Opposition Brief — Parrott v. United States

5 ] .

4

an the Supreme court of th united Sines

| we TOBER. ‘PERM, ISTO =

« - 8. oO . §

. ®

: gh eee es No. 274 .

Don dr @ Parrorr, PETITIONER

cont ee

|. Cxtrep Stares. or AMERICA

es wench FOR A pair OF CERTIORARL (VO) FILE. UNITED

STATESCOURT OF APPEARS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ~

;

ro

—--——--BRIEE-FOR THE UNITED-STATES IN OPPOSITION

re Mass | |

aot OPINION BELOW

The opinion sof the-eourit of appeals ise not vet re-,

ported," > eae

cp aoa JURISDICTION

Tlie jndement ‘of the court ¢ f appeals wascentered

“on April, 20,1970. A petition’ for rehearing was denied

on Mav 19, 1970, ‘The petition for a writ ef certiorari

Was filed on June. 17, 1970. Phe’ jurisdiction of -thiis.

Court | is invoke de unde 28 U S Ge 3} ML ay,

QuEsrions PRESENTED

“1. Whether the’ indictinent: should have heen cis

miisse zu bec use of delays ocenrring prior and ‘subse-

quent to: its 1 return. - .

. t | Bed 5

» ee ho as ~

© 2. Whether criminal proceedings Were ‘barred be-

ziuse the Securities and Exehanei <a Commission had

conducted -parallel cival praceedinies Wihriekr had Con:

elided before indictment,

3. Whether the evidence Was suliicient to sippert.

Donald Parrott’s conviction for conspiracy.

"4. Whether the adntission of ceriaticletters in evi

dence requires reversal, < . A

a : ‘

ct Cae ee STATEMENT

OA Te-count inilictine ‘nt filed om i Marel 1 WING, in the

United: States District Court bor the Southern [ Di--

trict of aly York chareed poriest Parrott, his sete

Donal Pgrrott, Sand eight others wiih Conspiriey ta

viol: ite the mii ul rr aid statute and Sioa ‘tions 35 anya VT of

q thes Securities Net of Tipp (bo UC. s Gta cd Neg.)

anil 76 —sabettice einer ation ne Te

safes wf stock not registered with tine Peetrities iad

Exchange Commission. Both Fore st gind Domed daa

reit were tried on the Conspies fot: it ied Lbi tents,

Porrest Parrott was tried (on twelve sibetgative.

counts. “The, tury “couvieted both as ehlarved. On

October 1 P00), orivest Parioett was tied loads:

n ; + . er . «

nid ree ye d do sisbepdead sentedwe «ef bitee veour bit:

prisoyment With prohation for one years Donald Par-’

rott Was fined s1.Q00, and the Pinnpoes dE 1S of iy prison

sentence Was suspended, with probation for one day.

' Fave of the co-defendant: rleveled wnt y prior fo trinl and

three of then (Drefitier, Nadich sand) Levinson) testified for

the government. Another ee. Benjamins Cohan, was

tried jointly with bet ithe ners apd neutte dl: The pemaining eo-

defend: wnt s have not sei bea: te nS

a

; ~The court of appeals, affirmed (Pet. App. A). Fe orrest

Parrott, although ostensibly | jome «| a the presen it

petition, died befort it was filed. ( (Pet. 15), N

The ey erse showed that in 1956 ee Parrott

and codele ndant Alfred Brehmer formed Anipet Cor-

poration, the eventualaparent of nuinerous other ¢or-

") pok tions (Tr. 6836). OF the 5.000: shares of Aiipet

* tantvod: 3.500 Weare, controlled bv Forrest Parrott.”

Thereafter. Ainpot acaieed 19,000,000 shares at { 1r-

nin) tPelastyi Seo Ene. Pa dormant ee tion founded

De Forvest Parrott. ino 1954- (Te. ¢ m4, 45 )G— THO),

ab ,

Drehmier, an accountant. became an officer crf Ampet

Ry

ni Morrest Baa Voth ~ suiveestion, an also resumed aes:

CoMntine \ ‘ork For Uraniiay Pidnstirtes (Tr. 626, 640),

In O60. Forrest and! i> /OE madd 1 Rarrott. then residine

”

“*

Inthe Denver, Calorade oprea, renewed their seaunimnt-

shee wath Eakiud So Voneesa former nerbbor irOklo-

it. Wha bad moved.te Denver, Vance had

fisspenar

relatives and friends whe bela higkly respensible HoT.

tions with the Sinelaire (l Corporation CPi P8043. TTe

tedain forme a

ee a: t r .

1

? .

rer tee a t rr . pAb > hoe ai epee : : a .

corperetion Fo condiiet tis own en) and gas Ventures.

x : “a

’ , "ice ase ee Boe }

fee (are ee eee tit] \ spouses Pyyeys ne KYW of. caveat

e E ° . ;

ey P by teye) Dot REE ape be layctmine re Se i mrt teas

CoCr peo Venr toh) ee Rithhititiy eo Ae eg ir 1@S ) Wallet) "4 Dale ra?

+

restored amd used taceehieve Vanes purses Chr

18). dit Snpoagy. 196], Vance, became prestdent’ of

Urn PPndirstries.. 1 wiving EUCOOGO shores of the

stock: oY thet company from Forrest Parrett, slip told?

2 The nowitnad oypner of the shares was Forrest) Pavreit’s

daughter, who took no part In Nmpet’s operations (Probes).

*Uranium Industries had a total of TOA50000 #shares sent-

standing (Er. 639), , P |

)- ayo . ee Ge a

‘him not te worry about control of the corporation

(Tr. 80- 81). Shortly thereafter, the name of Uranium

Indastries was changed to Petron. |

~

i F

e

At its inception ‘Petron had tio! agsets, an inoper i1-.

tive ur anium ‘mine in -Utaheand a avate rtlood oll proj

ect In Ok: thomia from which no come Was te rived

: Ca¥. 3 19-120. 122) and which had been acquired fron

‘Oo canother: Parrott. company, Niamusa Oils Ltd. (Tr. 97.4,

642-045). dn addition, Petron owned an option, pur

chased fies Namsa for 2,000,000 shares, to Diy a coal

mine in Utah, and another, option,. puretiased ron

Porrest Parrott for ten dollirs. ona vase weld’

2 Oklahoma (Tr. 107-108, 123-124),

After three months of ypetation Varnice de cided tha

a quarterly. re port. and-tinane TAT sti Atement should be

pee piared and_sent_te PHtronr’s +0 stock holge rs (Pre

sS— 100), Forrest. and Donald Parrott took: steps to

pre sent, an intkited portrait of Petrom’s finaneial eon-

_ dition - int ‘these. statemients. In order to raise the:

count of ‘ash retleeted or the balance sheet, Donald

Parrott drew a cheek on the Namsa Oils account for

*25,000, pavable to Petrons(Gov't. Exh. 73). Phe cheek

of ‘balance sheet, April 10, 196h CP. 656-657).

RorresW irrott told co-defendant Brehmrer, w ho was

responsiby: for the accounting work. that Nemsa

would bify 825,000 in debentures to be issued “by

~ Petron. Phe debentures were never issted, although

‘the financial “statement described the on de tail ( eo

HoS-699). The total cash freure. inehiding the advanee

Reom Natisa. Was stated in. the balanee: sheet as’

was. dated Mayes, 1961, and deposited’ May 11; hever-

heless it was Included as a curreriteasset on the date.

se

46,7 157.61 cy. °656). The moperative uranium mine,

and the Unprofitable oil ficld project were listed

excessive values—the latter: at $439,491.89, sideiah

its book value was less than $2,800 (Pr. 675-677). The

coal mine prope Hy was valued. at acai using

avn unacceptable and. iIncOrect method of valuation

(Tr, 1007-1008). Ln ‘ act tYe coal property w: ra Hever ,

owned by Petion, The. pyice to exercise, the option on

the property vas originally $1,500,000, but after

tea assignments of the option by, Forrest and Donaid

Parrott within tle myriad Parroti-controlled EOTpora-

tions, theeexerceise priccl was, inereased to $3150.00, of

Which S1.657,008 was to bein eash (Tr. 445, 107: 315.

M7). When Vanee mquired how Pe ‘tron, with _its

limited ash position, could ever exere ixe the option,

Forrest’ Parrott referred to a laree haniking “Lanse 1h

the castern United States, unnamed. whieh lee sand

| would fin: mee the puch Ise (Tr. 116). The option Wits

Hever Exe reistd and within a few years the nines were

shut down as unprofitable (Tr444). The final asset,

the option to hiv at gas field for S275.000, Was, valid

if SESOVO.000, Onee near Ferrest Parrott spake ‘vie

finance the puirehase through the sale of debontupes

CT. th oad AE “Fhe goes wells .en, “this: property lis

repeined ae ror lack OOF A omarket: Forrest Paryvott

told Vanee. that " pipeline ean be vonstrneted: to

effect oa niarket, but the stated. asset. value did hat

reflect the cost of such a pipelmeé (Tr 126-128), More-

over. ne {inane Her commitments For this: or any other

| ines Pre joet Were ever abt: Lined | A it ie OS9),

ra

Ustige the inthared figures, the: Parrotts were able

to conceal the fact that Petron had suffered a loss of

| 2 =) .

® 3 . '

. > S

Py . ‘ a.

. - J

x

over $44,000 in the first quarter of IS961, and lind an

acctunulated loss of S174, 729.09 ity GO, 1716-1 tat).

nsteady a profit: of oercents per share Was reported,

and the quarterly report boasted that ‘Peivon would

Soot "he. au hundred nullion dollar compar wv (Tr. 103;

107, Goy Wit Exh, * 2). All of the figures used in the re-

parts were furnished bys For ‘rest Parrott (Tr, b78,

bSo-G86). The description of the corporate e etructiure

in the tinaneiaal reports, listiys five sepatate. Mepart-

rents actively Quiged it profitable. ventures, w its

titsteading CPr e130).

oy

condition, Forrest: Parrott attampred: to create a pub-

lie marked for fis shaves, none of whieh had been

mew sterod with whe Securities ane yebrne Conn

t 4 ; oer ee : areal Ie Oe Re 3

ston. tLe a WIT several CEE tPCT AD SOE

Lrokegsy prhmariiv ‘i 1 Ma york City, and iade are

PONCE ES Ps thiehin fer eee EVAR SIS DE InIS POT all

e ' «3 . ’ ’ a? é “ON > I \ -—- e058 @ i

fihes OF Petron quarketed bv them (Pr. POOT-Lat).

- : Mae ; = ;

5 * ' ak

Pit? “rps ts Pres] 1 | ‘

MSOC PLVakern With COP ies on} Tite Lebtrutye

7? ' . ’ ? 4 i H ‘ .

Calg Mabe Wheel @yV GL Tien ISTE Bute!” GO be-

4 ‘ ran rey Miem™ FA 14, 37)

ccuttial customers CP Op, L0G. EPTO-TESH). Phe

. . 7, $a%s “4 is 4 . oo ore . P

he tig CN alse essed On FOrrCse Lavrotts repiveemia-

‘ . a i 4 > : }

J : 7% <4 ¢ Pee a 1F ry 1 - oe

fom Gan Peirolbs Jueuagvement was iterrelo ted: with

.

Sioelair -Oil (Vr 4099-1160), ‘Phesstock beme sold

ihe) ota SOUECECS controlled DY iorrest Parrott C1,

; P settee $) = . ; . t)ag0

_ .

; “ ; . — 4 ¢ ’ : . * ee

Hieton@ dealt oa DP tidy Tree. Hiraer ah asroement with

e-f Parrott that) forcesel share’ seld by him. Forrest

wold deduct 24 cents from an ainount owed by- the

san to a lcorporatiot® controlled by Parrott (Pr. seo-

toa. Ponder the terins of this agreement the broker was able

to Pedneé the 82.500 loan by approximately ss00° (Tr. 536, S61),

seined With the false financiat reports of Petron’s”

‘wh

.

of

~

ye 20, POL). Its “prtee rose COnstde rably while the. : +

, -_- . .

brokers ageressively persuaded Apalorpers: fo male :

.

purchases, In one two-week period the price advanced > 4 ¢

From 24. to6ls. The procetds of Sime sales maadte dur

this time were used hy, Donald) Parrott to cover thre”

May Sth check drawn. on Namisa Oils Ltd. to inflate.

the Petron cash ‘position (‘Fr. 660-666, Gov't. Exh.

263). PS erg ie .

ARGUM ent

W © have - On niferined that Forrest Parrett died‘on

May 7.1970, one mouth prior to the filing of the instant

pe tition fora writcof COPLOPAL et. 1 15). Phe death of 4s

Porrest Parrott abates his gppeal Weéecdy, Che, 371

US. 62: Shagerv. Uniled Slates, 223 CS. BBS. BAG. Ne-

cordinely, the voveracnt’s response will Confine it-<eh ray

to the manner an winch the issies;. ceserited 4 [fort

Donald. Parrott. : a, Sherk: -

4

J. Phe (lau that. the “indictment should have been

dismissed hecaisesof pre-iwlciinient and “post-indict-— -

« , = : .

-

‘

ae ’ ' 1 eee ie a ’ 9 . .

ment delay has been treated at ieretiy in the Ghindous

Ob fie voit of appéeals.( Per, Ad 41-45) and the dis-

tet court OR. o8. DO) As the lower courts voted, thre

. ge 1 . 5 ‘ . . + ‘ . am

merents TMC TIVTY Tile COT ICTION: OCCT VeGd. W} tig- :

961. “By March 1962, the Seemrities sid Pseh:

.”) cPhhe oBmitertals winlen tive been chad with the CT: gore per

then thé trial transcript, are desies4read po" Gtl as eootalne phe

pre-trial epinfon of Judge Boaeat dated Polenary di. 16,

denying petitioner’s motion. te ‘disntss. Re PES conte

transeript ofthe post-trial opinion delivered ratty by “Frylice 4 a

Weinfeld: (who presided at tread) scared Qetober x, 1aea, cs

! 4

‘

, s

* w= Zs —i

é

-

pifcnbes couhl itn. “are heon AEA

z 16s dedided Nag OT. 19070 (stip opinion, A).

oie ae ‘ é Fe sg *

be : . F fk . ; .

Commussion had begun its civil investigation, result-

ing in-a criminal reference report prepared in July

1963. by this time three of the six md}

(Pet. 12-

13); ther death Means arly stage can hardly se rve

- ¢ {" *.

_to Support dishissal of the indicting! it." Oh at least

thre, “OC ERSLONS Ih Litt as 1965 _ the SIC pressed:

thie United States Attorney's Office for Miitiation

died, i aifather livid ore tMRreatth

of crim charges, Plowever, it appears: that: the.

wAssisttits assigned ty this’ complex, tithe-consuming:

ease were alse inivelyed in more uheent matters, in-

volving proscentions and Pa rye ey eases Where

the statute of limitations Was abort tes ¥I, Minis the

Indictment was net filed nitil Mavel 1866, followin

presentation to. the: erand jury in the latter part of

Moos dn the meantime, three ire lated SiO cay i} investi

f,

ettions aged taken | pltaee, nd a criminal action jie thye

er ?

“Drideod, ue evidence at trind straws that Mr. Peavey, For-

rest PP APTOL! Jrwver wae incapacitated from: a stroke sutfered’

in: early es never resipvec his pre tetice thereafter (Pr.

pas goty TP. rete in thefiacidents eivine rise to the -eriniina!

- 7 Fone Cee P ere

Moire v“qer Weep iot triuy heliove {} vf Min. Barve =. «tS hom, petl-

toner Lorpy- Foti of Lie forotypest eAXrerts in the SECC ties Held

: Bey By nas Cerone ' ‘ aa i etc :

(Por Pegs beve telaiied that Rerrest? Parrott atas nota

-conteoll Per tog heny beetirtud the wyfe- of corporate tromunmees: As tod

. - . ‘

i « .

the other Gocen-ed| potential Witnessé) we note the essentintly

hearsay diate et: mar fat Then prope od testimony, ,

fhe Asststent | sitet States Attorneys bave filed. aftalavits -

coutainane go echronology of their work schedule for the poi tinerit

. ‘ . . ar ¢ , er ‘ e

period. shewiig treavy overtime schodiiles fnidcahnest na vaeh-

° * ss * ‘ - a . ,. . - — 2 vy

tlons CH. 45. Ai IN La See. Difed y ene & hoviday No, p28, OT.

dui seas whom. .@

wv

«

ek.

>

4

+t

- &

s

vo

ecouisel was preparea to PrOCOCd.

District ‘of Columbia parallelmg one of the. tires had |

terminated favorably to'the Parrotts. U’ site d States Vw

Parrott, 243-B. SWPP. 196.

t

Three months after the present indictme nf’ Was filed |

“necessary delay, in whieh he also requested additional

thine " submit Hore infornfition. Oni Aueust 2 es Woe

F orrest Parrott submitted a-motion to dismiss for wie

Forrest and Donald Parrott filed motions for discov- ;

On September 6. 1966,- Donald - Parrott filed a

Motion to distnigs, citing as his reasons @onern Ihy thy pe

Sale “ viters presented to this Court: that the ahs Th

ment Rad tinfairly derived information Prom tts bred

discovery powers civil ‘proceedings be Fore the: Se-

-curities and. Exchange Commission: that-crucial wit-

hesses had died: that “other witnesses had failing

Inemories: and that-he was undergoing ereat financial

uti pe vsonal hards hips. A hearmeg on the motion for

discove ry “Was condnetod an Septe amet 132 1966, re-

silting j a court obdir, dated September !20, erantimg

sone! the matters requested. Che hearing onthe mie-

tions to disniss Waals adjourned, continuorshy, first to

ie’

. October 10th, and ther to Noventher ith. January 14,

IPO, and Pebraary: 20, 1 17. to enable defense cai

sel te. file SsuD LOMentey: afidat its based Tan th 1 dis-”

covery qaterials, ar Pebriare YO, no affidavits led

vet boon filed. "Phe As-tstant United State: Aftericey

and couneek for beth Parrotts then aereed thet the

cease could be marked off the court calendar end world

He restored as soon as the Assistant Was notified that

2

‘tis

©. Ow

eventually served as

sponsibility for this case,

quired of defense’ counsel wth

nilidavits would be tihed,

Janu: Ary

10,

10

L9G, i vover rine nt couse 5 | Whi .

ap prertys that petition er > Domale

Lee

yo, aD \

( Yet ras ‘}y

Ve occasions instrietial

“¢ vitle nt hy

h.

»

13): Pare

rere yrrye

So ry Fornye |

Story the case to the eriniinal «

196s, Baa SE havent eae file dL

4)

t

4

but ree ciy ed

his eenye

Hronee tito we Vs first assigned |

rT

to respoiise.

arrott Thad On i < rt ee

. * hs l™

seb grad te an

as 3

oe Crane (|

pid

cbt out hy: fi

14: :

» TGR, after FovVerhe: ing guslce 7 had

Mad

i

'

a

: =

ni seve Mi i bcrRsions lhe i1-

ile si pple mentary

ate

$2

ast

stie il

On Oetoboer Tb bse .

eis . 1} re ee ? . : - 'y Fi vs

aitidavit: detailing the, eyents s4aieh lind theretorore.

hn a ee

es ‘ = 1 »

transpired CR. 45). Thte eee Nene then averrod that ’

. : i

Tire aM ined SOTLECE of ly t «eh tobias it,’ whieh’ world be Wis .

t iy: lucid mt tire: NS hres Pirin pif esesensnd Tad Sothie ved’ e

Wy the’ Seenvit ies Sind Fxehanoe Conmmusston in “fhe

ae related. civil ties PMC apres’ or fan

¢ Pi

i Tae Mit owerescomecrned. Aton bereing bofor® bude

4 ee ry Se rae 12. L868, the rotiation not tocuse 7°.

rroferots weathered from petitioner bis fatheria the

evil per HBlippers qe wettapeatead ess eer ic Sar

& e if “91 Rsiciz o 44 al ott ) Pree Lies Lye

the Motion to dismist, awae fledson Vebrusey pf oso, :;

v * f : Jr ‘

t" iriher deta ehinptoe Pyeesn pte (tpe F¥epd) rhe i?: rrojt-s

Pay ! TDL, gees tr served Sie riggh | ’ ’ ‘Ty Oe ryt * 1,

; , > ee

weiin tan atlanepee «a how to asp} s ’

flare oe motion to the cant te Be petioved, In kes at achearing ”

2 » é © ry . ~d Y - A

on this motion.en Miireh 2h 16g. cho tee VWooitt made the.

comunent eited by petittoner to the eect that this ease was a

disgrace beeant it had been delaved co lone cPet. if. Ro Gs.

p. 9). Sader Wieatt thereafter denied comnsel’s iisotion. to be

“vellaved of hits iuties -: . :

; +. - —

11.

|

conftli¢ts with his comme and hee use For rest Barvott

iMeormed the court of his; own desire to’ wetpin’ nek

counsel CR. 47, 48, HH). On the eve of. tia, Doirdd

Ri arratt's Cont a] fil: ul a nation: to sepaitc ss sti irene nis

“uade I \ thin a the. Secuvitie ‘ss and. fixe ape fe Splints

Site Yhies het: nm Wai Nrige, an ‘May 14. 1988. ew 2 Tes

a stpncly and - WN Iki: foundal fit, and, See: vill ¢ "the

, “he m+ :

Sx ceca Jin dongs espe Sto Lok! it Ws Suld teat uN , aT CG,

-*

-_ eam

“a Ptergl-. Mirint liirilly oc tirced i Gune 1965S,

>. ee

F Sie : Ds bhai fo loegithisirdted Sy UNiy ‘del: a¥ ‘charged to

| ; . the goverment was het. de Liye tate or Ady) pie SSIVO. Tie

> * ghains regarding, U C; deceased “Withesses “are iy the

; . Wat ds af Jnded Wrinteld, shiehly ¢ CXULLETY ated? Cie. :

: TN, pp: -4). Moreaver, ihe Cone rast | ity lnFeermedisiee

’ on (hae ngitnts equaily a Hvailab le to the cove eyipienti wie :

§ “de fonse coutseh Phe sug@estion that, menos of wit-

| Soe < were impacved Jinds. HO MUBpOML DL the 7 iat

trnpsc) viot. En these cirer HIST a pces, the ‘dchial, of Tie

“ motion te disints s on erounds Of due tinge SS, S204" I4-

= x 11 r Ped. ie eT ripe. }>* 48 : tak Justified, Coiteat

~ Slates v, Kel, 383 ES, pit: bnited Stak. ste Fe

: berg, O83 WL 2d GO (CAT 27, certiorari: denied 204

Pam ot eh. ee eee aoe ee os

‘ ; : ; * : oe

2. Petithurned’ end his father were invelted a: thaees

contmmperaneous jvestigations ‘by the SEC) inte.

y possrhe civil. violations of the SeCHIAT IOS laws, 4q]

- © Picks YPN. Flifidu. Weded May ae adios: es, OT.

169). ts -clonrly distineuishabte, That etse in His facies

(of the Site pyer an Stvear period to wake any efort to Gbtrin

the defendant from fecdere! austedy for trial on State charg

despite repeated demands’ for stich a trial. The. Court’ (oe done

valid ,reason for the’ delay and consequent: prejudice to oie

Ag accused. ee eee Pine earn, os

> ba : neg oe

ie. 0

\accurred before the institution of these criminal pro-

‘eodings When petitioner w: as called upon to testif}

‘i the civil Das he was re prese ated by counsd!

aad informed of his right to remain: silent. None af

hid «iva ae was lised in the*eriminal cease.

Netitione W's eclebiapalily to testiiy before the pager

and \Ie xchange Conimission he avings did got bestow

upon Shim an. inmunnity from eriminal prosecution,

The government iid not) represent. that. criminal

prosecution, iad ‘heen ruled out. The SEC hearings

Were noi : sities tor securing evidence tor be ‘used

awaist pe itioner ia Hiospoctive " aE iT. trial, Ac-

nal proceedings against petitioner were not barred

heeaise of parallel. civil proceediifes. See United.

Slater ¥: Kordel. mie sk *

*’

» The evidence. detailed in the st: ifement! SUPE,

Was ample to SUp part the conviction of petitioner

Donald Parrott. He served in his ‘father's enterprises

Net as aomere. errand hoy With ne responsibility for

bia, Init as “an active participant i the Wine

Pet itioner’ relies heavily Upon oa 1h decision ‘hy Fihen

chor the District Court: for the Ihistrict of Columbia holed-

that under the. cireanstances therem presonted. the prefer:

epee yeiven too civil proceedings, and: thereby delaying the.

?

: final case, Was prepudterad te the aecnseds Ta lted Slates v.

Poovott, DIS EeSupp. 196. That ease ‘is not necessarily indis=

tinetishalle. from - the situation s presented here, where “ne

roantorind spre iicice arising from the delay Tins. heen estab-

listed. In anv event, Judge (i: nsch’s opi nion tails to cite ny

authority. for is ruling and n6é appellate court has ever adopted

it. See Visted, States ve Squeri, SOS BL 2d Ts8h. Ts8 (CUAL 2):

¢

| cordingly, the courts below properly ruled that ermmi-

wR hel ATTEN. OV Silat DHa TE, ad 10S, tt HA, (As oy,

eeptiorari-dented, 560, TLS. 91s. Phe government didnot eoncede

the eorrectness of J uilae Gasel’s ruling in ats brief ino Wopde7:

(Nast. OVE. 1969, pes).

13

:

‘ r

. . .

doings, This is well established | woth ewidence that

hoth Forrest and. Donald VP nrrott exectited the sig-

nature card avithorizine aithe ® to sigh checks on the:

Canadian Bank account of Naaisa Oils. Lid AT.

482). In May of 1961, Donald, wroty A 5/0 Cheick

for Namsa Oils | as. part of the sqheme to tnfkite the

cash position ‘of Petron retleeted on the, quarterly

~ report, issued he fore that d: ite, Tle di nee Par ranged tay

a second cheek, in the amount of 8 DOO to he issued

by Namsa ‘for Petron, The cheeks: iQ overed hy

the ‘proceeds derived rom the” tle DS Namsa of

Petron stock: at inflated prices. Donald Parrott’ then

arranged tos have Namsa repaid by Petron, which

borrowed the funds from a. Denver bank, using as

collateral ao time) deposit cortiticate “in the amount

of $43,000 drawn: to another honiiaal CORDON ite,

United Oily and signed by Donald Parrott (Ta. 518—

519). ft is hardly credible that someone in ee

rott’s position, with responsibility for tanding such

arge suis fromthe accountsot hits father’s corporation,

Would’ not diave’ the bush ISS SETISE LO recognize. the

9

pruarpose: Forsthy beDatea advance to Petron, Moreover,

petitioner miistdiave been aware of the manner in while hn

Punids were secured to cover the nnuetints of the, chee ks

,

issued On the Nasa aecount.

2

4, At trial, an elfteial of the bank ti Deuver whieh

had dealings with Forrest and Donald Parrott: and

s a ae ; : ; : Paes ; ;

osome of ther heminees was asked to ‘identify nine

“Jetters kept by the bak bearing whe signatures &f ,

either petitioner and othe handwritten sighature of

the nomimee, and iistructing: the beaks te euarantee

°

ae,

14 ——

endorsements Written y! the signaiure of the tominee

as listed. These letters were not admitted to prove the

truth of the matter. stated there: accordingly, uay

objection based on hearsay is Without foundation. Ree

Phillip vy. United States, 356 F. 2d 297 (CLA. 9).

cortiovari? denied. sulk vom. Walker Ve Puiied Slates,

384 USS. 952. -Moreover, cas the: recom shows (Tr.

198-501), With: ae possible exception (Gov't. Exh. 181

13). the objections niade by gounsel to the admission of

the letters were not on. the bvesix now. ureed—that

they liad heel received but hot prepared by the bark,

and therefore Were hot adifiissile tinder the Poder!

DUsiesS records starute, 2S Use, M2. No objection

Tounde dt speetiically on authenticity of the signature: -

Wits rrubecd: Thi these Chee sti tees, the reqness hy

petitioner that this ConrtTinveke its sapercisory

i i's 4) Pore reet serion .cerkors made | i the court

of ap ial | In discussing admissibility of thie letters is:

hardy warranted, See Cailed Slates Vv. Nelly, oA

I’, 2d 720, 772° (CLA, 2), certiorari dettied, 384° U.S

oh beg

e7 a

LONCCUSION .

\

For the re asons stated, it-is therefore respectfully

<tibmit ied that the petition for a Writ of certiorari

<totadad 7 oe

’

! j \ Canesy ty

- Sal igeihe ( , 2

. . .

Wir. Wrsex.

. ae

Assisted Aor Aféeucrval,

Bevrrick Rosexrera,

Mernvy~s Laupera,

Aflodvineus,

Jiry bOTO..

us ¢ CE RVEST POINTING Fe ter