# Opposition Brief — Rastelli v. New York

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1418%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1975
- **Citation:** 423 U.S. 995

## Text

a —

SUPREME COURT, U. & ) NOV 11 1975

In The | MICHAEL RODAK, JR. CLERK

et te

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1975

No. 6%] 5-4U08'4

PHILIP RASTELLI,

Petitioner,

-against-
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Court of Appeals of the
State of New York

BRIEF FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK IN OPPOSITION

HENRY F. O'BRIEN
District Attorney
Suffolk County

Criminal Courts Building
Center Drive South
Riverhead, New York

FRANCIS W. RHINOW

CHARLES M. NEWELL

Assistant District Attorneys
of Counsel

LE

II
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Page
| Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 ----- 25,26
Delli Paoli v. United States,
352 U.S. 232 --------------- 25
Dutton v. Evans, 300 U.S, 74 --<-<-900---8- 26
Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60 at 80 ---------- 19,22
| Kelley v. People, 55 N.Y. 565 ------------- 25
| Osborn v. United States,
385 U.S. 323 --------------- 24
| People v. Connolly, 253 N.Y. 330 ---------- 22,23
People v. Gibson, 23 N.Y. 618 ------------- 24
| People v. Jelke, 1 N.Y.2d 321 ------------- 23
i People v. LaBarbara, 274 N.Y. 239 --------- 23
People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348 ----------- 27
| People v. Miles, 123 App. Div. 862 -------- 22
| People v. Miranda, 23 N.Y. 439 ------------ 25
| People v. McKane, 143 N.Y. 455 ------------ 27

People v. Peckens, 153 N.Y. 576 ----------- 22,24

|

PRRs ee eS et a

III

Cases: Page
People v. Ryan, 263 N.Y. 298 -------------- 23
People v. Vaccaro, 288 N.Y. 170 ----------- 27
United States v. Littoran,

421 F. 2d 981 ------------ 26
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 ------ 26
United States v. Phillips

270 F, 2d 175 ----------=- 19
United States v. Weiser

428 F. 2d 932 ------------ 26
Statutes:
McKinney's Penal Law Section 190.40-------- 24,27

a ed

Pe hee MOORE romagS Dy, CRI EGS "

SOE PL SOLED OORT FR mE re oe

In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1975

No.
PHILIP RASTELLI,
Petitioner,
-against-
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Court of Appeals of the ;
State of New York

BRIEF FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK IN OPPOSITION

INTRODUCTION

TOES OAS LL ORD OID ae ee NT

This is a brief in behalf of the

respondent in opposition to a petition for a

f
writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of J
i

the State of New York.

———

ery ae eee

2

The petitioner was indicted by the Grand
Jury, Suffolk County, in July, 1971, under indict-
ment number 829-71 and charged with sixteen counts
of conspiracy and criminal usury. After trial by
jury in County Court, Suffolk County, the petition-
er was found guilty of one count of criminal con-
spiracy as a misdemeanor and seven counts of
criminal usury as felonies and, on February 7, 1973,

he was sentenced to concurrent term of one years on

OO ie

the misdemeanor conspiracy conviction and indeter-
minate term of four years on each of the criminal
usury convictions.

The conviction was unanimously affirmed,
without opinion, by the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department,
in an order dated December 3, 1973. The order of
the intermediate appellate court was unanimously

affirmed in a decision of the Court of Appeals of

the State of New York in an opinion rendered on

June 16, 1975.
OPINION BELOW

The order of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, Second
Department, unanimously affirming the conviction
without opinion, is officially reported at 43
A.D.2d 699 (1973).

The opinion of the Court of Appeals of
the State of New York, unanimously affirming the
order of the intermediate appellate court is
officially reported at 37 N.Y.2d 240 (1975).

JURISDICTION

The order of the Court of Appeals of
the State of New York was entered on or about
December 16, 1975, the date the decision was
rendered. An extension of time in which to file
this brief in response to the petition for a writ

of certiorari was granted by this Court, and the

time to file has been extended to and including

4
November 5, 1975. The jurisdiction of this Court
is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(3).
QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the petitioner's constitutional
right to confront witnesses against him was
violated where the statements introducted into
evidence against him were made by the petitioner's
co-conspirators during the course and in further-
ance of the conspiracy, thus falling under a well-
established exception to the hearsay rule?

STATUTES INVOLVED

United States Constitution -
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Summary

This is a case involving the crimes of
conspiracy to commit a felon (one count) and of
criminal usury (seven counts) which took place in

Suffolk County, New York from about December, 1970

ator arene meester teen SUEY NE UR OMERMR CU TEST RETENROREN TRC REN PD TR

5

to July, 1971. The defendant, Philip Rastelli,
was aided in this nefarious enterprise by four
co-defendants, and the jury returned a verdict of
guilty against all of them. Defendant organized,
controlled, operated and supplied the money for
the enterprise, and his four co-actors committed
the substantive crimes.

The People's case against the defendant

rested on direct and circumstantial evidence.

: William Murray, the People's chief witness,
testified that he borrowed $5,000 from the co-
defendants and actually received part of the loan
from the defendant. Murray paid $150.00 interest
each week for four or five months and then ex-
perienced difficulty in making the payments. A
co-defendant told him to recommend "customers" to
them.

Six witnesses (customers) testified that

they borrowed varying sums of money from the defend-

sisi iii aca

6

ants and repaid it at usurious rates of interest.

In addition, William Murray testified that
Suffolk County detectives placed a tape recorder
and later a transmitting device on him, and that
conversations between him and the co-defendants
implicating the defendants were recorded. The
tapes, cassettes and transcripts were introduced
into evidence.
2. The Substantive Crimes

In order to place this case in its proper
perspective, it is necessary to briefly outline

the_modus operandi of the enterprise.

William Murray testified that he wanted
to borrow $5,000 from the defendants. A co-
defendant stated that he was not authorized to

lend that amount of money and that he would confer
with his "higher ups". Several days later, Murray
called the co-defendant and the co-defendant stated

; that Murray would receive $1,500 now and that he

isin

RS aw rie a ane

7
would have to pay three points interest each week.
Murray only could repay the principal in units of
$500. He received the $1,500 in Nassau County and
the co-defendant took Murray's car registration as

security. The co-defendant stated that the balance

of the loan would be delivered to Murray in New
York City (842-860)™.

William Murray went to the Cloud Room, a
bar in Queens, and was introduced by a co-defendant

to the defendant. The defendant stated that the q

co-defendants spoke "highly" of Murray, and, there-
fore, Murray would receive the $5,000 loan. Another
co-defendant again confirmed the three points in-

terest payments of $150 each week. Defendant, who

was not present when a co-defendant delivered the

$1,500 to Murray and took his car registration,

stated that there was no need for the security

and that Murray's car registration should be

returned. Defendant then took out an envelope,

* Numerical references are to the Appellant's Record
on Appeal submitted to the Court of Appeals of
the State of New York.

Cita he ORO cts Mibeab 8 LE srt meee be

OITA, dat ert nae a 5 on a: oda

Ran tS Et a HS

8
gave it to a co-defendant and stated:"Here, hold
on to this. This is the rest of the loan." The
co-defendant gave the envelope to the co-defendant
who previously had delivered the $1,500 to Murray.
Later, defendant stated, "Let's give the kid his
money and get out of here. It's getting late."
Outside the bar, the co-defendant gave Murray this
envelope. On the trip home, Murray opened the
envelope and counted $3,500 in cash (860-872; count
4).

Murray paid $150 interest each week for
four or five months and then experienced difficulty
in making the payments. He was told to recommend
"customers" to the defendants at four points in-
terest each week. Murray asked why the customers
would pay four points when he was paying only
three points, and the co-defendant stated that one
point goes to two co-defendants, one point goes
to two other co-defendants and two points go to

the defendant because it's his money (876-883).

9
On June 15, 1971, William Murray went

with a co-defendant to the home of another co-
defendant in Brooklyn for a meeting concerning a
check of Murray's that had "bounced". Immediately
before they arrived, Murray saw the defendant talk-
ing to the co-defendant who lived in Brooklyn, on

a street corner in front of the co-defendant's
house. Detectives Miller and Colon confirmed this
observation. The two co-defendants (the defendant
left after his conversation with the co-defendant),
and Murray then drove to the Cloud Room for an
important meeting that lasted several hours (1013-
1019; 1783-1786; 2184).

In the Fall of 1970, Louis Breitbach
testified that he borrowed $2,000 from the co-
defendants at four points ($80) interest each week
(603-604). He made many interest payments (605-
609; count 9).

In January, 1971, Murray recommended

Harold and Arthur Scott to the co-defendants.

la ati dam gS ant ne PSNR errr renga ncemireene re
EET RENO PIAA Tarte ae

10
They met with the co-defendants and borrowed
$2,000 at four points ($80) interest each week.
They made several interest payments on Sundays.
In the Spring of 1971, they borrowed another $1,000
at three points ($30) interest each week (890-899,
379-414, 481-482, 487-499; counts 10 and 11).

In the Winter of 1971, Murray recommend-
ed Richard Brightman to the co-defendants. Bright-
man borrowed $1,000 at four points ($40) interest
each week. Brightman also made several interest

payments on Sundays (899-901, 768-780; count 15).

In January, 1971, Mr. Murray recommended

Murray Bogatin to the co-defendants (909-912).

Bogatin borrowed $3,000 at four points ($120)

NGF EE ALT IRS LOLS IN

interest each week (912-920). He made several in-
terest payments on Sundays (909-922; count 3). :
In February or March, 1971, James Lemanski
; testified that he borrowed $500 from the co-defend-
ants at four points ($20) interest each week (282-

298). He made many interest payments (307-310;

ee

a,

1S SGA le SOLER ac 3S Ses ead Be

LA LATO AS FL aS

;
j
4
:
;

11
count 5).
3. The Tape Recordings

During the months of March to July, 1971,
William Murray testified that Suffolk County
detectives placed a tape recorder and later a
transmitting device on him, and that conversations
between him and the co-defendants were recorded.
The tapes, cassettes and transcripts were intro-
duced into evidence (944-961, 980-992, 995-1000,
1002-1021, 1027-1038, 1040-1045).

William Murray testified that before he
received the balance of his loan, a co-defendant
stated that they would meet his boss, "a fellow
by the name of Rusty". At a bar in Queens, Murray
was introduced to "Rusty", who was the defendant
(861-866). Additionally, on the cross-examina-
tion of Detective Miller by the defendant's
attorney, Miller stated that he saw the defendant

and a co-defendant talking in Brooklyn shortly

12
before Murray and another co-defendant arrived
there for a meeting (see Facts, supra, p.9). The
corss-examination was as follows:

Q. So that as you approached this inter-
section Bill Murray and whoever was with
him, was out of the car walking over to
Frank (co-defendant). A. That's right.

Q. And Rusty? A. That's right, sir.

Q. At that time? A. Yes, sir (p.1792)

It is clear, therefore, that when the
tapes and transcripts refer to "Rusty", it is the
defendant. Parenthetically, defendant concedes,
by his failure to raise this argument, that he is
the "Rusty" mentioned in the tapes.

On the transcript of March 14, 1971,
there is a discussion between William Murray and
a co-defendant concerning a $200 check that was
given as part of a loan to James Lemanski that had
"bounced". The co-defendant stated that "Rusty
didn't like the idea of what happened. See Rusty

found out about it" (Transcript of March 14, 1971,

pp. 1-17, Exhibits - Volume I). James Lemanski

13
testified that he received a $500 loan which in-
cluded a $200 check (298-305). The $200 check
was signed by a partner (he was authorized to sign
the corporate checks) of Louis Breitbach. Breit-
bach had borrowed money from the defendant and then
the defendant had a meeting with him to discuss
several checks of his that were "bouncing" (627-
629).

Murray had borrowed money from the
defendants and could not meet the interest pay-
ments. He was also in trouble with his license
as a bail bondsman. To solve Murray's plight,
the co-defendants told him to recommend "custom-
ers" to them. Murray stated that the customers
would have to make their own arrangements with
the defendants and that he wanted to talk to
"Rusty" to get his situation "squared away"

(Transcript of March 14, 1971, p. 20; Exhibits -

Volume I). Murray so testified at the trial (875-
877).

14

On the same transcript, a co-defendant
discussed various collections made during the day
and mentioned that $6,500 was lent to Wink Realty
Corp. The co-defendant then mentioned that there
was only two points interest on the $6,500 because
the other co-defendants would receive the profits
from the sale of the house (Transcript of March
14, 1971. p. 45 - Exhibits - Volume I). William

Murvay testified that the defendant got two points

interest on every loan (882-833). Louis Breit-
bach testified that $6,500 was lent to Wink Realty
Corp. by a co-defendant and that another co-defend- i
ant got the profits (614-622). (See also Murray's :
testimony 944-952).

On the transcript of June 20, 1971, a
co-defendant and William Murray discussed who got
credit for a $360 interest payment (unnumbered
pages 1-6; Exhibits - Volume II). The check for
$350 (plus $10 cash) had “bounded". Murray was

;
;

15
called into Brooklyn to explain why his check had
"bounced" (1013, 1019, 1543-1546). Murray asked
the co-defendant if he told "Rusty" about it. The
co-defendant said "No, no" and then stated, "I
don't know if you want to burden him (Rusty) with
this damn problem. He's so disgusted by what's
happening now" (unnumbered p. 6; Exhibits -
Volume II). A number of checks had “bounced"
and this conversation shows the defendant's know-

ledge and control of the situation.

On the June 20, 1971 transcript, a co-
defendant and Murray discussed whether or not
Murray's payments on his loan were interest or
principal. One co-defendant was treating the
payments as interest and another co-defendant
was treating the payments as principal. Murray
stated that whatever one co-defendant told him
was the deal. Murray stated, "It's not their

money (the co-defendant's), it's Rusty's money

16
right". The co-defendant then answered "Right."
Murray stated that he was getting “hot" because the
co-defendants made him think it was their money.
Murray wanted to go to the "source" in the city

(unnumbered page 12; Exhibits - Volume IT).

Murray fell behind on his interest pay-
ments and a co-defendant sent the interest pay-
ments to the city to "cover" Murray. On the June

30, 1971 transcript, Murray discussed this situa-

SENN On ar

ron

tion with a co-defendant and he wanted to know if
Rusty said anything to another co-defendant con-
cerning the loan. The co-defendant stated that
"They (Rusty) were, they were gonna call him (co-

defendant) in before but when you come down there..

that more or less squashed it" (p. 14; Exhibits -

LOTS LT EET ee ane Cad eee

Volume II). The co-defendant stated, "But I don't

PERM

know what the hell Frankie (co-defendant) said

to him (defendant) if he said anything at all to

:
t
£
H

him. Cause I know he (defendant )would have got

pissed off. He didn't say nothing to me about it.

17

And I spoke to him. He didn't say noth-
ing to me about it. He (defendant) said, he had
seen him but he didn't say nothing about it. What
he had said to him" (p. 15; Exhibits - Volume II).
The co-defendant stated that the defendant had an
appointment with the other co-defendants and since
Murray met with the defendant there was no need
for the meeting. The following conversation then
took place:

Murray: Or at least, you know, got it
(payment) to you this time. So in case,
he (defendant) starts thinking about it
again.

Co-defendant: Yeah.

Murray: See. Rusty calls in Tony
(co-defendant). F---g Tony's gonna
climb all over me. You know it.

Co-defendant: I know it.

Murray: Tony's (co-defendant) gonna
climb all over you (co-defendant that
Murray's talking to) and Tony's gonna
climb all over Joe fea-datemaant}

Co-defendant: He (defendant) gets
Joe. He won't bother me till he grabs
Joe.

Murray: Sure, he'll (defendant) give
you some S---.

Co-defendant: He (defendant) gives me
some but he grabs Joe. He rheems Joe.

.

Paetees a

18

Joe ... stepped on. I don't know.
(P. 16; Exhibits - Volume II)

Several pages later there is a discussion
concerning the interest payments and that things
will work out because the payments will start
coming in (p.22).

POINT I

THE PETITIONER WAS NOT DEPRIVED

OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES

AGAINST HIM

Count one of the indictment charges
the defendant with the crime of conspiracy to

commit the felony of criminal usury between the

months of September, 1970 to July, 1971, and count

four charges him with the felony of criminal usury
in the month of September, 1970 with respect to
the loan to William Murray.

The existance of a conspiracy may be

proved from circumstantial evidence and this

:
|
Pe
3
¥
<
»
Z

Court has stated the proposition in the following

| |

19

language:

"Participation in a criminal
conspiracy need not be proved

by direct evidence; a common
purpose and plan may be inferred
from a ‘development and a colla-
tion of circumstances’ (case
omitted)". [Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. at

Furthermore, there is no requirement that all the
conspirators participate to the same degree in the

fulfillment of the conspiracy [United States v.

Phillips, 270 F.2d 175 (2d Cir.)].

In this case, the jury heard evidence
of particular acts, which, when taken together,
furnished a basis for a finding that the crimes
of conspiracy and criminal usury existed in connect-
ion with the loan to William Murray.

Murray testified that he negotiated his
loan with a co-defendant, and that two co-defend-

ants were present when he received part of his

loan. At the same time, a co-defendant took

20

Murray's car registration as security and told
him that he would have to pay three points inter-
est each week. Murray testified that he met the
defendant and the four co-defendants in New York
City and that the defendant stated that Murray
would get the loan because the co-defendants spoke
"highly"of him.

Murray testified that the defendant,
who was not present when a co-defendant delivered
the $1,500 to Murray and took his car registration,
stated that there was no need for the security and

that Murray's car registration should be returned.

Another co-defendant again confirmed the three
points interest payments each week.

Murray testified that the defendant took
out an envelope, gave it to a co-defendant and
stated, "Here hold on to this. This is the rest
of the loan". The co-defendant then gave the
envelope to the co-defendant who had previously
delivered the $1,500 to Murray. Later, defendant

stated, "Let's give the kid his money and get out ;

i

21
of here. It's getting late." Outside the bar,
the co-defendant gave Murray this envelope and
Murray counted $3,500 in cash. Murray paid $150
interest each week for four or five months (the
equivalent of about $7,500 interest on the $5,000
loan).

In short, William Murray negotiated his
loan with one co-defendant; received pat of his
loan from two co-defendants, and had his car
registration taken as security; received the bal-

ance of his loan when all five defendants were

&-~

present; and had his registration returned by the
defendant even though he was not present when it
was taken. Several different co-defendants
collected the interest payments.

This evidence was legally sufficient to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt every element
of the crimes of conspiracy and of criminal usury

in connection with William Murray's loan (count

22
four) and the defendant's commission thereof

(Penal Law Section 190.40; People v. Connolly,

253 N.Y. 330; People v. Peckens, 153 N.Y. 576;

People v. Miles, 123 App. Div. 862, affd. 192 N.Y.

541; Glasser v. United States [Roth], 315 U.S. 60).

William Murray testified that he paid
$150 interest each week for four or five months
and then he experienced difficulty in making the
interest payments. The co-defendant told him to
recommend "customers" to the defendant at four
points interest each week.

The jury heard testimony from six
witnesses ("customers") that they borrowed varying
sums of money from the co-defendants and repaid
it at usurious rates of interest.

William Murray had a tape recorder and
later a transmitting device placed on him and
conversations between him and the co-defendants

were recorded and introduced into evidence. The

23
conversations all took place during the negotia- |
ting or lending of money or the collection of
interest.

The conversations indicate that the
defendant lent the money; that he received two
points interest each week on each loan; that he

had knowledge and control over the operation in

Suffolk County; that he was disgusted by the
number of checks that had “bounced"; and that he

called several meetings with the co-defendants

to "rheem them out" (see Facts, supra)
"A prima facie of conspiracy (as to ;

Murray's loan - author) having been established, |

evidence of every act of the individual conspira-

tors done in furtherance of the common purpose is

admissible" [People v. Connolly, 253 N.Y. 330 at

340; People v. Jelke, 1 N.Y.2d 321 at 337; People

v. LaBarbera, 274 N.Y.239; People v. Ryan, 263

N.Y. 298].

24

Penal Law Section 190.40 states in part,
that a person is g ity of criminal usury when he
takes or receives any money, at a rate exceeding
twenty-five percentum per annum. Every tape
recorded a conversation that was uttered during
the collection of interest payments from the
various witnesses and was uttered in furtherance
of the common purpose.

Finally, the use of a tape recorder to
preserve the conversations and its subsequent
introduction into evidence has been permitted

[Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323; People v.

Gibson, 23 N.Y.2d 618].

Therefore, the evidence was legally
sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
every element of the crimes of conspiracy and of
criminal usury in connection with the five addit-
ional loans [Penal Law Section 190.40; People v.
Connolly, 253 N.Y.330; People v. Peckens, 153

25
N.Y. 576; Kelley v. People, 55 N.Y. 565].

The existence of a conspiracy and the
petitioner's participation therein, having been
established by sufficient evidence, the petition-
er was not deprived of his right to confront
witnesses by the introduction into evidence against
him of statements made by his co-conspirator. This
evidence did not violate the rule announced in

Bruton v. United States [391 U.S. 123, Anno. Con-

frontation Clause - Bruton Rule 29 L. E2d 931; see

also People v. Miranda, 23 N.Y.2d 439]. Those

cases dealt with a confession by one defendant
(naturally it was after the crime was completed)
which also implicated his co-defendant. The
confession was then introduced at the joint trial,
and bound the one who uttered it. The jury was
told that it did not bind the other defendant
[Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U:S. 232].

Bruton held that the limited instructions concern-

26
the confession were improper. However, the
court did state that the admission of a statement
which constitutes a recognized exception to the

hearsay rule, does not violate the Sixth Amendment

[Bruton v. United States, supra at 128 n.3; Dutton
v. Evans, 300 U.S. 74 at 80 and 86; United States

v. Littoran, 421 F. 2d 981 (2d Cir.); see Facts,

supra]. This rule was recently reaffirmed by this
Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683.

Since there was a sufficient showing of

a "joint venture" among the co-defendants, includ-
ing the defendant, the statements of the co-defend-
ants were all admissible as declarations in further-
ance thereof and Bruton is not controlling [Dutton

v. Evans, supra; United States v. Nixon, supra;

United States v. Weiser, 428 F.2d 932 (2d Cir)].

Finally, any acts and declarations of
the co-defendant while participating in the crime
are admissible against the other participants as

part of the res gestae and are a recognized except-

27

ion to the hearsay rule [People v. Vaccaro, 288

N.Y. 170; People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y.348; People

v. McKane, 143 N.Y.455; 22 A CJS Criminal Law
Section 77].

Every tape recorded a conversation that
was made during the collection of interest pay-
ments from the various witnesses. The statements
implicating the defendant were part of the res
gestae since the Penal Law of New York State [see,
McKinney's Penal Law, Book 11A, Section 190.40]
states that it is a crime to charge, take or
receive interest at a rate of interest in excess

of twenty-five percent per annum.

SR

28

CONCLUSION

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DENIED
IN ALL RESPECTS.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY F. O'BRIEN
District Attorney
Suffolk County

Attorney for Respondent

FRANCIS W. RHINOW

CHARLES M. NEWELL

Assistant District Attorneys
of Counsel

Dated: October 30, 1975

SR 6 ATED ee ees

ie te ee

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1418%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.