# Opposition Brief — Parrott v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0037%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 824 ## Text 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 /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 ¢ 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- 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 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 * 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