recollection is clear, Mr. Uelmen’s argument - - I think it was around the time of the motions for judgment of acquittal where he stated something to the effect that the various communication lines on the chart, in fact spoke Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 31 louder than words, they didn’t have to have the communica- tions in there, that they expressed the words that were stated between Party A and Party B on those telephone toll records because the pattern itself divulged what the communication was about, taken in consideration with all the other evidence. Therefore it is the express intention of the Government to use the telephone toll records as a communication, which I think is prohibited. Now, the basis for 605 - - and I think the fact that the use of the telephone in and of itself - - is that you are suppos- ed to have the right to privacy, a telephone I think, today being within the purview of - - it is Government controlled, it is a monopoly, it is a public utility, it bears the same status as the mails. A person has the right to assume that his [61] telephone calls to wherever made will not be divulged except upon his consent and permission. And he has that same right to privacy in his own toll records as in fact the disclosure of his information. The fact that they were obtained here by subpoena I think would be irrelevant unless the subpoena was backed up by an affidavit in support of the subpoena, which would be sufficient to establish probable cause for the existence of a crime, in order to have the Government be able, either by subpoena or otherwise, to take somebody’s private property and utilize it. So that essentially is my argument in opposition to the Government’s opposition. I think that we are dealing with an unlawful use of telephone records. Now, it is my opinion that if there is a prima facie illegality established, the possibility of a prima facie Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 32. illegality by the Government, then the burden is on the Government - - not on the defendant - - to show that the records which they have were lawfully obtained. Now, as I understand the procedure, and I don’t know whether Mr. Uelmen is willing to stipulate to this precisely in this form, all of the telephone records were in fact original- ly obtained through the use of grand jury subpoena, and were not obtained otherwise. However, the — as I understand it there was an [62] ex- tended investigation with the grand jury mee*ing practically every week and the Government presenting evidence with respect to this investigation for almost a year before the indictments issued Now, during the course of the investigation - - I use the words in quotes - - the Government secured the gvidence of the toll records through grand jury subpoenas. They did not —- I would be willing to venture a guess - - produce the records at the time of the grand jury hearings for the grand jury to hear the evidence, but rather they gathered the evi- dence into their own investigatory staff through the use of subpoenas and then drew the charts which they later pre- sented here to the Court, and I believe probably to the grand jury, at least a synopsis of what was contained in the records. Now, in my opinion this would be an abuse of the grand jury subpoena process in two respects: Number one, I would suspect - - and I think that it is the Weeks case that is the original case that dealt with subpoenas as being searches and seizures - - in any case I doubt whether the affidavits in support of the subpoenas were sufficient under any theory. And even if they were sufficient that the use of them was contrary to the intention of the statute Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 33. as to the manner in which they could be used. In other words, they could only be used to [63] present to a Court or a grand jury, which is an arm of the Court, but not used as a method of obtaining investigatory leads by the Government, unless there has in fact been a compliance with the general rules of search and seizure to obtain the records. So I wanted to suggest to the Court that we may be able to arrive at a stipulation as to how the records were obtained and how they were used. I would like to have a ruling from the Court as to whether or not, assuming we can’t arrive at a stipulation, as to whether or not the Government has the burden, or the defense has the burden of showing that there was an unlawful- ly obtained telephone record in violation of Section 605, and that therefore all of the proceedings flowing from that are tainted, and as such there has been no attenuation of the taint, and it would not be admissible in evidence. What I am asking is that the Court first establish whether or not we have - - first make a ruling as to whether or not they can use the toll records obtained, I believe in violation of 605. Secondly, if there isn’t that direct violation as to whether or not the Government has the burden of showing that they were produced lawfully, if the defense has such a burden, can we have, during the course of the trial or sometime before the trial, a definitive ruling by the Court [64] as to whether or not these toll records can be used. I also have the final argument, and that is that under the authority of the case called State versus Timms, 9, Ohio 2nd, which is a Supreme Court of Ohio, I think I cited it to the Court once before, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 34 busines records exceptions to the hearsay rule is a denial of confrontation of witnesses And the Government is, in this instance, trying to establish that business records of the telephone company are somehow admissible to prove the truth of a particular conversation, or the existence of some type of communica- tion. And if they are taking that position, which I believe they are, then the records themselves are an attempt to establish a fact which is hearsay, and as I say, we have no way to examine the person who actually made the records, or the machine, and therefore they would not be admissible under that alternative theory I think that - - I don’t know whether I have made myself clear, your Honor THE COURT: Just don’t repeat it. MR. MARKS: I won't. THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen? MR UELMEN: Your Honor, with respect to the first point of who bears the burden of proof, I believe the law is quite clear, I think the moving party on a motion to [65] suppress does bear the burden of initially showing the illeg- ality in the acquisition of the evidence. And a recent case dealt precisely with that point in a motion where a similar argument was being made with respect to telephone toll records is the Tenth Circuit Nolan case, which we have cited in our memorandum, and which holds directly that the burden is on the moving party. However, we have offered to stipulate with Mr. Marks that the method by which these particular records were acquired, telephone toll records were acquired was by Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 35 means of a subpoena to produce the records before the grand jury, at which time the records were produced. Our basic position is that, first of all, Section 605 has no application whatsoever to telephone toll records because they are simply not communications that Section 605 was designed to protect. That is the approach taken by the Second Circuit case of Covella which holds in essence that Section 605, inter- preted in a common sense manner, has nothing to do with toll records kept in the ordinary course of business, because this is not the interception of a communication. And if it is not a communication at the time it was intercepted, and the record is kept by the telephone com- pany, it does not then, and is not going to become a com- munication because of the use to which the record was put [66] by the Government There is simply no general right to privacy as to records that are kept in the ordinary course of any busi- ness, bank records or anything else are subject to the subpoena powers of the court. We would also alternatively argue that even if we were to say that Section 605 does apply to telephone toll rec- ords, that the means of acquisition of these records come within the exception recognized in Section 605 whereby those engaged in receiving and transmitting records or com- munications can divulge them pursuant to a lawful subpoena And finally with respect to the Ohio versus Timms case, your Honor, of course that has no application to the Federal Business Records Act which still recognizes the hearsay exception in Federal Courts for records kept in the ordinary course of business. Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 36. There were at least three cases from three different circuits that have come down within the past year, all of which have rejected all of the arguments that are being made by counsel today. THE COURT: All right MR. MARKS: Suomitted THE COURT: I OP?” DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. UELMEN: Q_ Mr. Foote, is California Horse Racing Board authorized by statute to promulgate its own regulations? A_ Yes, it is. Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 46. Q_ Allright. Does that authority include the authority to recognize what records will be official records of the Board? A Yes, it does. MR. MARKS: I object to that as calling for a conclusion of the witness. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. UELMEN: Q_ Now, in exercising this delegated authority has the Horse Racing Board given any official recognition to the records maintained by the Daily Racing Form as [261] official records? MR. MARKS: Objection, calls for a conclusion of this witness and not authorized by his position with the Board. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, they have. MR. UELMEN: Yuur Honor, again | will move the admission of these exhibits. The Federal Business Records Act does not require that the person compiling the records be on the payroll of the organization that maintains the records. This is a function that can be delegated by contract, as long as they have the official sanction of the Horse Racing Board they are official records of that body. MR. MARKS: May I ask a couple more questions, your Honor. THE COURT: Certainly, Mr. Marks. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKS: Q What official regulation authorizes these chart —~ ere Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 47. books as being the official chart books of the California Horse Racing Board? A I can’t think of any particular regulation which says that the Daily Racing Form is the one and only [262] chart book, except that all the conditions for a race are promulgated upon past performances. And the Board recognizes officially, by Board order, that the Daily Racing Form is the only recognized authority for this, except when the horse is foreign bred. Q___— Do you have that Board order? A I can certainly obtain it. I don’t have it with me, no. MR. MARKS: Could we, your Honor, defer a ruling, if it becomes important as to the opinion - - THE COURT: I don’t think so, Mr. Marks. Any other questions? MR. MARKS: Your Honor, I would state very briefly now that to me this is like the purchasing of a novel from a book store and saying that that is the authority upon which we base our - - THE COURT: You can draw a better analogy than that, for heaven sakes. MR. MARKS: Buying a newspaper and saying that the charts in the daily newspaper are the official - - THE COURT: How about the Congressional Record. MR. MARKS: That, I understand, can be changed if the congressmen want it changed. THE COURT: All right. Any claim that these charts are not trustworthy and accurate? [263] MR. MARKS: Absolutely, your Honor. THE COURT: Your evidence in that regard? Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 48. MR. MARKS: That the charts are a compilation - - THE COURT: Your evidence, evidence that these charts are not accurate and correct, are not trustworthy. MR. MARKS: I have - - THE COURT: Do you have any evidence to show that these charts kept by the California Horse Racing Board and obtained from Triangle Publications are not trustworthy? MR. MARKS: Not at this time THE COURT: All right. MR. MARKS: Although I may have - - THE COURT: All right. The motion will be overruled. Exhibits 1-A, B, C, D, E, F, and G will be received in evidence. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1-A through G for iden- tification were received in evidence.) MR. MARKS: May I have the motion to strike reserved? THE COURT: Any time you can bring any evidence, Mr. Marks, the Court will certainly permit you to. MR. MARKS: Thank you. THE COURT: But don’t bring any novels in. [264] DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. UELMEN: Q May the copies of the twelfth race on September 25, 1968, contained in Exhibit 1-D be distributed to the jury? THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Largen. (Whereupon the exhibits were handed to the jurors.) MR. MARKS: Your Honor, just briefly for the record only, I would like to show that the objection also includes the objection to the business records exception to the hear- say rule, if that is the basis upon which these are admitted, OS ee Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 49. which is a denial of confrontation of witnesses. THE COURT: Yes. I think your objection clearly shows that. MR. MARKS: Yes. [Page 420, line 18 - page 423, line 4] MR. MARKS: Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Garner I would like to first offer a stipulation, your Honor. It is stipulated between counsel, for the purpose of my particular motion, that at the previous trial, prior to the commencement of the trial, Mr. Garner, through his counsel, made a motion for severance from Defendant Swank. Said motion was opposed by the Government and [421] said motion was denied by the Court. Is that so stipulated? MR. UELMEN: So stipulated. MR. MARKS: On the basis of that action by the Govern- ment, which prevented Mr. Garner from having access to the testimony of Mr. Swank, through the use of the subpoena powers or otherwise, Mr. Swank, for the record having declined to testify in his own behalf, I ask that the Court invoke its own supervisorial powers and deny the Government the right to now call Mr. Swank. THE COURT: You are going to have to educate me as to your motion. MR. MARKS: My motion - - THE COURT: Because I don’t understand it. MR. MARKS: My motion - - Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 50. THE COURT: Are you saying that because there wasn’t a severance in another trial the Government can’t produce a witness at this trial? MR. MARKS: Cannot produce a witness which they, through their own chicanery, if you want to use that word, have denied Mr. Garner the right to the access of a witness. Now, I will explain the proposition. Mr. Swank was a co-defendant. He was an alleged co-conspirator at that trial. He had an absolute right not to testify Mr. Garner could not obtain the testimony of [422] Mr. Swank - - THE COURT: I am not talking about that trial. That trial is a nonentity, isn’t it? MR. MARKS: The Government, in its opposition to the motion to sever - - if there had been a severance and Mr. Garner could have probably secured the testimony of Mr. Swank, that it was not to be used against him in any other proceeding, so that Mr. Garner could have the oppor- tunity of a defense. THE COURT: Oh, all right. I understand your motion now. MR. MARKS: All right. Now, I say that the Govern- ment is estopped by its own desire to prevent Mr. Garner from having a witness at an earlier trial, from using this immunity type of doctrine, which is statutorially author- ized, to produce the witness at a later time against Mr. Garner. And since they produced the situation they cannot benefit by it, and the Court, as I say, under its own supervisorial powers and under just a question of due process of law, and I would say under the combined doctrine Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 51. of Bruton and Green, they don’t have the right to call this witness. THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen. [423] MR. UELMEN: I have to confess I don’t quite under- stand Mr. Marks’ motion. THE COURT: All right. The motion will be denied. [Page 1201, line 8 - page 1209, line 18] DIRECT EXAMINATION (of Roy Garner) BY MR. MARKS: Q Mr. Garner - - may the witness have Exhibit 19? THE COURT: Mr. Murphy. (The exhibit was placed before the witness. ) BY MR. MARKS: Q_ Mr. Garner, do you file income tax records every year? A Ido. Q Did you file one in - - is that for 1968? A 1967. Q You filed that in 1968, is that correct? A Yes. Q Now, before you filed that, signed and filed that particular report with the Federal Government, did you have any knowledge or understanding in your mind as to whether or not those records were confidential or whether they cou!d be used in court? [1202] Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 52 A I believed them to be confidential. I had been advised that they were by an attorney. Q And is that the reason that you did file it? A Yes. MR. MARKS: Cross examine THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN: Q Mr. Garner, what attorney advised you that they were confidential? A Larry Thorne. Q When did he give you that advice? A Larry Thorne has been my family attorney for years. I couldn’t tell you the specific time, sometime before I filed, the first time I filed showing gambling income on an income tax return Q Now, did Mr. Thorne tell you that they were absolutely inviolable, that the confidentiality of them could never be uncovered for any reason? A That was his opinion. MR. UELMEN: Nothing further. THE COURT: Mr. Marks. MR. MARKS: That is all I have. THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. Garner. (Witness excused.) [1203] MR. MARKS: And in further objection to the introduction of the records, your Honor, I would offer the argument - - and I think it was presented by Mr. Saltzman and Mr. Winsberg in the earlier case - - with respect to the fact that apparently a presidential directive must be had Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 53. in order to have income tax records opened and divulged. So I would object, your Honor, on the grounds | believe it is the Haines, Grosso and Marquette cases, and there is one later case about income tax records where the Supreme Court - - if I recall it - - the Supreme Court said they couldn’t use the privilege against self incrimination to file false income tax reports, but the implication of that case - - and I can’t remember the name of it - - but the implication of that case certainly is that it could not be used if the only cause of using the report was to incriminate the person in some way for the fact of filing. THE COURT: Mr. Uelmen. MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, the confidentiality of income tax returns and the circumstances under which they can be disclosed is a matter of law promulgated by Congress and promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury under statutes enacted by Congress. If an individual’s erroneous belief as to what the law is were held to create some privilege that did not normally exist, of course any effort to regulate this con- [1204] fidentiality by Congress would be frustrating. We could have the situation of someone saying, somebody told me that police officers can’t come into my apartment, therefore any contraband that was discovered in my apartment should be suppressed because I thought I had an absolute privilege of secrecy in my apartment. That simply isn’t the law. The law has spoken as to under what circumstances these income tax returns can be divulged. And it is quite clear it is not an absolute privilege of confidentiality. Within the Internal Revenue Code there is authoriza- tion for the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 54. regulations as to when income tax returns can be disclosed. That regulation has been promulgated in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 458.204. There has been full compliance with this provision of the Code of Federal Regulations. At the time of the Motion to Suppress the income tax returns in the last trial we made the record, or the letter requesting release of these returns a matter of record as an exhibit in the case. And it indicates full compliance with all of these statutes and regulations THE COURT: What exhibit would that be, Mr Murphy? MR. UELMEN: I think Mr. Murphy will have the [1205] answer to that. THE COURT: Where would it be now, that exhibit? MR. UELMEN: The exhibits have been retained in the clerk’s office, so it would still be here, your Honor. MR. MARKS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MARKS: I have one observation. As I understand the case - - and I am challenging the validity of the regulation -- the Supreme Court, in my understanding, has said there are times when the Government can impose or overcome certain privileges where they can show a particularized need for having the information. The only need or use that the Government has to reveal the contents of an otherwise confidential memoran- dum in this case is the need to try and use it as evidence against the defendant, which is not the type of need that the Supreme Court was indicating If the Government, in the course of function of its Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 55. business may have a need to disclose records for the purpose of statistics, or bringing out some fact, but not, it can’t say it has a need to convict a person by overcoming his privilege against self incrimination, because this is compelled testimony. The Government requires that a person file an income tax return. And failure to do so [1206] is a crime. THE COURT: All right. We will take our recess now. Mr. Murphy, if you can obtain that exhibit that was entered, introduced in the prior trial, then Mr. Uelmen, if you and Mr. Marks can get together with Mr. Stefanak concerning the telephone information con- cerning Mr. Long - - and how many witnesses would you have, Mr. Marks? MR. MARKS: There would be four or five short wit- nesses, your Honor. But none of them are here. THE COURT: None are here? MR. MARKS: Because of some miscalculations as to the type of testimony and what was going to - - THE COURT: All right. We can spend the rest of the day settling instructions and maybe hearing the motions. MR. MARKS: I do have a motion that I am thinking about, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We will take a recess and then when you are ready let Mr. Murphy know and we will resume outside the presence of the jury, first of all. (Short recess.) THE CGURT: Mr. Marks. (Whereupon the following proceedings were had in open court but outside the presence and hearing of the jury:) [1207] MR. MARKS: Are we here now with respect to Mr. Stef- anak’s testimony, your Honor? Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 56. THE COURT: Mr. Stefanak and also the income tax return, Mr. Marks. MR. MARKS: Yes, sir. I understand they cannot find the Exhibit 55, your Honor. I object to the introduction or receipt of the exhibit for the reasons stated to the Court, the objections to the Court. THE COURT: Mr. Murphy handed me a Xerox copy of a Fifth Circuit case and said that you gave it to him. MR. MARKS: That is for my Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, that case says that Grimes, who was the appellant, contends that the introduction - - this is on Page 796 of 79 Fed. Reporter 2d, “Grimes, the appellant, contends that the introduction of his 1960 income tax return in which he stated his business was gambling violated his Fifth Amendment rights. We believe this contention to be without merit.” MR. MARKS: I believe that case is before the Supreme Court, your Honor, and the other ones I cited. THE COURT: All right. MR. MARKS: The case there was cited with par- [1208] ticular respect to Count Two and the telephone calls. THE COURT: All right. MR. MARKS: Which is more in point. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Uelmen. MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, with respect to Exhibit 55, I have been informed that - - THE COURT: This is 55 of the first trial? MR. UELMEN: Of the first trial; 1 have been informed Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 57 that the clerk has misplaced this with a number of other exhibits that were not admitted into evidence, but were marked for identification in the course of the trial. I have located the transcript reference, however, at Page 2290 of the transcript of the first trial, February 18, 1970, when the letter was marked and admitted and there was refer- ence to the fact in the transcript that the letter indicated that the Government had written to the Internal Revenue Service in compliance with Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Court deems it necessary I can inquire of the Internal Revenue Service whether they have the original of the letter still on file. I am sure what was marked as an exhibit was a carbon copy of the letter from our file. The Supreme Court last addressed itself to the problem of the admissibility of income tax returns for the purpose for which we are offering them in the case of United [1209] States v. Sullivan, almost 50 years ago. THE COURT: I don’t think I need any argument on the law, Mr. Uelmen. MR. UELMEN: I just wanted to point out that even after Grimes and Marquette the Court distinguished Sullivan and indicated that was still the law. THE COURT: The Court having presided at the previous trial in which Exhibit No. 55 was received for the purpose of laying a foundation for the introduction of the income tax returns of Mr. Garner in that trial, the Court will take judicial knowledge of all of the proceedings which took place in the prior trial in that regard. There is no contention, is there, Mr. Marks, that Exhibit 19 is not the tax returns of Mr. Garner? MR. MARKS: No. THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled. Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 58. 19 will be received in evidence. [Page 1365, line 9 - page 1366, line 12] All right. We know Swank was getting the horses from another source. We know that Mr. Garner was aware of this arrangement between Mr. Swank and Mr. Lawler. And we also know something else about Mr. Garner. We know Mr. Garner was himself in the business of betting and wagering. That is Mr. Garner’s business. We know that because Exhibit 19 is in evidence. And Exhibit 19, which you will see in the jury room, is income tax return which Mr. Garner filed with the Federal govern- ment for the years 1965, 1966 and ’67. You will see from these tax returns that in 1965, for example, Mr. Garner listed as his occupation on the tax return “Professional Gambler,” self-employed; that he reported a total income for that year of approximately $8,200.00, of which $8,020.00 was derived from wagering income. You will see for the year 1966 that Mr. Garner [1366] reported a total income of $22,000.00, all of which was derived from wagering income. We will note that in 1967 Mr. Garner declared an income from wagering in excess of $25,000.00, reporting a loss on his horse racing ventures, his ownership of race horses, of approximately $12,500.00, and a total income of $12,500.00. So we know Mr. Garner himself was no stranger to the Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript 59 business of wagering and gambling. Now, how do we go beyond this to show that Mr Garner was the source from which Mr. Swank was getting the horses he was betting? eters 1 . * a” . . ® dl sa * ef f= | "OQ 7 re , ALMWMIC > Meio fi wo Y..- VINYOSI1 4 illeris > rr0wr c 34 5 ane WO “ORVINO oe ae Ragen ov Se. ‘PAPA ED ¢ ‘ y 3 3 rf (t9-01 “Aze) 990L MOOS - VW aN I YY 4 uoT}0eg_SerINpeddld TeToeds . r al a setup Butfoy ‘uoySuzsszeH “d 4 i . : 8 WALT : - § o : \. a 4 51— pexeuue eur Ur A | I SONIITEYD ‘FNOD TIVHS SINSSIUd GSZHL WOHM C | ox o6t ‘Te Arenueg +0180 } 35D1ANRS BANNSASY IWNUALNI INBWLYVdsaG AUunNsSvVvael SCI PINUTL | a >» . TIOVIIVAY Ad09 1838 a enemenaneenneneeat ear emy Tar = "OQ9 WIM YY OCS wey. bo V2 ; ALVSM ISD PAM LS2AMWIONN 820 BE PIGATOAM/ oi ‘ ge 3 , wwe ~~. VINSOSNYD ‘OnWING eee {S455 9 JALO1 ssappy ° j V8 Ajue jy VOAW UBHS pSmur 11) OG “AYO! Brnyaj 11) CUMPRUT)S 6 osmOd ey verona = RRR AY ee 3 Tee fo or i ie saree pyaL1you a Te Se eeeeiiae a aA So —, | “yy Res mry THs 3 Y /? “ore «4 £c Ss war 8), ay > {@ UOrpes 0) UF [8 VO Peteg b) UO)!)Ole;DaOp By ‘/eAPOre) VEY) I-yio wows Aa ny ” - pus sad duh > SF 1) (242g Pus SBpapmouy Aw jo ve fou 7) pve “wee ers eh8 PUR Soprpays JurduOdwds2e s..pry su “WINYSE BiG) Pevrwee® BRGY | Jegs etj-ey | “Memliad po sonjyerad 1, oy ‘e 62 aque PL Npey | | 40 p-PuMjas 4y5208 Ypm “Spusy sJu..0y sal } OPAwiy ES wos YP, vey poeayqng CZ : > : “yz} ~~" te, PoyewHsy BOG! | 0} PIYPas> yam NOK EZ OUH jO wUNOWY wz punjru 9 — omer waukedsoag 4 Jajua “(Q] uy) wey VEY) JIL De (TZ 9UN) Swusuiked j) 2 Pravin. & : 2G? 4 apy aun ae inj Uy keg “ang Souejeg 1.qwa (91 dui) xe) Ley Soa) OVW (12 duy) Swowhed | ee Wes g vy (OZ Puc ‘GL ‘Ul ‘ZT Sou pps) HIOL = TZ he wv a a ~ oz ~ (peed © 58 POmol/e puawdediond 9961 emmiauid Sjuowded we) pojcu. Ws} (961 OZ 3 , He Jot | 6tez wx0y—auy Boy [ ) “OtTD wi0J—xe) auyosed [819p2) AemysQuON[) GT anon @ 44 ' BI) (Sut jog aded a25—siahoydwa s0W 10 Omj) Piayyym ue) yD) 189K) Bt ' ke : Mi | atl (a-M Sun0g Qoene) pioquwm 0 9UIOdU! jes 2994 104 ZT ~ : 1 (SI Puc “GPT ‘Cpt SdUH Ppe) av} CIOL OT _ P SI Ti=F 10 €=9 Binpoirs) KEY WaIWhojwwiarpos gt | “HPD | art (WUaWIDIE}S YEE) WPIII FUIUSoAUs JIA JOIN BUNNGWOII: Wor KEY QHT xeL oot ai sion) ET SUIT DEAGAS) xe OSU, ep | = “MPA, er (p oun ‘A ped “Z eed WOsj) s; p9ID CIOL ET _*: 71 (PT I-CTT Sour das ‘aNPIYS JjeY KE] 10 ‘OT vur) JS *9/Ge] Ke] JOUVo Woy) KEL Vy | cs E E oO a PIT) “ZT SUy Uo re, sap (SUONDNZySuUr JO TT OJed VO BjNPaYDs Djes Ke} Bursm Ay yunowe | SHY) UO wey at 4n0K aandi4) “auy sig) vo SeeEne ae "ATL Quy WHOM DTT QU 12-GNS PTT 0050 fn _ att ouos Aq ‘aaoqe * > OUI] UO SUONDUIIND JO BOQUUAU jL}D) Ay) iow Wow Tt) sajn > 3 ENE o_ Qit! coy? 6 OUH WOH ETT uy penans ait - 5 a Cen 2 wae -=-@ oa om 2 tee My “(Ajayesedas Buy pue pouseru y o0s¢) 000° TS OF Pau (Z) 40 ({) s2PUN YON Np|gG hoy omny * fog t.4, ‘2. *r300 BAO ‘Y BU!) VO PI UIC? VONDiWIKDI Y9EI 10) OOTE Sid ce orcv - ~ JETT, (uangos dpesedos Juny puc pousew jp OD1$) 002$(Z) HO “6 24 §O Usd.0d OF (1) ‘pO s99s2y VY 49PUD BIOU! 1 OOO'SS SF! G IU PUB ‘SUON NPP a71Way you Up NOA rT] £1 uy “A ved ‘2 oved UUs) 1840} 49449 *‘SUONINPIP V7NL op NOAA OTT CACRS OY TOME — — aaa — —ueo-— w . ae f or “ZT auy uo xe} soy ‘p40 ‘3 ‘GQ “CTT SOU ISN JOU OG) = “SUONSINIysUI Wt $d/Qe) | aye) Woy : >» oe ; Woy xe, nod Puy ‘O000'SF VE) $S9) Si G JU) PU SUOHINPIP SZHUdy pu Lp NOA 4 OT | TED PoE ny ) folevp tf (Z wun dp B veity LAGNS) verwou! jeYOE GD a pod 3 | ™ (g oun ‘ii ey “Z ased tU04j) DLUODU! OF SUdASHIPyY gQ_ ‘aa x leié e277? 1m “a Stesp ee TT (G PUL G SdUH ppe) [e}O ZG, 2WOr! We w TE. Fore a (g duy “Weg ‘Z 9JUd 1W0sj) DwWo DW ayIO ~-g “aaa ‘ta fi a VONCUCIAKD YIP WC Z—M SUUGZ PIYyeNL UO u-rOys JOU 4) 3d)9 ‘Sy ‘Sduejes “SOHeEM awo0duy a 4 PUMP PAID uy ry , (2yMOs jerry 10 pears $ pus J2QWAN) vieupse 3-H 3 , — « SSECIAEI SOS DAI 10 |) UIIMIY = CE AY g | g Sous Aysnra$ (€1908 smog eweu 180) (yiOq JO Syerprur OIPPIW PUL Saweu yoy OEM “YeMLar Puro! yy) ;eHwH Pus QweY wy 61° Buipue “{9u1 * Bu soQ seek wjpgeces 1eyi0 40 .. ASG lL, ers 2961 UE mawarca~t Arenwer woKout Or EE PAZOL] MOL DINO DEL WE it ne a ¢ fsty ‘ “rR O29 ONUrAdY jeUsa}Uy “WU2.Upedsg AsNsersg ¥'1) a , 4 (2 a , eo" é> CEACNRI N22 — . he oer a TT RE YT eerie?” ll , t,> - . - © . _ | ial > oe ‘ySt] Parnuway —aeny— (ocimuayio- 30 OdUCINSU Aq PdjesUd MUOd JOL) VIdKD JLPIYP PUP jd psy "UOlpLHpeP Psey uLys 40 BIQUy Te) Bsn Ou Op MOA y Ajuo as - SUONINPIP PaZusayy © /W We” prs eye 8 bd th peg et ot Baris J5 iiss ° ‘ ° : . «£ a . J aul ‘ . 4° Wt 0un f oie 20) SLIGTUD Wik #| _] Ween | ow pitasesenray Wied 6 - ; > & .. * ere Uuli0 {) WPI4d wey UdidsI04 E * (9S0662 U0 pyrene) *D}2 ‘sucyd yuowssy cocevelpecese smmenenrel @ 6 © + (BOE tUIO4) WPIUD JURUSOAY) Z “94 0} a howe purupluajivs Aq Syusiudey & * eretee | coeeeeeee oer eeeeeeee e ojnpoud y 212 awosut yuaasay er eOe] cceeeesereeeeeerreer |! e ° ° . (juduieyeys 491j)0 10 Sotz (Q ONPoYrS) WP syipoig f/f. ‘4 UO YICYC) O..vdad ssouisng dAoWWy € FLOEOER la vit coy paleduopurony sayy Orpest || anes nom : oe ne anno z aaah aaa oe ae —— — * Ou woe 00 yee wo) 4? ‘vl el yon ppe) oom vee at Qu) oded ‘Gg oi uy popnyout pr, Avd HHS. F a * * gnGaUel II siu ie Alia —~ se 2° CAE. ‘ovr Metl W / ee IG ...--cereseeeneenes , -| SUOIU! O} sjuowysnipy fT); Scccccececes ecccccocccccocoscocsesess ecccce Soececcecs eccccece coccces cece se seccececeesccececeeooesseres 14 EDA CS 4 : 9 ou) 7 vid UO PUL dvi 190) errr Tren rrrrrrr tt ttt | . (Z pue ‘9 'S ‘y ‘c ‘2 “1 $vul ppr) Wwidl v wevseneeees * (suoNInsySut jo G 9¥ed 09s)—"suONINpap sNODURII>IN STTOA TS If * ewodu) SROOUE!|925/WU wore 4 = ————— sents Fey i801 = “ a puseapncusncethbusnnataseasasesecenneunnnnnnnssestahentesiNe AUS A ry pqws 3! EER Ee ¢. sorrtetss/ oh * oo oon he” "CATH NANT POTIFOUDS ee eeee es eeeeeees ceeeeeeterrerereee . Seer crocs sececceeseeesorossocscceooescoseeqeeoescose | ****** eoeere id (32:n0s pue eunjyeu oye}s) owo su SNODU})/ 22510 rrr rrr nr rrr rere Tr rr Tre r er ee eed Precis tet ee om - G anpays wune) 650) 10 awoouy wid) 9 PPrrreee ret ee ee Cees eeeeeteee Ce eeeeeree teen eereeeeree eeeee (a71Ww3}!) 4210 . (a GINPIYS yreqe) Ayedoud jo s 249 10 O25 ¢ rpcpur in sereeeeenenss + * * @BeBPOW OWOH—"ssUd0Kd suns Pe AAL C7 AA” * 42 Pnpayas Youle) $80) 40 ewoou) SSaujsng P DLL L4/__ ttn DUM / ets ‘SOxe) 18IOL PT * (@ “"WOS YrUVe) “D}2 “sysNU 40 Sapeysa “Sd.ysia” — Ayadosd + jcu0ssad “ped ‘Sayjpedos Pus sjuds “SuQinuUe pue $Udr0 IJ € — cereeeecemeneers] @ 8 6 * * * BEYODUT 1290) PUL BIC)S ad p 4 ae ia *@u.oouy 3$940)U} were z Pe . (suorona)suy jo $i oded aos) sajcs jesnuds . Ce. Ceerese: e6000% seseeseeoseres® Oeeereeeeeereereee ereetereeeeceree eeeeeees ses rereere oereere ecocccel” *OOS So Seeeoesooolle . . . 7 auyjosed j@20) pue a1eIS PTTTTrTr TT tit tte PrreTTritit ttt te PerrrrrrrrrrrrrT Tritt eoees. [vcecccoesererereceors i a a, & oe a1e)s9 jCO4—"sSaxey eecccceboceececeeccescce ce cceeseeeseeseesesessesescocosess eccoeeseoosesoosceseoososs co sesesososoosoeS YB 7 - saaGmuDy 167 WUSGEAAGH COT—ET BOS “Y ¢ e sesunbumbessneninananenin AN vn” “y wn ry, SOV Tir ‘Oo. seun ppt) suaH Ing \Uo? Jeet aan eamennnt uted eva wae xe} is ew aes 40y0 ¢ vd hes bE Sookuen 20)" premamenesanmnanneces mites sconvecennenscoeneecnstiianias (ase yo yo? CSR adhd wdi; soaodued Z2f EE “| + ay0.y stuoy Ydms yo 1e70) 4dyUQ “(uoways | saeeienneetemeninetnasteeneaammemmemniiail natenreneepa PIN. ID shy SUOJIMISU] GIS) SOD WEY) IDYIC) TT | -----eveeevveeeeeneennnnnerennennnrnnrenenes —— ———— eueocennensvecenenenanesecestes eoeee so ceccecccessoresoe: ° > . e . suojynqisju0> yse> j}0L ot 0066000000 c0s ce eecccees 1004s 050005 00SSSS000 100 500s 000804 0s 6 9O9S9SSSSEOSOOSOSOOOSOS S SOSOOEDSO OSS SOOOOD eccecccccoceceoocce OOOOOOs 6 + 60 600600000005 SSSOSSSSs 66000 000+ 060000 000000000050 0+ 005 5080s ee Coeereooese "suoiun ypaid pue “90888 ueo} pue sBujaes wo. sduiuse3 ecccceccces eccccece e®eccccccce eeccccescccceceee ecccceccece SOs cecccccecesoocooccosseses oc veeeccceccocoe (mojaq syunowe pue siohked ¥51)) ySQs2;U4 ee ee er. ee eee Ad pe reer eeee 4 : > > : a (0192 UeY) S52) you suena nenennsenneneennnnenestnatianmmanapenenneaenenmnnpemmnnmmnmnmemmmmmmenmannat —o] ui] $59) @T OUN!) SPUDPIAIP 21GeKeL JT OOo OO+ COS SOOO SOOS ESS OO SOs 6 OOS FOSS EEESESHOTSOOSSOSSSESESSSE SS SOHO SEO SSEOSOOSOS SOS O® wT TTTIT Tee ' > ° . . (pt puc ‘OI ‘al Soul ppe) jeyo, or seereee PPPrrrrT Tre rrret re. Le ee ee eed “*e (orm wo) : — = - e 9000000eeee oceee - 0000600 60s es coceeeree + s0ees+ 6008s 3 hC! 4Pdits JO, SWAMI DULINSUI JO BIUe!CqG eetineeeennatennetin ——— ——— ‘3 SPNjUI) SUSUSIAD [CJUIP ‘jEWPIUs 49143O & ssieieeattiaeeteeninel tous? aby) $894 YOu) Z 9uN wos E OUN IENQNS Bl sctiaiemmasinseseninsinmamnionie — . e . e ° T aaed 6 our yo %T yoy € 060eeeeeneeeehGheeksSG0S 00s eoSs 6eRSSSSSSESESSSDSS COSSSS* - COS SSEHOSNSSNSS CESSENS 1 C+ 9608 ececce ibampmned + + © g8nap pue ourrpous JO 9809 LIOL Z a * * 9989 yeo1potu soy SwAHWOId QDUCINS aa . ey “ui jo (csi¢ Uerj§ VIOIU JOU yoy) peu 2ugQ t ce ccoceeccceceosscses coeseeecceeceseseescoeseeeeseoecesessscesesescosesses (Ayyurof 10 ‘dpm “pucgsny Aq Ploy yI0jS 10) ‘() “CM) “(H) @jum—tyunowe pua Sivhid JSH) HIOPS UO SUOHPIQUISIP 19\,j0 PUB SpuIsPAIP $4049 4 ‘2)9 'SOBCMURY) 494JOSOIINOS WOMOWOIU] |i ‘| eae, an rae rr te) a ee ee eee eee Seeee eee eee eeeereeee Lew ewee Wwapurd.p 3.4 W.. O08 S/001 | [ev0u 40 ONE 10 bMS Ore "PIE? Swope etep sy bu vst O44 5 8 PS 65 ep dew og Pee ee POA ewe te | .p.tsep e 1p) qe oun ‘T cued UL PUL Vedy 4dUZ or oge pais, >i vpeedop te) saquunu wes e 0. 10 .@., Oe eed Buy “ep pap be brea HE Oued Och why Oa, bebe pe: +) | @ryswoneyey (9) (oprp eure yoenie Depeau oF erate ero FI? taewl? Z BeurmL stl O1Ol wey T Obed ‘YE Buty UO Pow) spe epucdep 105 Ajuy Gyopduiog gp dor gy — TTAVIVAY 4409 1939 * : cgee | a oe = ppb neiinnncimnendceo ivisbancamsrcneannaaeals noseeeebe a Ee se ol ee epececcoccuncnenensessccescces _ L. YI K IT a cqueteeses. _ ae ar - +) ae “SWITF BEERR™ mecmans ape senvesssorennnvannennnnecssessnnsnssetnneseseessssssessneessfseeercerssees-ff ccsessesceressrovecrne” secccccg. “a RUV MoOA7 ING nose | OORT he PPE RELL VU Pg GSA “es ‘ow ; spo7-s sabnbeianeiein x Uy 0%, Puy 2 a ; y ey —s _ Seeerdey _ on out weeny coyeneetag Tr | 7 SZ QNV ‘pI ‘Zt ‘9 S3NI1 40 NOILWNVIUX9 “Too BINGINDS. rd / fp rr e Cr } RE. * yeun "weg “2 oSed ‘OPOT W104 VO pus ‘7 euy ‘¢-5 PINPAYIS Ut ‘avay saQUZ “(OT euy Wd) QZ OU) 398139NS) (680) 40) yyQud yoy ‘ IP|e#ES 9 Athy: " " * * GF yBnowys TT souy yo jojo, 9 ' ‘ = = = SS ao “(1D @Npeyss u wejdxv) sasuedxa SSIUISNG 10MIO ¢ , * QIMpeyrs yrene) “He “saquiy “syam sed Pus YO “S@uIW JO VONaWag », Se ys ene * (uewavers yreue) AUodord ssoursna ;9 $0880) ¢. sURUEeEUEEUDemneMesenentateneem S92)K98 40 S9I0s wos Buse 8199p peg 2, inci . * SSOUPI}Va9pU} SSoUISNG UO ysaudqU) Jy ee * (suOn2nu;8u) e\e,eG08 #28—e18ys sMOA Vey) 491/99) “2y8 “suRld Wewerney Oc scnenenanmnshanscenesenstesssensennnens ’ os be oes 8 * Quawajers ysene) vone 6 cmnanenetemmapneccocesseunnecncesneans Bankes a a wr a a * suisse) gy = . * $89) [PUOISSej;010 Pus jeBay ¢7 ie i ok te Oe ee tele ee * e@2ueunsuy of panaqueceneagineesccuenemnneanneaneesned * (18104 0) pied Aue apnj>xa) ¥ @ul! UO Papn/ru! Jou za8em pre seuees 61 coneqocenaqeunnsecocesnesennnasnances a . © @=6.6 2 $109 yse; wos yuasayp ji) seod 19 Burwu,Baq ye Ao}. sauy 00'2 no*9R S saree pe newnss £ ROD H si ewes pe sD TPF ERSHHISING SiG) UMD HOA pry COG T UF SujUOW Auwul Mone 9 ON!) SAI acectr JO PUS 9u) We SSdUISNG SiQy UMO NOK PON ‘On T) sa, X 40 @ur) UO pajyeripur *-ay8 “wmo} ‘Ard ay) yO SIULPUND 9Y) Liijiim P@}@20) SSduUISNg suit OD ‘ON A S9A (1) £2961 wi sdyend Ave 40} SSQUISNG S14) 10) PIIY “THE Woy “UUNjay FOL (249P94 A\3VEND $ s940;dwi} VE ee | } (apo. giz) ‘sayio C) (¢) yenzo0e 1 (2) ‘yse2 x) (1) :Buqunoooe jo POYIIUI Bsr pu; g eee ie SS “SS Cts / * owes, 43}U9 051M 91;)0 ‘aaoge wos jus. ayep rT SSauppe $$9.,3ng a © AQWON YONeIYynUap) Johojdw, > S2IDWwUIN HOvlg * CWeU SsaLisng g C298 | daapyony - Bursnyrepn erw ' eBay - sarvasas "228904 —aCsa}0ym ‘Biemriey—jrepes 2/0 ves® 104) (SUOMI S)8Lede8 ea) -—,— > ee Ge ccue > JOOS ONGID 7) LS INOW Tp PSE UPR IOD V8 OS OPOT W104 Tt ORed wo UMOUS FE SSO1DPY pus Owen OVOL 6104 “YWaNjus XU4 QUID IY IVA VO} BNPIYyIs sip ydeuy (COVOT Wu04) E-9 BINPIY>g UO xe) juLUAO/dwI2-s98 AyLIND98 [01908 ayNdwWO>) pooanedag tome =t 84 y r Ase ' Q) ain SuhpssOpusidoug 9j0S) “(orot | ' y 0) SOOT M04 UO Sy Ysnw “sya "SO4N|UIA nol *Sdijssdujpeg — (oror wel) WOISSOJOAc] 10 Sows] WA, (SSO 20) B04 21 ory “EAN ad | wiapllaanadeiee : — v “ TAVWVAY 1409 1939 fe ee ee _ — $ UOPUNaP 405 *D aN 2S 10) SUONDNsjSU! a}esedIS Bg , be . —_— canenennnmnentnamennnnenenmapumnmtiganteit "000'OT$ VeUI SSI) Sp “T @s.d “ZZ GUN SNIP BDUENOWWe ES v qUNOIIE Bsuddxe 4NOK jr 4j921NOA 40) 20 “OOO'OTS VEU - - seneeenesennensnsennueccumecgneannnsennecess® $$] $1 JuNOWE paUIquIc> a4) WOM 20) BDA0}dWa KUL mean veseassensesueeenecnussnsenegnnecsnessnentes 40) PaWaNS aq JOU PI@U VONLWOJU! YY “7EAIMOHK -_ - 1 “| ‘saBem Pue souejes J9y) 0} POPpe OG YsNW So2U8 Tt de Sree) : . ; 10u"O -MO}/@ JUNCIZE Jsuadxa ‘saa{o\dwa pred ysoaydjy ary Lececegpectihtp catibsadiinn ay} Suruw9j9p uy “SookojJwa pred ysaysjy day eS Sue om nok pue j28uN0k 0} Prkovs YM VONeUUOJUI 42;UZ t/(¥ NOLLWAYONI 1NNOIOV 3SN3UX3 os 00/7 ; OS O0e/]° waoz Ore seess seer eeeetees «+se8ere oo + coc cceceses perspec | ar eeseere Os . | SOs eeeces+sorececeseceees« Pocceccecesesesoosooeseess . qnecen o++«e0eercee) cI- LONCcesdap jO JUMOWY ‘S59) ¢ eC. soe 7 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . b: . . . . . [oo C70 5] . . . . . . $,8)04 z eoeee - >) VE WS Tsay BOWS OM = 069 F "FOL DIOR GF) cececoecoceces sco Perret ritt itt tt tttt tte Yoo 00, — . Se 0ceeeces 00000000000 0eeeeeeceane PURE: CANN: RRA + \atelated J , .J. aaa om OS COE | WEE | IE |S ead, | B61 7 |" 0 F97TS 39? 00 006 | hé| 7S |e RoE gS "9 os) 00 DOL | “D¥ZHIV. £45 ° ' Not Pig .. WUNOIDE BSudd4d,, 50 —_- “S9IIIMCUW PosOYINE s@yjIO 104 BuIPEdY PUOIWS OY) PUB EI[-G9 PUC [Z—-Z9 SOINDIWs,4 ONUVSADY J9PUN VONB2dIGIP 40) Bi. PRDY ISsyy By) 250 seadie $4u) “$24 PI20Id SNVIANs SSBY) OF JOU PIDIOYING $924) 210 BuiSM SMQwO? OF YHIM GYM SIDAMI. 4) Y Vy) 10) SB aM BY ET-GP pee 1Z-Z} S24) pO2O1y BMUGAVY UF PaT)\J28IP SasnpI220ud JANesjS;UIWPE PLB SaLyopind SAreusaye 9yp Bursn ssaheane; sy pauB\sop 8) ejnp-<>4 sive “PCIy BIQNOP Bou Tt 3NIT NO GIWIVID NOMLVIDIUdIO UGI NOILINGIG 40 WN OLLVNVIdX2 “2-0 FICHE -_--—* Z sted ey: a itl - 4 OF Oreos Orvwa s 2961 Sel iati yi "G1 Asenuel yo se pred pasopisuos aq NEUE D2ueEq Yons ‘e061 tt "8961 ‘C1 Avenurf ays soy yy suey *z aut] WO a>.Ue;eq Yrs anand ' Asvnuef Ay INP RED JO QouNrpeny oy) pred Pur Uanjod snod pay nod i “openg ne - wel ed JO QoOUE EN wt A : . ‘ does 4Q pony sworn i ‘puoueted Woes 20) YO IAs MEISE FO MoUS Ju UIE yeaa ey we ps Jo ooueyeey ot PUL “Bug “TE Aue val Aq pay su. 5 Susurpersut Usd © 30J JusuiAed dU0 vey) ‘waous sprut NOL jt e WANIE sHON FE PyoyIM spenqor UY gt p 24) UO pred sy Pulppoy 4 “VU otUTr ysis yaou “Yin yons 4 apriethod pug p2ssndo Bue ypeopypytan yoy uo Sliup “4 24) Wuleky wWpos> & se pondde oF PIMOS SyuOWAedJIpUN sod Wel Ess NOK YUN ep MIHPLISUE Posnibes Yous uo pied poops . N® JO S6yv49 WY ¢ 2uYy UY TU AUTEN Ue yO jun AL ono Auy;: “40d ag Avi avs JY) BuLINp py MUM deb sya yo dav penbs uy , 3 ‘ $f °.* *'* + * + + = agtunpsosze Ez suH Ose0190) 20 Ze Yur} WSeIIUI PLE , OBswYyD jE) py., ' $8 UjBivws W0}}0q ey) UI JUNOWE SIG) MOyS “UsNjos AW} WA po | wSed YO “Cit Meg “9 Buy VO Urcys 4 UCI} NySUy : j CARD 49 sotruNU Oy) 40; ‘TH Meg ‘E vuy Uo UMOYs Junowe v4) UO sev 400 JUdd/0d 9) OBsey> iwsOpppy Z due ' " * s0ts82 1 49A@YIM “296T “ST “udy 10 quewAed 9 ©WP OF “YIGT ‘ST “uor wos Shep jo swQunn g > $}° ° * * * * PY wt | 4 WORSRISHY 416 e/3P sos 99F * @AOQH Z] UH} LO UMOYS OVP Oy) OF vow 998 ,,‘a3ey> | ! ; “HPi>4! $0 BOP ONP Woy Asp jo J9QON OT jeuoryippa,, ous om s 3 ag “S55 = 3335 ae ese eS 8 42j100 9) sano andy % MO} ; / / ” / a ad “WIWM "BOET ‘ST dy 40 wuawAes jo *D S004 JIWWS f ri See —_¢ b- : AS 3n5D ANNA ONY SWUO4IND SwiOSee | | SALINA INOS 4 1 va | (Q3NOVSLY BINGINDS) ANOWwivl OO FZ 6 S410 40, sw - *—=—_ -_— ee ee -—— ee OO. Te NONLVEWd 3h NUNLIY XWL 3iWOoN] ‘ wh SNOl4u1uSQNS UNV S3NG ‘GOonW anosuiT . as ol) 0A oe S434 *O@ 1180430 aavs| OO 007 | s ——- 4 vy -_-— *— = ~~ ee -_——— — _-_ ee ee —- . ss an AK Ay SNOILDSNGIG SNO3INV1N3E9SIN Wet usage SNOI LNG; we yk - , eae = ——— 7" * =" = ° 2°. @¢ — =. s4 By 2 “OPO Gime esen 4: L646 AS3UI4ANI Wvio4’ atu ) 43) re, 929 SNOILINGIO AVOWL : — CS / 14606" a. 0058 aN tins: _—— ~~ ~y “- © CeO oOre Waoa ‘ans PILE a -—- oe ec | —_ —— — - —_—_—_— _—— — ee —— oo . ~ ! Pw J 07 21 eJt SLNIWUSUNOINI ge ON es -- —_—- — = qa e aed ow — ee ee -—-_ errr eee eee A4gos SISNIUX4 WVDIO IW _— . a _—- ll ‘ : | (943 ‘'S4USSW7D ‘GW. — eed, Dee re i OA Wuwawaua "CIW HOY lie . i. ee SASL OME F; 1677 AY tt a7, alae ISES RS | Dw off CVO =O >} sv2) 200M MUA “pa “©1488 A3IL9NGaUu LON’ 3% oe ee oo S iONY & : ioemae stone $e 1saua.Lni] | —— fez ROE | 0 OI MY TUS Now AYES ae oS PA// $3Xv4 Wilk ’ ] ; | = ; are ee ee : . meee « _— _ — — nA) Pair siaekce 3 08°C Ol 7% VIX MN IC DYIVS ——_— —... . = -- _ ———? —- -o ce ——— ...... - oo -. comme i—| 7 we SRG eer lees: Ger ee y S sorta ee — _——¢ —_ --- — ——— eT SL LS ee ee es —+—— a GES be sce a ic) |) pa i OW HPS , — eee ee ne 1. foe ae ae’ OOD OTF. 090 °9/ PIP xv. anriosvo POA Ou (OTM 70 y xxl mex ICE) Sem Pom x¥4 BWooNt 3ivis| — | ~~ ON46 Il" Ow & WIAA COBE/ DOEe7 —_ ee SPQ 820 7 _ aDNVNSN) ALTvsIa wiviel ~~ Sele —Te6 PYOAIVE A 9 ya adag ISN (AA VA UIVISS Ivan SUSILN 19 Guv un OO SO als a — 07-6 p¥wE Astadouu Iwosuaal | 96 STs istdeaw Sue's 00 4 a § ee, } ee tas” en ee AP 4 7 SSOND ‘ray 494 7 . ae Se Sete: Le ad id on BANISIGIW UND & Javas | avuaoas] __”s«BBVA) d0ece | sensese™ ~ SASNIdXA AV) ’ 4 rae om Q370N3 UVIAA 200VKYWL EPL CE] &/ SROMIAGIG 40 VAUI9s a“ en VI eHNOs INDIO’; 19v ‘ON, y eo ee i = | ' : = rere a =] 4 C= —+F A Ld” ~~ —-—+ | * hate 4 VodiTaT OY 7 SS eee = Se ee | —— ania ———— o°0 7777 ‘ALP SIV EN YOD TH VOTOIPYV IND at Mr gay S77 FIKA WIT —— Sie a a | et OT SNOLAT SIA oA7e@ ‘eae acme IVUN DITIOY ate Tr | Rae ae Ong e9|9 > mz ‘we ie ~ SMUMZ 3 en ae, DR OE FEE - h h SAWIALT DIIT 2Aywy hin ez : or url way 7 aEMo arp eR ~ 1/779 Joy a a A a ae e es DANI IIIZ Le 2 . S297 COLL Wi wo oe : TSO v7 | SIZIPOND HF PASTS a - G9GNI YV3IA B4OWKVE OEY 27 BN a @. ol ‘ 4 60 «SANGO OA ‘6 ‘? YY A law a os —-—— ee ewe . ee ene oe = Saanoe am : ; Saw Hf Os dH 5 y | wOes ANNOY BIN) (ophes pOsns 10 ye. 8 Pus saqueny) COJNIOW JWOM FdAL WO INIDS | $ 9 INIT WOME GUY? ALIWADIS TWID0S WO NMOS S¥ NOLHIS GIAO TIW) 4118 30 JWVN F44L WO INISS | INNOAY blind be MOVIG DTI NI OIiheN a : . WOUNDS JO BUA ON ALIQIIDTS Iwl les * ° ———— —_ came ou a 4] (apOd gif “21Gug “22ypO psd 10 Ayo ‘yaanis pee sequwoy) ScIBOdY SSINISNS —_— —— — LL soneenaneeenceecconene | - {ow ‘yorsneysas “2/078 4109009) KWL LNDWAOTIW) STIS OL LOWONS SHLIANLOY Ssiwisng , _AEbe: .¢ 2 =. 2c — © a. > aoe o ‘wot «)” ‘pores Bun 00198 vt Buby) (J (y) 0 weeul] (¥) Of OND deed prey d SOM SypuOm T] UHY S84) “**** . ** ** — - ee i} v rT) (1 ee ee -_* ee ener Brjue Sag saad aiQuaey +eyyo 90 1) (961 TPL} ap-ayed Vv “(2004 po 0d ws Apu ponperes bOe 24 Cduy yBnoys wane) Lsryas byyy AQ pOsenod 1004 4)6.. pu ee ee 32VdS SIME NE DLIN® LON OO FSVII4 ' BHUNS anuesry ito. dpe) y 1) | 32@ Aysnraq (21208 INOA OF Jury pas? 404 yosgsedeg hus 20504 +4 I9G SUIODUY POWADMIUNA-py9s yo Ysodoy “SN on J “Ay -jopd sd Pus Aj. yesmde/ Way Ye? YF I) SJOAIAING JNA p. @ “BjUL@PUIDIP 4NOA “HOA OF Wj YEAR “SBUjusED snok vo paseg ‘$)1aU0q Ave Bun. y ul pasa % Junoor® S9iL PUNVIIE AuNIVs [6190S NGA 40) OIW MOjey WO) OY) VO Popodas SpUNnOWEs oul" weedy 4>e)eP Jou og - DEL bOg “GI SUH “| OF UO pw ewy WUNOUUE Sry) 19549 nus “SSay pf “Ov Zcvs 299 ‘0099S SOL oll pn ey quawAojdiue,.a5 Uf | Pus G1dy 18qUZ «44, HI 1 ZDADYDIQ™ “6 40 9 & 1) —eUNODuI wawAodwe j/25 Of mojag “}4 wey , se ee ee He 8 * Ce Quy WOH (9)Q CUH 1901;9NS) Couteg 6 MmOjeg 5 way UI Pus azey s2WUg 0 “(Q)g PUE (¥)g SPUN JO 1HIOL 0) . . . . . * . . . . . . . . 6 auy ‘7ete wu0y wos KE} “WO'1's 0} BeMQns ‘Aue Wy ‘Sdu PayodauA (3) ca- eee) - © * "Zaay UuOs UO Paerpuy se saBem WD I 4., 1PIOL ‘) @ e . . . . * s x8) Ayunsas 0} }20/QNS SBurusee JuawWAojdwa jas Pus SaSem P2WiIqQwo? jo uMOWE jfS94.4; dul £ —- - -—— —_-- ——- . — (aied yo yas Lp y Hou OQ “**H Jue howe 4198 0} 322/GNS Jou ase nod ‘oov$ spun #9 ey WD BO Deeg 20WUQ "GS YUH) UO ropOGO JUs.UAOIDWA jj9S wt) (+ ->) 40) sSunus@2 pau (FL Gg nae 2 8 2 ¢ © o *G - * * yOueTUtB,O peuoyeusazu! JO yuswUsIAOS Us vidy @ YH BAUS WOsy (2) * * (Copor wgy) }-s ainpayss ayescdos ‘(posh UONDS 4) E SuHj 16) Z SLI) V9 payodas Bunuse) wo.4 (p) ecccccecce | *eeccereccescessccecoosces ° . ° ° . . . . . . . . . ° : . : . 1co2 wij Bunny aue 3d pray oaey noA ” AjuO sejuQC BSUONNNIGID 82 PiI9S UENSUYD & 40 ‘sops0 SNOIByos @ yO saQMWaW “49).1u, 4 B SE B2V95 Wry (>) de he Sa, / we ele + + + © © G@unuey weyp 29yI0) “292 “SauNyUDA yujo! “sdyys/PUWED Wess (q) * + © * + © + (yp Quy WO yunewe Aue sso) ¢ du) SsaUISNQ WOrs (4) —udwAOdwa-jjas wos ($60) 40) SJ~'422 IN G een ceeecescecccesecesceces ot ceeeesresesooceceresers+ oOe eeee Sees cetee esse cee sess sees Sess seeseeeees esse teeters eee $2a2n0¢s 40 $a>\uas popn)>xe Ay'200S * € UH LO PapPNAjour se2INOS 40 SAMAISS PIPN}D+2 Woy ($5 >} 30) 2woruy PN (@2ues2;9p 40) 2:2, . — eS ae. a ae a ae ae a ee . cz avy “Dd anpayrs / uy UMoYs wee SSdUIENG JO SISSO) (SSO) JOU WO J2C1};QNS 40) WOM YY CHV & / cagecoce fl oaghs-seengn@fens-ercens ey ae ee ww. = 2 & ete « & is - (ssaursng evo UeY) OW 4 “a : ' clit Orb o7 yunowe pouiqued 4209) LZ O44 “COPOT W204) D BMPIYIS «1 —MOYS (550) 40) Ajwed VAN t \ ZPEC PES IF WIPO D 7 A? sagt.) Agpanreg f4) 209 (pae> Apanses [208 VO UMOYS $e) NOSHIY GI4O1dWIATIS 40 Livy s/f.7 2 ‘UKNd "> — se? MOLES (? Va - 24 44D “ A a 2 (OPOT W204 JO T SICH + UMONS BE SGINC IV OV a%ued “VpMpeyds Speswdos © Vy PSs vod PUAG tus jjvr Qaeg ‘OINPsyos S14, Vo SdSsvUISNG ANOKA JO We wis (S3S404 40) S}yOid DujqwoO> “ssauISNg DUO UCYy) C1OW pey NOA fi SE=3 DINPIIS BUY AjUO 4,0, !.0) SIM HOA EE OU JO JUNoWy vz puna: 40 a4 5 * Wowhedsang says ‘(OT Guy) KC) UeNR sos) Oe (TZ UN) SpusuAcE yy (z Ong acy v >» if % oO £2 Lint ¢ 81) 0 ye ry wy deg ONG S2UE/EU 49149 “(91 DUH1) KEY YeU{) ¥29) 910 (FZ SUH) SWUDUIALH J) zz q | 60 t0Z*T = 012 wiog te UoTYdvdxNy (Od Pus ‘ol ‘GE ‘Z1 souy PPL) peyog ile g “°F BL wHOJ—"AUY Bay “QE Tp WO p—wE} OUHORLD jesapay Arm Suyuoy Oz x UCUL4IWIO Z Seeees | + seeecccccesesescese sl . . . . . . SUONNQuUOD yse> feyOL T 1° O ORO e eee ee eRe tee se eeee eee #eeee (eet eweees eee ee eeee ee et eeeee es ee ne . . . . . . OPORO0 SOD OSOSOSCCCCCeseces Suausnaennenesenenseseeseenecesssccesesteccencecces POC eee eee eeee SOOO OMe ee eee eee sence PP ee eee eens +o OOOO Oe Ot ee eee eens Cn Or teeee (92)W9})) ‘22 “Si9pI0 Aouow *s¥2ay? Bu'pn|2u1—ysea—-suonngujuoy “4 UO~Vejay WIMUIMOL 404 >LOHINaysur be B SS5.d bus '¢ oun WO4p g DU, eqns Z — . . . . . T 820d “6 duyy jo %e sau} 9 "(P pue € souy pov) OL gS “ * * * (Swaiuod adouensis Wydsoy | OPNj2U!) Sasucdr>d UIP “y2d0 424N10 & en. ee eeee . . . . . TI eu tuo4y zZ oul y2CI4QNS £ " T aed "6 oun jo &Z7 saquy z an saennenenetineds “a er s8nup Pue suisipaw }O }s09 01 T . . . . “SUS.SIN NSU) OS 980 JO Sot “ISN Pornudy YC MY—(OSIMuayj0 40 Do. iieuy Ay PoesusdJwos Wu) Dudes IWilep PU jeHpyy “UCihIAWiD Pscpurcys 10 PIG, rey OSM OU OP KOK AMO 6-1) —SUON Vip op POIZUS)y “Ay 1uVd (9 "Y2S) “9}9 "syens) 20 $9}C}S9 ‘sdiysuauped *29ICAOS PUL vjuvs ‘sONMuUe pug Sudisuay ¢§ —_—_— —— —--- 4.4(22 9 ‘QZ @7 Sv.) PUIOIU! 4S219)U} [2VOL PZ \4 as —_—- 22 euly je}o] ee POeeeccccccorscocces (9 ‘spuoqg) ISI1D}Uy 4210 32z je eul JOO] ese vorr errr een ennne dh LLL Te ee eee eee eet eeeee "TOC e HOP ORR ee ee eee eter es eens OPPOPSOSO OSSD OOS OS es ee ees COCeecs (s3uiacs enjyniw URY} 49410) SyIsodap yueq uo Wa1auy Qz l “| tz oul jo] Te Ce e+ ee + Cee ee deeeeee “SPORTS TOP ORDO SES e Sere seeesesoes eee etait PP PPCSO COCO OC OO SCS e+ ee eeeeeseees “SCOOT SS FOO SSe + OSs O8eCeeeCescecos "399 “SuoIwn Pad “syueq SBuracs jenn “20SS¢ ULO} puv SSUIACS WuOuy S3urU.L y ez (oAed po @tueu) WSQ49j 44 —_—_——— _—— + e@ °° * (0202 Wey) S$a) Jou ——8T Gul) $s2) OT eur) SPpudpi rip FG2K2L BT "Stee *eeeeerreeeweeeeees « « ©" 8 pt pue On "ae souy 1), Of © SUONIAQIASIP diqarzuoy py teeeee T. eeeee OOP ee ewww eens “SUOIINQH ASIP vice [edeg a (SU0!}2n4}Su) aos) WORD OL 44° . . . . . . . er oun Lees | Nu neesS*000CCCSRSUSSSROROOONS 2 8oSereeccoenesesbesceséccoccces OC OP eee ee eeee eerereee ieee aL ee i ef tee ee Pete weet eee SCOR eee seees Ore eeeee . hh Se oeeee . . . *eeee ; ee eeeeeee . * . eee . **- teteeee . FOOT COOTER HSH e+ eeeereseee ee te eee eit Le niseoene see eeeeseseneeees + cesepessensees scones ; (A\yurof 40 ‘ayia ‘puegsny Aq Pi?) yooys 404 (n “() *(u) ey" HED 40 WEN) §-4)4 UD SUG. Jy 4910 2019 PUY Spurpir.g OF ‘Meso HOMULEU) 1SY}OSIIU005 WO ee ee ~ _——.. a ee a ee | a~ roe? = eo. - e Ge UT 90 U9 pow w.vy sdJUZ ee hae Te TOPCO OH COC OOO SOROS ees ces sees Wepuedrp ay VW. ee Stn) perow x0 CO 19] 0, 10. @, Oy em r004 Buy PM Ff indy dy Peds 66h eee, j Bes wh O\. Ged | amp BI wHE envy hy Zt) De.. Le ema vie ‘beodspy ir Ape We te and Diysvorejay (q) CoP yl bl oul weewy T 60rd “Qe Ou wo Vee]? Spuspucdye Te ae * 4pouloouy aT luvd ‘wAOQge Pv}vi| > ‘wpsdgp JO J90Q\U.U fe, > “y t ied Vint ee eet Te) Te ee +e + eee ees eeee et ee POCO eee eeeee PP Oe eee tees ereee (Oj;9P24y 8 Yee P MCUs UWibings wited MONLONUGY “Iwata Ry Z/ BZAViw eNOMAMUIUL OD “*Wae eee eh SE 4OnpPscla (aavis VIS Sint NOLLONGIU IwioL ~NVISMUIBANOD WILLIS . —tinK — —-) a -_-— — - eee eee Ss eee cee. Ts als SQOINVITIOSIW aavas Ivion | OO SZ 7 Iwesuuy - LNOILANDIYVINOD AVEO ——, wee eh SNOlidisoeens ony sana “A0uUd 3WODN! | CO? $334 08 115804030 Buve oo | S3H2DuM. 31 Vi FGNV SNOILD 135 j 34vigGanyv Bes 8 089 SHOSNVITDSIN | ITE Say SNOIINSININO ClH SA 4 AS 4¢34N!I Awiod SNOILINGIO AVOiGaw Lan TWOINT ° 7 Senne ta (3) % (4)aes — _S4N -W3SUNUWI Oe eA Seu S435N3dx3 WW3IG3w Ivio4 ‘¥44s “SBSSWI95 ‘Qtv Ontuew, AN3IWAv3us ‘ooW 8O4 VIAN "SNI_ LN3OISSV Guw MaVo § }2NWIAUn — a -—}—. —_— G tor +sSawrZ 4¥n¢ 7 7% £7 Ls a S°VAladso) CPS PeH/(7O ~ @) PWG 7 Iwan ss - wee pei (iva Konm 2 TeSaa FA a aeen » ar : 4 raver me ~_eee ne me tite -—— 2 eae ! e - —ét— i STS "9 “MW LPOL - : DIVINDO2QDV Wend_GNeevAy | per UE) 104)0 10185010 50 OES caus oa “a1eq ns ee ———— = ¥en +n sen sv I9/ Y= uwaLUOd ANAD yy) 2 Lis ¢s *@iwO dU! P- ey Gud Ao jt VAS NOS ISOW 3 iM ONY ONY i ’ \/" ry) 4 rT 4 teu “9 of sh poe” a Ce ae ca _Pri > >! ™~ 2s? . a x * ub y Bi bd > - “aE pajpmouy due icy 8y YYM /O VOHFw Ojpul I/F VO Paceg bi VOUT E)D2p oe “sasedre) vey eye ylSiad @ my , weeded = dite Pue y 91109 iS “ane, St pay 0q pus 9390) eouy du dw je poy ou “bee “SpWeW2IC|S Pur $-,H2QIS Futaut durcode Ber, mows “ermyee Syd PRUhuT Ee BEG | PUL ea) oe F FUMOS 90 Sentedd eye P yuo Perjeyul jee pepunpes $5278 e Ye spuvy POulaA¥g “Si. Ll duly wl Mo4pOod Flu dee. 7 img 2 4 b0\ACL / ‘ sf ff 5 #8 * * WOE PIPEWNSZ QOGT OF PO}IPIId Ysim NOA GI Duy JOJUNOWY OZ a 4 oO prOZ "/ e@e *.7- * yuawmAedsaa9 19)U2 (9] BUY) xe} VEY) Jo JIE] DIE (DZ ] DUN) SpudwWALd yy ET PUFIZI)) 20 | 4uinposeqyy quire pny wt Aeg (ONG B2Ue}eEg 19} Ua '(9[ Bul!) KePUCYESSIFOIE(9/ | QUN)SpUdXWACd gy ING KVE 8 | eYca Si7 oF PLL/ ae: tT) ee (QZ1 Pure eZ] Sou PPw) yo, BZT Seorrnsset § . 0 S| e3e2 aa8 (pred S29ym 29450) (11317 & Se PIMOWE PudUWANTIZAO POSE OPN) U4) sdAQj Gu. 2 ave 2 ' oo . 4: Z, SjudwAeYd xe} PIjewys} GOGI @ URYL 2.0u! 105 — St! all arr) FP? POWYS Sa? \ ot ee PI_qs0" 2, ainok g re _ 1183 2 VUONDWInd Y2ed 10) OO1$ SNA (UsNjas apeIEd IS Buty PURE PIIeEW pt OOT$)00.' $ (Z) -nudiuos 4 aq "40 g DUH JO JUGIs0I Cy (1) > ASIC ? 9 10 494e] 94) 49}U9 D10U 40 OOO'SS S$! G BUH PUL ‘SUONINPIP az1Wa}! JOU OP Nd 4 xe] Al ee “2 eBed WOss 1e}0) 49)Ud “SUONHINPIP BZwoy NOL yy UTT %. —ojnpayrs dey xe, TT 4 * — — — a a ieealianitel uf —" ‘ZI Ou VO rey 4ahUR P 40 9 ‘GQ ‘e [][ SOU @SN JOU OG ‘SUO: Wonaysur ul $3)QCc} wo TE 40 OF 22u)12 Guise Ag ae, ernbig A | OF | FOr y , (Z Guy wus | VU Poe AQIS) BWiOdL. Jeo] 6 2m Tivia wet OD A2/ , 44 4 s8Qwau jay 4 ee a fc? ore: = saquinu Ayuns ; Su And ‘MOA 9S [C1IOS PU DWeEU JSIy Jay 20 SIY DAB Uanjase Juyy 1YNM PIA OYA VdIPpYD PUIPUIGYP INOA JO SQuTcU JSsig OE OSjE S41 Spm JO PUL YSAY INOA py Apupese foe Fuypy Poauic,y C1) >t Clivuce) O ‘s po QyA QZ | (QWOdU! peY aU0 Ajo pr UIAI) UANjVA WIC! BLYY PIE LA aT — | {J C) ® ; JJ9SANOA ez asus L) et pry sda IO Sy sey~NBoy suondiuoxrg ‘DUO HIBYI— SIPLIS Jun j 4 JAI MISA OP § JIweroe 4 "SISSIINMPS PUES SIwie POS s9}US “SUINGIs o}L40Is OF PUNO! 10 JuIOl OF BPEL IIS UIs RaBvey yj “Voseas O salogytud yuatard g vores» 6 ay m OAID “PO)yy wLvw 4 (. Owes... vpem VAOQY SE diuws Sud DE eG] 209 Us 108 ANA WO Pre e pue ae 3 9/29 :0F ‘79> UINvItdSwD Orv~bLI7IA) @. —_ ° uinjyasyujof ne sdqwenes.opan = —- : PIS Pus “Ayo od 1 ¥eH “LD O s??> _....., 2009 dt7 persed ome _ SE Oem a =. ° 7 P- a> a2e'stT7 (4 Pst F SIP SOV Gy é . sake J 8 pootaid ’ UCHE IAI /ae,y (OPO! [Ory 10 [FINS PU LaQWAY) EHPIEEE B14 nm Csto: re. Ss SIS : WDN UY ED vVvIMoy “a ‘OC ACY 3 anita aii pucgqenys) 4 - Se Qed Alper desd PRpled ora i’ wey jie} (yPOg JO Syerul B/OPiw Pues Fdwey ps.) o> “Loree purcl gy) paypret Pus wes i an *e ‘ - wal esis eMusvrsyy [WUsyjuy-— pUewpPeIeg Astiseest SN 61 But ue sol * «" / ’ . iy } } (x ee BurvuiBIaq sodA VpQeees 104.0 29 C9KI TE 44QWa20g [| A/ONMUUL BEV BY) 205 \] ; | ‘ sh ‘ a ; » af >) q ‘ . \ iJ ULUYPOL] UOT OWE DU POI DY) Ser. ~ JyE9NTASe es : ; ae. _ TIAVIIVAY Ad09 1839 Pee. — a a ee _~* — * FT A ed eel HS -1LL-O- 041" TV im Opes ihimannktoo SAY —_— naam V1 ouy | Netto]; Cony ‘ —_———— oe SUONINASU IO { VIed Sos pu 491U3 (pneu | souy PPL) SppasdpCyoy ¢ [) 9494 420y> "J0AO} fe NOK OF SoruGdaa PISCYD 49 VD Oye VWP42 SPUN JULNIVAG? DIIp-ACYL H VSUIIKD UL PLY HOA j1—NOIL Vs. UOINE ANNODOV BSiaduds “COLT LT G04) P242 Key UMiaI0g E (AONE W404) 91d pudUNSaaAU; Z Bee’) ete vo pue viay sayy Cp Uitte.) | swum) SPMIUSal ps puget S$ (9 OINPI3y>;) P|s> aWorW JUIWIINOY | o~- A— 1 (9S0662 wie 4s Wren) “d)9 “suEgd Wuswamas , ©} SUDSIwE pos upius yrs Aq SjusuAuy p oe « SUPW9 “A LYVd a ~ Ce MUOIETS 49490 40 NOL Z WIE | YC) wr uwdag »ySVUuISNG vahopiuny g eS) 1 (ert aun "fod 09) §NO1LINGIO IW1OL| | oa Ss jos 444 4 Sung iy) sayjo peyoy | (COKE Ui04 U2eUN) Sosuadue SUMOW & — = >> ". 1 . Pee cote’ - ' SUoWWISNIpPY "HT LNW x , OP cco : a44¢ ‘9 vuy | ote Ss ; (SUH wMaySut Oo ¢, HRed 9S)—"SUON NPIpP sayiQ Ss WO PUL 9494 19}U3 “B UINOW) Z SouY Ppy é TUtery ] 44 tt asusdny osu eo, TF LEO @ 1444 4 saouvs somo yejoy ce be QIAV? testy 4 gt 1>S y | é oo CVO, BVIOQWYSD . (aanjeu vicis) seounos 42410 @ - (1) PINPIYIS) sjom1) 1089) 4S9°p ‘Sdryssaujed $ Aywduad [PUdsaug ‘$unjeAosu pue byuds SelpnuueK pue SuMsudy ° 4 $ ®Wwodu: (C30) puc 201s @a@ ee ee e $ ouyOsed jrowny pue a2e1S oeee oem — —D wo, ft —, MApyENbDUOU pryOy s+ & eeveeeee ! ! os (ued 40 Wry) spUudpiip Jutjynenduoy pe * j (0497 U4) $$9j JOU JMq) OUEWY 1 —F $101} 2}SU1995 HIM; as; UIE; OOS 2NANS QE 7 (921usd}") | Ju 4unenw peyo) ‘239 ‘“Suapino Aduow ‘S¥I9D Aun, ust--—-11Se4 ~"SUOIINgGIiayuos re 7 ae foe * , Pp’ py te va ~ Sua ~ . - cape “ —~ J “ >A > a md ad % Gi (Suorje, | : (QNpayrs "OLE Pepaaus: ddEe06 G2 Gt) riwveaee? ZeILY C9CL OFrol uvoy + $ = * 3.™~ ‘ T 26ed ‘gE oul YO pawyes> bbe spusdap 105 Ajuo wjojdiuu- & ~* pipeluuo a . eal . -_—— > at ——_=-- - — Oem: eee es a a ae day Oe.- : 7 wre - te — ines : ; 10) meds ‘st lwo “EEVIONY BOT “Smt SUTROlAVAS Wao ssisogs Mm ORO TFET $NONINGID 110i . oe ee omen : Ki ra. Wwi0s re \\ Poa er Ce, SHOIGMIDED 6621 Sinerraserwaie dowvenini 662) 2 aie $501 IiOd ? ! j ; NOLL NV Ien8 / $501 astensy> ¥ a! Te Paws oe 990 BHO Wids ; ele fa SROMADEND Wi | MEV) herd bieud aan remy: KXKKX TNONADSINOD Would sh rie TM AN HOW hve . __ SMAIWHD CITINYOSD Jew ‘ pinGands) $d 8 WENAOD INJWISIANI T ONAG 8ddavD By ; TAGIND) ANOWIIT tied 1D wave . PR aa = Tit ates 9 int (BWOdHd5! sav Clend at $450) God oO NOUVEVdl¥s EVA WOON DoOpS ror 36M une ON CRLUINM/I8I43 ALINI= > ONINWED ONY ALON? \ $iNOI 208 14d OnmmiOl> D3d108s SEOs DEVE diebarnia¥e $2144N$ ONY $1001 Tivws ee | TING Wwne StiOus7 NON | ‘ . SNOILDINGIG Y3IHLO Bind ond “cl t077 Felie7/ TsFsiirw Wids SNOLNJ3INOD ssi 7ee.6 UTS LAa G30 19) G)« Wis r or jn ‘DMI $5010 fur WE Sead eliy 7 $3001S inaniuveda | Le WIT ih { SAR7Y "SMI AG CiSenanas Fant oe a eoes7 iineced Whaat ONT itv IN7C7 YWdIRT FIWAT TION IS oS FAC SMI INDDDDV © Malved $NVO) INDaNIWASN CCOF iz Giw 0d Wares ree L(y’ saieOir or VrLFzZ J PUY _— eS 7VO, 20YC.90" (Oivd WOH/A Ol) 1S3821NI ACW EE GM EWZLA ~_ fel Wi01 al Go| 892 loa sor CL =70 LEI | = J — -— x : J 7 ODF PATONG ws Oa oF eolez ¢) /- We OlInw = ALsOa4 WWNOSEIS oD) wad Oe AAWISY, J vs oy AlalsOus WWNOSSIS U4 )> a et x71 «ae VIA Tix | Tse WOON W201 PBs yOlS7 | ow AIwWAvy a ON CS vices, a s2iws waa Ca C7 oar ty OG A co ce , Ar coo? HOS VO WW an .. & 2 oe ce iv f 109 Le Gus Of VWELur arene wooo | | o'007— ‘0 ws val : Weewss S3xvil saved Wweidis ; sv e300 [) Wo ne as | 31NOIN9S NOINGIO ‘ON “OTS “OS — ssundav : *. - ( aa. ee a soe ==... —_ 53761 aaa uvaxaw. ra ~! --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0227%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.