Appendix — Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

"SUPREME COURT, U: 5.

Ss.

. >

: $

} ~

. ‘

o. Z

. es ;

pte

‘ >

yaa. “4 . be . 4 Ry f

LJ _

3 x SORE :

| ; ant br? : . n S74 ,

. 9. 3. APPENDIX’ |

Sg a (pe

|‘ Supreme Court of the United States

5 OcToBER TERM, 1970

No. 13810 3

™ fie

"AFFILIATED ‘Gre: Cerzens OF THE STATE

“ OF Uta, Er AL., Cae &

eee ° wo... ” Petitioners,

4 i foe

af ae” j we. v re i"

sae Unrrep-STATES, ET AL

rat Pil im Bese.) |

° . y“

” ” fips 3: f

f~ | REESE 3 :

, . «

i: ON wrir OF CERTIORARI Tp. “THE UNITED STATES COURT ' OF ties

APPEALS FOR’ THE TENTH CIRCUIT .

PETITION FOR -A . WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED FEBRUARY 9, 1971

{ Sera oo. APRIL 19, 1971

“, 7 e se eae ae = vig | A ae ai :

| 2 || TABLE OF CONTENTS. | 338 ae oe

| ‘The Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below 2.0 T

Third Amended Complaint (Reyos) filed May 10,1966 ee 4

Answer. of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. to Third Amended - Ege ae

. Complaint (Reyos) filed May 26, 1966 ....:.0-0:22--- eeseetnecervenenece «AD

| ‘Anwinet of Unibed States to Third Am nended Complaint (Reyes) os

| _ filed June 17, 1965 eee anor arecmerereecanear Bi citeabndaenndanastocke roniaittadciiin za

| — Order (F filed Jaly 12, 1967 - eee ee ae a sae 6

ipt of Proceedings in: Reyos© eo He ie to Sa

gtr Harris Wopsock, witness for Plaintiffs ~*~ + “a

‘Direct Examination -:...............:... setciedbaneaeesee : eee ete 14 oe

aC SEY Ven sootshatirlccetercmpiernassa “MY: a

fe aria Examination — rsthbaluieplipes aca oeaendoneg en een Ca) 2

| John B. Gale, witwens for Plaintiffs ry re

"Direct Examination .......... ST a AL ae. Diisicsisiptaacntent Oe

co A a anche ecnecttctiencmarneeneonecteereditigeapelicuihaneanpustooge sei Oe

-s Re-Direct. Examination .....2.............. haangeres se celaeaieasitss csiempltnrsnens., FO

~ Re-Cross Examination ..............:..... Seer mene ie patie ee ee

— Re-Direct Examination 0000000000000... sertetl eet gpeviaeanoinepetissandegeaes 107

Re Cross Examination 0:0. coon sscsndongeescsloneessceeqeeeseeeemnecceeeece LED

Recalled, witness for caaegecien , re . a

~ Direct Examination. Ce ae Se at EC a Te, RONEN One SE SOT SEIU 434

- Cross Exxarmiimation .......2.c:.-essccescccsecscceeqqeeseeseficeceensesesnseeceness coseeeentneet.. 440

- Re-Direct Examination -2...00..0...20022..02020--0-0-+ snitonessencnenscncensasenesnivesceceeree SAD.

. Stewart Eugene Reed, witness for Plaintiffs “ | f 2

Direct Escairjmation a2... 1g a0. .co Lc nescocctleeecabesovelacesclonccensestineesnecsonzesnnes ‘100

Cross Examination .............2.2..-.2-2-:ce-eceeeeseseeeeeseeeeeees en | ee

* Re-Direct Examination tins niaienewest cocece wekt eevee sesesecbabeceestocedeceqeeneneceraseneet tasers 106

- Gale Richard Murray, witness for Plaintiffs. | ve ;

- Direct Examination *22.22...00.00..0012.c0pc0e lee Soden evens tol Levecangensioerey, LEZ

Re-Direct Examination ............... i eeaiactse aia ene ie iaie eens 46 :

, Re-Cross Examination ............. BN ens meaecbincenciqarneye CAC A YS Aaa

Melvin Reed, witness for Plaintiffs

Gran F. Ouny, witness for Plaintiffs ck - oe nae ce

es Gi | ae IN DUCT SEO T: REMEGREECONE T POR RnONe RE y

_ + » Cross Examination ............ be acide niacin See Bue NS:

_ Re-Direct Examination * RCO EO ee OES LEIS

Glen. Reed, witness fot Plaiittiffs we Eran

Direct Examination - meee aoa diate PRS en nvr 167

Cross Examination... -c-os.eeesenpeecteeesetepemereeeesten Disgaea 169

Charles T. Reed, ‘witness for Plaintfts

LAE AIR DT AOE 175

Pm i csnsinrgghhiasoncanmeontaeneoces 178

_Re-Direct, Exarfrination lade ivictaiekacnwiihcceibakoskiieaal Fntennnnenabioninilgeatimienagh = 188

Léonard R. Burson, witnest for’ Plaintiffs Bits 8 Ree a ee ; }

Direct Examination ............ iaaiuiiineliia Sesiicccesdtagicrkia pink pA aati 189

Gross: ‘Examination Atami waitelbicibelbeiubtooporcsastiiacte ecg ook Pek ee eee eeaoinnd |, FEly

Adelyn H. Logan, witness for Phintffs i ee eee af

+. pee Mepmaimation «fool. hi balaipe hte lsatascqee Seales APO.

‘Cross Examination 2.0.0.2... Cbenieniatltias li dilesGiciedinowal ii oe 223

Recalled, witness for Defendants ne ° Pa:

Direct Examination ....................02-...--+- Bes haters ASO t See oe oe! ae 410:

Cross Examination -2:..2....0:.........:c0:ccseieeece: SALW pL sicSnceastltdnisctctscnsasscns AAG

Marguerite Murray Hendricks, witness for Plaintiffs . oe

Direct: Examination 2.2.20... ie OGDe Caan wee sa tates cise DSR, %s

pS SEES CERES TOES 5 EG

Fred-LaRose Burson, witness for Plaintiffs ey Sh etn a

Direct Examination ......... lids icin celica lg ie ain esc sae ee os . 240.

Crpss Examination ..42.....0\.0£2.:c0cjeelcccece speek ech sactflcerlconesecegetcoce SAM

Re-Direct ectenicn ~s ge eh ARNE A ROE EMS IM

Re-Cross Examination |... IR Eh ae ae eer -.. 246

. Reginald Ofait Curry, witness fot Plaintiffs = g a

Rc a ee NG

Cross Examination .................... a Ae Ee SS pod Apress Eh 4. 290

Re-Direct_Examinatiow’ ............. Siaseniedéee ccna a ae Ee SB

~ Re-Ctoss os octane ee a See nT Te ONIN Sa

— D. Cowan, witness for Plaintiffs fig * .taart

Direct Examination. ......:....)..00:....000020£cccceccteceeeeeees pie ASR Ae 274.

“ Cross Examination see pan nae sesecetBtiic cil cieseiedamouate Sasaiencae acai sepree 293;

-. Re-Direct Examiri@tion ................. at a tienen pguakereesetvhneciigedd PP sepeirirseene LOO”

"Recalled, ‘witness’ for Defendants Se cdl . 3

Disect. Examination ad lett ohn eo tedlte xeacorel a gerne noted * 428

ess: mt”

Cross Examination 9 ak Saar salsa nick enlite $32) -

Manas Remipation 2 op tataies rire sities aisneiihcneee MOR

- Cross force ye ee ae pit om adi shetihintiihonitons ee 302 .

Re-Direct, aoe socsasiitatconcte Ricaes GEE EineDicteoien Wied her ne 305

Louise en Casé, witness for Plaintiffs = Nee - Fie jeri: 5

réct Examination 0. eee. A RET 6 Sele iptins aaseetnddcben. ce

‘Crass Fexamiisiation 2.6...) .c2sccdceeeeeciceee “iiedicanclitilinpisciaidsieicis aivaiy aN

Re-Direct Examfnation 220.000... Seis bes wireceortmcr aioe Sua a

° Joseph Arthur Workman, witness for Plaintiffs - ee oe: Sun, a

“°° Direct’ Examination: .............. +20 Res BS ae AE a ERAT Oe RE MPEG AE ice: Se

| Cross Examination «02... Ee Late hat hee ae .. 320

‘Lena D. Sixkiiler, witness for Plaintits | eS as, |

. Direct’ Examination 2222002022000... D...fis tess: EF PI Fe Se kon ae eh a”

ReDirect, Examjagtion‘ oe PRL TE te HORT i weil sis

_@ : vets fe (

Foihcis W: ‘Cheiieagen, witness for Plaintiffs i RMS Pa te 2 \te

_ Direct Examination: oi..4.000.. 200s ef IRENA LR Le ON ROME. ©

Diréct Examination co ENE Miley isis er RLSM: SWORE Yj

Re-Direct Examination. CE Es caterer tesseabectnuct’ 398 :

- Examination by the Court: .........2....... princraninscereose edesescnama pentintsegen Rt SRO

g:.” Clatence E faithieias, witness for Plains oor <er

ie Direct Examination ee prert: ceinsion -etssallbictasin<s iste Mamas 371

Cross Examination .. i LONE OE : SD Mics ik jaa gts ton: ieee ee

. Goorge'k arvey y Hamilton, witness for Plaintiffs

. Dirett Examination ............... pie aegis intgnllpo ri : il gag ie ee 1.399 |

| Cross Examination per) OR a SE sede aihaitau si dieesy 405 — ;

‘George W.. Hedden, witness for Défendents x mae Pitt 2) | eae ee ake:

. Direct Examination severe tonvenchcosDSectesnospaenbemp tent anscapsec bins agp nena 407.

Paul Biggs, witness for Defendants * | J ;

Direct Examinatigg a he ee Ne eee Bk Laer sstpeniadosteahiiy, MAME 1

y 3 _ Cross Examination ...............0....: ests acess ele Sajlin tink ae Petes 425

Direct Examination - sseaasilan Sich cookie dete Ne sib lecbainict Pee odtaedl -427 -

Cross Examination ....2.!......00.00........ prc aenontoslil lS GRAN cpa lea news dha scscus By

Transcript of —— (Reyos), May 20, 1968

Calvin E. Anderson, witty for Defendants, ced

Soe ate ie os 2c NEL RAOOE TED >

Cross Examination ................. PAC OO eos Ber eT man

Re-Direct Examination Sein aL NENO EN ant Sees ier men

- Ver Haslem, witness for Defendants | fen sae BS ks ol

Direct Examination .....- inked thoes RAL See ee LSE LOO Urry Sk fo 453

Cross Examination 22.2... oot teeeienpeseeeeqeeeenceceneeecineetherBieeeetaneneneteee ADT

' Re-Direct Examination «0.2... sechagypiccsenencte ae

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Reyos) filed April. 19, 1968 eer 464

PART I: GENERAL FINDINGS ..0.c.:0!-00c0e thennecsnesefteegeecssepes 404

\ PART: IJ: INDIVIDUAL CASE HISTORIES OF — | a

' THE 12 DESIGNATED PLAINTIFFS . iis ae. _ ence 474

Way Gem Vy, Ret 2.2. cect cccc cb geccnavseeltcchosssececccnanserecbeqeannessese vendeceeeee 474 '.

2. GFred. Larose Burson 2.0.0 iewcenee gee el ae Lecametinntcee $76

3. Letha Hants Wp onan ened acceceeneqeeeseectecccenecentenensinennseinnssceneoss 478

0M Leap Alen C9 on eacancsceciceguettcateessatendeneeeeen tectiencifrsrineneiee 46H

5. MiQhvin Reed... 2c eenccecnececteceenceneeneeneee sesso lJnageceeeeeeee 484.

6. Marguerite Marray: Hendricks ge aaitssansnetn essence eaten san 486

7. Joseph Arthur Workman ......2o..ccccceceseecheeeceetenceeceeeeneceeceeeese 489

- 8. Leonard Richard Birrson 2. rn ee wees 49]

Dent TR NII aac cn Sentence nn cgge Teannend panne Lannnepsennmensinec “.... 492

10: Stewart Eugene Reed 020.02... ccc eeeeeeeneeenteeeenee ed a hesee 495

_ A. Richard H. Carry, Sr... csc. eneecseeecpeeeteeeeeeeeteceeeeeeee siesdennesegennes 496

12." Charles T. Reed ticeescnactaareasss Matte catectcttenis 498

- PART. Ill: GENERAL FINDINGS: pate eeantecen od seasenseteseenecnsseccececee "OQ

"A. Relating to-Plaintiffs: Claims Against the x

United States Oe IR cca te tee Baton .: 502

~B.° Relating to Plaintiffs’ Claims Against F nt Sey ae

3 Bank, John B. Gale and Verl Haslem .............2..--..---2---2-.e-e-seeeoe 2 S12

.— ~Relating Further to the Question of Liability on, :

| the Part of the Defendants 2.2... pg trenret sc hcteinisinaiiegiin, SEM

_ Dd. Relating to Damages 4 DPA a Serer ae 3 emesis ....-, 928

‘CONCLUSIONS OR AW. net ccsedeceeecieeceenee a oectcnsecehe SS stasis 531,

Petition and Complaint in AUC filed April 25, 1968 .j.--nqesncesenspsstecessenneensee - SB

Motion to Reopen (Reyos) filed May 10, 1968 a es nsgvtbacdi Dage oom,

~ Motion to Dismiss in AUC filed June.24, 1968 cco ensiniet ites enmeaat Obs 548 i

__ Transcript of Proceedings in AUC, July 8, 1968 ..... nt apd a a

- Order of Dismissal in-AUC filed July. 10,1968 ....-ccsecccoesecesneeeensqeeentneeneee a ae

Amended Petition’ and Amended Complaint in AUC filed july 19, 1968 ...... 564 Me

Motion. for Rehearing i in AUC filed July 19; 1968 2 Sse es!

: Transcript of Proceedings it AUC, August 5, 1968 Eee: “sien 568 ©

Order in AUC filed August 7, 1968 0.0.02... poo nentcnnsttntienpeeabtinee, EM

Judgment (Reyos) filed September A; DR seal ie dana cain oeanepelel 574

Opinion of the Court of Appeals in Reyos filed June 19, 197) 576

(Opinion. of the Court of Appeals in AUC filed June 19, 1970-2022... 32... $87 :

Order Denying Rehearing i in Reyos and AUC - filed Neca 12, 1970 asics 588

e ? Pe Pp

. 0

Oe ,

cache “S

LAIR Pe

DAs BAS

THE RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW

’

“Febseary 17, 1965 — The Complaint of plaintiff Reyos, et al. filed i in

the United States District Court for the District of Utah. ©

_ July 17, 1965 — Order dismissing the Bayes case asa clase action ened

by Judge Ritter. ~ Lee

_ May.10, 1966 — ‘Third Amended Complaint of Reyos ilies filed. |

May 26, 1966 — Answer of defendants John B. Gale and _ Haslem

to Third Amended Complaint. in Reyos filed. ~ on

May 26, 1966 — Answer of Fist Security B Bank of- Utah to Third

Amended Complaint i in Reyos filed. .

June 17, 1966 — Anieber of the Sliecant United States of - America

to Third Amended Complaint in Reyos filed. - | :

‘July 18, 1967 — Pre Trial Order in Reyos signed by Judge Chiistensen.

. - October 8, 1967 through October 6, 1967 — ‘Non jury trial in Réyos

before- Judge'Christensen.

pare

October 17, 1967 — Case i in Reyos against defendant Richard Murray

dismissed. . a ea ies ae

io October 18 through:October 2 20, 1967 — : Non j S ge trial i in Reyos helore |

Judge Christensen contifiued. ee Ss >

, ‘November 3, ‘1967 — Reyos plant proposed Pindig of Fact. and -

Conclusions of Law filed. |

_ December 15, 1967 — _ Proposed Findings of Fact aati Conchisions of

Law in Reyos of defendant First Security Bank, -Gale and Haslem filed.

- April 16, 1968 — Reyos plaintiffs response to bang to proposed

Findings of Fact relating to damages filed. |

_ , April 18, 1968 — Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

in Reyos of the defefidant United States of America filed..

April 19, ole Cu Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in ee

— by. Judge Christensen, —_ |

“April 22, 1968 — Reply of Reyos plaintiffs td objections of defendants

to plaintiffs proposed. Fii ngs of Fact and Conclusions of Law and re-

‘sponse of plaintiffs to proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law :

4 of defendants filed. | :

ss _ April 25, 1968 — ~ AUC Petition and Complain filed.

. "May 10, 1968 — Motion to reopen in Reyos filed by defendants First

- Security ~~ Gale and Haslem snl — bagi k of Marvin J.

Bertoch. — espa

June 17, 1968 — “Order i in Reyce comrpcting pope Findings of of Fact

-signed by Judge Christensen filed. ae

June 17, 1968 — Motion to reopen in Reyos denied as to the Bank; *

additional testimony taken; taken under advisement as to > defendant ©

_ United States.. |

+ June 24, 1968 — Motion to > dinates in AUC filed bh defendant —

States, : filed. -

. July 2, 1968 — ction oor vove in‘AUC oe ofidat lod by dh

Ute Indian Tribe together with Intervenors Answer,

July 5, 1968'— Motion to Intervene in AUC as a defendant filed by

| Ute Distribution Corporation together with Intervenors Answer,

, | July 10, 1968 — Order of dismissal in AUC, signed by Judge Chit

sen, filed. ms

aie

—_—

July29, ‘1968 — . Motion of AUC for ahoarig topither with propord

Amended emapiaint, fed.

August 7, 1968 — rr AO ng mig ind deg are

to file amended ‘complaint, filed.

“August 80, 1968 — Notice at Appeal filed in AUC. .

September 6, 1968 — Fodgipont ia favor of Royos plsintiffs and gains -

defendant, First Security Bank, John B. Gale, Yet Haslem and the United

q States of America filed. :

‘November 4, 1968 — Notice of Appeal fi ed by United States of America,

in Reyos. . |

November 5, 1968 oie of Appeal led: by Fist Sear Bank,

ne a ate ae eh eeh

« December 2, 1968 — Motion of Reyos plaintiffs t extend time for

filing tiotice of appeal filed together with notice of appeal) :

0...

3 December 17, 1006 = Order beri time for os notice of appeal -

filed. ee

June 19, 1970 — - Oplitioas | of the Court of Appeals in AUC and Reyos

simultaneously filed. |

November 12, 1970 - Petition for rehearing in AUC and eyo sm :

, taneously, denied. © .

. December: 29; 1970 — Minute entry in Rigi: “Petition for Rehearing

40 Band, fs untimely and should be ‘receivedbut not t tiled and given no

’ further consididration (Seth )” entered, 2.

a ; .

: . : , en ee ee

: Oo r :

a IT = .- ; y, :

, = —— x's a

: fy-epnnsncsenceessess see « = ; / | 3

| ) ‘

% =. 7

, . .

% |

* : a ere

—,

be .

. “% “ .

‘ ‘. é ,

- ae

ay a es _

Third Amended Complaint are ‘

. ! te: ee ae es ae A

Sree it ~~ (S10). 0s Be og

ee yr ote sane ° : . a

Léave of Court, being first had and obtained, plain- |

tiffs amend their Amended’ Complaint and aver:

_, + 1. Each of the plaintiffs above named is a "mixed- |

blood" member of the Ute: Indian Tribe of the Uintah an Ouray

- Reservation, Utah, as defined by Section 677a(c) of Publi

Law 671, adopted by the 83rd Congress August 27, 1954, (68

" “State 868 25, U.S.C. 677, et seq.) (sometimes referred to

herein as "Public Law 671") and the@yjregulations adopted pur-

" suant thereto. Bae EES mM oe Migs 4 ORR

. 2, On or about December 9, 1958, a-corporation known .,

as “The Ute Distribution Cerporation" (hereinafter sometimes

referred to as "UDC" or "the Corporation") was orgahized un- ~

“Mer the laws of the State of Utah, pursuant to the express _

authorization of Public Law 671. The Articles of Incorpora- -

tion of said UDC were authorized and approved by the Secre-<

tary of the Department of ,the Interior of. defendant nb ted =| a

States of America. ‘Said corporation was organized to act as

the authorized representative of the "mixed-blood" members- +

of the Ute Indian Tribe of the. Uintah and Ouray Reservation

as definéd in Public Law 671 and to hold and manage jointly A

withthe Tribal Business Committee of the’"full. blood" group

“of said Indian Tribe, all gas, oil and’mineral rights of /

every kind and all «inadjudicated or unliquidated claims

' against the United States and:all — Ls "ott gee

re 61) 5 :

J woe - - : ,

other assets not susceptible to equitable or practical dis-

tribution between said "mixed-blood" and "full blood" groups |

and the members thereof, and fot the purpose of distributing®

the net:proceeds therefrom to the stockholders of UDC.° At.

incorporation,-each df the "mixed-blood" members , ‘incduding

plaintiffs herein, was issued ten shares of the capital\stock

of said UDC. ee : ; a

3... At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs and

each of them, were wholly unsophisticated,” inexperienced,

and naive concerning the objectives, provisions and pro-

tection of Public Law 671 and the Articles of .Incorpération e

of UDC, the extent, value and potential value of the assets .

' and état santewed: by the. Untted States Govesnnent. pursuant

to. Public Law 671 to UDC for distribution to plaintiffs, and

_ the corresponding value of the capital stock of UDC. . The

_, United States Congress at the time of the enactment of. Public

Law 671, was fully aware of the lack of sophistication, in-

experience and naivete of. plaintiffs and provided in @aid

Law certain safeguards. for said Plaintiffs. Pate bees

eo5 4. ' Defentants ‘John B. Gale (herein schean cine re-

_ ferred to as- "Gale"), Verl Haslem (herein sometimes ‘referred ig

to as "Haslem") and: Richard Murray {herein sometimes referred

to as''Murray"') ar@ ‘now and at all. times mentioned herein

were Citizers of the United States. and residents of Roose-

velt, County of ‘Duchesne State of Utah, and each. of them.was_.

an active participant and aided and abetted other’ persons.in

the. ‘schomp. described hereinunder.. ;

a Defendant. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A.. (here-

inafter sometimes referred to ank"') is now and at ‘all .

‘times hereinafter. mentioned was a ‘banking corporatior organ-

pee eliae under and by virtue of the laws. gf - State -

ee Oe M2

cr Pye ree Lestat st

with sceacisal offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, and branch +

_ offices located throughout ‘the State of Utah, including an ,

office-at Roosevelt, Duchesne County, State of Utah. At’all . «

times herein mentioned, defendants John B. Gale and Verl Haslem

were employed by, and ‘officers of, Bank at Roosevelt, Utah;

and in participating in the unlawful acts and in aiding ‘and

-abetting other persons in-the unlawful:acts described here-

inafter, said @efendants Gale and Haslem were acting .as :

agents and officers of Bank and within the scope of their

authority and. employment. -by Bank, said acts were performed

by said Gale and Haslem with full knowledge and re

of Bank and the acts of said defendants « are chargeable to.

Bank and Bank is liable therefor.- <p,

ae . as vw

ee Re By: agreement, dated December 31, 1958, ‘which said —

®@agreement was approved. ‘by the Secretary of thé,Department eee

the Interior, of the United States of America, defendant’ Bank

was appointed registrar and transfer agent, depository and .

corporate adviser to UDC, and is now and at all canee ‘there- ;

after, has been so employed. ve ls, age . ees:

: e Se?

7.. At some time after incorporation of UDC, certain.

and various. persons; acting individually and in concert, and

none of whom was either a “mixed-blood" or “full- blood"

within the definition, of said terms set forth in Public Law.

671, and said persons being well aware of the value arid: po-

tential value of the assets and claims assigned and to be

/ assigned by the United States to UDC:for distrif&ition to - ;

‘holders of UDC stock, of. the value and potential value of the

capital stock of UDC, and of the- Naivete and lack of sophisti-

cation and experience of the "mixed-blood" members, confect

‘various schemes to acquire, and did acquire from Plaintiffs.

shares of capital stock of WDC at prices ‘below the fair and.

reasonable value thereof. . effecting said schene and fraud,

‘said persons: nh APM ye ;

etx", .

. (1) Made. contact with’ each of the paige ees and ad-

_ vised them of the willingness of sake persons: to purchase. UDC

stock;

3°” 4 3)" Advised sack plaintifé 1 that only by following di-

rections from said persgne could -such sale’ be consummated;

[373]

ao 7 , : . «

| . (3) Made ‘contact with each plaintiff individually,

and hot in.a grotpy.and never unger circumstances when each

plaintiff was likely to make independent inquiry concerning

the representations made to hin; :

(4) Told each plaintifé that his UDC stock was of

— (oT nominal value; Zz? s4 os

. Told: each plaintiff that said persons would pay.

Tics plain iff what. Said stock was reasonably worth; -— ‘

" (6). Set out to gain and did, in fact, gain the con-

fidence, reliance and trust of Bah such: plaintiff;

(7) Deliberately withheld from each plaintiff the te

Aad creat potantinl value ef the OBC as tosthe fair value. a.

and great pi value of the UDC stock; . ;

- (8) feliberately withheld. from. each plaintiff the

fact- known to said persons. that certain substantial payments =—=—s

were to be paid by the United States to UDC and distributed. of

, to/ UDC ‘stockholders;

wart «a(9). Obtained, the lik uiisiite of each plaintiff on a

paper, which’ said paper was either blank or a printed form

with operative figures and words uncompleted at the time of .

-Signing, and which said paper was thereafter completed or ‘

filled in by said petscns in affidavit form whereon bee rep-

@ \

resentation: was made that. ate plaintifé had received the. ,

cash price for which the said stock had been advertised for.

sale to other Ute Indians ‘as’ provided by Public Law 671 and

the UDC Articles of Incorporation; Ney Z

*" (10). Personally notarized or obtained the notariza-

tion .from others of the signature of. said plaintiff on a sworn

statement that such plaintiff had "personally appeared before"

said notary and had acknowledged receipt of the price for which

the said stock had been advertised for sale; when in truth and

' in fact, Such plaintiff. did” not so appear and was not: so

omy

sworn and had not then ae not thereafter receive the. con-

sideration stated; a eee wt 7

| , 8 a a e

. (11). Then ‘paid in cash or other consideration, in-

* cluding interest in used automobiles; intgrests in real estateas

and other non-cash consideration to each plaintiff» such cash

--sum or other consideration ‘and only such cash sum or other .

consideration as said persons felt was absolutely necessery

in order- to avoid. resistance from each plaintiff, which said ©

Sum was less in value and different in kind, or both, than ;

" as. advertised and certified as having been nition!

(12). Obtained siguitaes guarantees by peak through |

its PEOnE? Has lem and Gele;

_e (13) Thereafter: delivered s3id affidavits ant cer-

tifications: through the United States mails to the sto¢k

transfer ‘department ‘of Bank at Salt Lake City, Utah; and

(14) Obtained transfer on the stock records. Of UD.

to said ‘persons or a nominee or —

8..° Each of the plaintiffs above named sold ‘certain

of his shares of UDC prior to ‘August 27, 1964, to various

persons without receiving. therefor the fair and reasonable

value of said shares. The number. of shares sold by each

. Of the plaintiffs above named-is as follows-:

= fo gators a’ 8 | &: ee

As” to defendants Bank, Gale, Hasle a $

tiffs allege: ashes: Murray, plsin-

é.. plaintiffs repeat and ‘reallege the allegations of”

“paragraphs 1 through 8 hereinabove as if fully set forth here-

at. ~

~ A .

ee 10.., .The acts described in paragraph 7 hereinabove con-

stitute a violation of te poner: ¢

"sent *

wy a

criptims. of ‘legislative enactment, ioeey ‘Section 10(b) ‘of

the Securities Exchange Act ‘of 1934 (Title 15, U.S.C. section _

78(j)) and Rule 10b-5 (17) C.F.R. 240 10b-+S), promulgated by .

pay supe States Securities and Exchange Commission by virtue

he authority, vested in, said. Commission by the said Act

and plaintiffs’ First Count is based solely on said statute |

and rule. Ne . : a0 i : We:

; 11... Said upc aided: stack constituted a "security"

within the méaning and intent of said Section 10(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act and the regulations adopted pursuant ~

thereto as cennnen by Section 78¢ (a) 15°U.S.C.).4 ee

32. By reason of the: conidiset B k, Gale, Haslem

ana Murray ,as aforesaid, plaintiffs hav

“engage legal counsel. The cost of such legal sé@rvices con- :

stitutes actual: damages within the intent and meaning of the

Securities and Exchange Act and was proximately caused and

is attributable to the said defendant’s' conduct and plaintiffs

are entitled to an award of a reasonable sum i car

. Second Count | 965

JAS to dofendsets ‘Bank and ufited States of Anorica,

plaintifés seers

“43. ‘Plain ifts ‘Sopeat™ and vied hein, the allegations of ;

paragraphs 1 thr ugh 8 angins {ve hereinabove as if f6y1y* set. . :

he siren peveees = » é ote *

me she 14, Jurisdiction ofthis Cuike as to the defendant

United States fand First Security Bank (initials illegible) '

7/12/67 (handwritten interlineation) } exists by reason. of ‘the.

‘provisions/ of Title 28, U.S.C.,-Sections “1331 and 1346(b).

The matters in [as to, each Plaintiff. (initials illegibl

(hendwritten interlineation)] exceed the sum or value of

$10,000,’ exclusive of interest or costs. Jurisdiction of this |

‘Court over the person of defendant Bank and the subject matter: ig

of bes paste against Bank aetete: woh reason of pres secan 1331 of 3

is 2 iy oy 5 4 » [382] o 2 us ie ae . : ¥ : ; o a Pa og

é ae

‘the Secretary of the Department of Interior of the United +>

_ Stock.

, States and its authorized agents .in effecting the provisi

| Affairs ty 2nd residents of Duchesne

= a . .

Ae gf “it

Plaintiffs’ Second Count is based upon’ and arises from, the ©

same facts and cause as plaintiffs’ First Count, based soley . laos

upon Section 10(b) (Title 15, U.S:C. Sectiom78(j)) and Rule.

“10b-5 (17 C-.F.R. 240 10b-5) and jurisdiction of this Court

over the claim against Bank and over the person of Bank as set° .

‘forth in plaintiffs' Second Count, exists ’also by virtue af »‘

‘this Court's. pendent jurisdiction. Venue is properly laid in

this District by reason of the fact that the acts of defendants

: complained of/ herein ‘occurred within the State of Utah.

; od By Teasén of the provisions of Public Law 671,

the United States Congress granted broad authority to and im-

posed correspondjngly broad duties upon the Secretary. of the

Department of the Interior off the United States of America, re

respecting the protection and preservation of the property

_ Tights of the "mixed-blood" members prior to termindtion of -.

federal supervision over thetr property. In exercise and.

the Secretdry” of: said authority and dischargé of said duties,

States,of America adopted certain regulations arid rules, in-

cluding’ the approval of the Articles ‘of .Incorporation of UDC

and all provisions contained therein, forms and precedure for

advertising shares of UDC capita) stock for sale and assuring :

‘that each "'mixed-blood" received fair value therefor and that

the #tovisions of Public-Law 671 and the Articles of Incorpora-.

tien of UDC were fully effected. : eda i as

16. Certain of the said duties were delegated, directly

or indirectly by defendant’ United States to Bank, or were, *#..-

with the approval’ and acquiescence of the United States, 7%

assumed or drrogated, by Bank. ‘Bank further, by reason of the oe

= said agreement of. December 31, 1959, and various other, writings, |

and -the conduct of its officers and its agents, including |

defendants Gale and Haslem, assumed the duty to protect; and ©

at all times thereafter held itself out as protecting the -

phere touae plaintiffs in and to their’shares of ‘UDC.

> 2 aa . : P os : _ e pa

A EOI gag 22s 89 95,

,17. By reason.of the said actions of defendant —

of Pyplic Law 671, each of the plaintiffs were led to rely and:

in his property rights in and to UDC stock. -.

.did rely upon the United States. and Bank to fully protect him

sae “18. Certain agents’ and employees of defendant United.’ ~-

States, United States Department of ‘Interior, Bureau of Indian

County, State of Utah and ~

- : > : ©

Be : wh

Gr . ee *

coe 9 .

- Ke 2

oar . . ~{

of Bank were at all times; herein mentioned personally’

acquainted with plaintiffs and with defendants Gale, Haslem

and Murray and other persons who pere actively engaged in i .- _.,

the purchase of UDC stock either for themselves individually,

or. as apres for other persons both within and without the

State of Utah, and said agents and employees o@pUnited States

and Bank, knew, or by reasonable process of inquiry, should ~—-:

have known, that purchasés of UDC stock by said persons were

‘accomplished by means of devices and methods. referred to in

paragraph 7 hereinabove. a

“19. Defendant United States, acting by and through .

its agents and employees of the United States Department of-

- the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ‘acting within the |

scope of their office gnd employment and in pursuit of their

authority\and duty as defined by Public Law 671 and the reg-

ulations adopted pursuant thereto, and defendant Bank acting

by and through its agents and employees and pursuant to the-

arrangements ang understandings ,described in paragraph 1

hereinabove, negligently permitted the acquisition of plain- —

tiffs' shares of capital.stock of UDC and negligently omitted

to protect and preserve plaintiffs' rights in said shares. in

that they: ee : Ay

. ... (1) Failed to require that transfer of UDC stock be

performed in strict compliance with the provisions of Public .

Law.671 and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto, including

in particular, the regulations of the Articles of Incorpbration

of UDC which were adopted pursuant to the provisions of Public- _

< ee ee [384] ; e. PAN, BE ot :

Law 671°and approved by the Secretary of the. Interior;, as

(2) Supplied forms and documents’ for the purpose of

effecting transfer of UDC stock with the knowledge and jntent

that said documents and :forms would be used {1 said purpose;

(3) Certified and represented that {.:11 consideration

was received for the transfer of UDC stock .and‘that all of

the provisions of the applicable federal laws and regulations ;

‘Gncluding the regulations of ‘the UDC Articles of Incorporation

had been ‘complied:with, as required by Public Law 671 and the

regulations adopted thereto, when in truth and in fact, full

consideration in the amdunt and of: the kind (cash) for which

said stock. was advertised with the Indian Agency, was mot re-

. ceived by. the transferor and said defendants knew, or by réa-

sonable and appropriate inquiry should pave known of said

fact; . : ete: |

ie é

“

(4) Failed to require that the certification referred -

to in subparagraph (3) hereinabove be “stamped"’ on- the UDC

certificate involved, notwithstanding that such certification

on the stock certificate was —-. required by the’ MECESLOE

of Incorporation of UDC; oF

. . : ¢

(S) Having notice of some, or all of the matters. re-

ferred to in paragraph 7 hereinabove, failed to conduct rea- -

- sonable and appropriate inquiries as to the rights. in relation

to.said matters and—to ‘take reasonable and appropriate “steps,

including inquiry of each individual "mixed-blood" at the

time documents of transfer were presented to said Bank and

' United States to determine whether’ the requirements of Public

. Law 671 and the, requirements adopted ‘parsuant thereto had wees

— with; . :

(6) Wholly neglected: to ‘advise and counsel plaintiffs

against the schemes described in paragraph 7 hereinabove; ..

4 ° (7) Permitted the ‘transfer of capital . stock of UDC:

prior to August. 27, 1964, to persons other than. members of

t the Ute Indian Tribe as defined in Public Law 671 without re-

. quiring that a prior @sfer ‘to sell be made to the memberPsy of -

said Tribe and in violation of the express proscriptions

(ses)

~ é--

of the Articles of Incorpdration of UDC and the Limitations .

stamped on every UDC. atene certificate. .

(8) Permitted the wedeates of shares. of UDC stock to

other persons without determining, or attempting to determine,

whether any consideration of any kind had been received by:

plaintiffs sia . i

20.. “By reason. of the negligence and violation of

statutory enactment of defendant United States, defendant

Bank, each of the plaintiffs has: beén deprived of certain of

his “shares of capital stock of UDC at‘a consideration far less

than the reasonable value. of said securities.

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray judgment that. this Court

make and enter an order declaring all sales or transfers of ©

capital stock of Ute Distribution Corporation. from plaintiffs -

- to. non Ute or .“mixed-blood" Indians prior to August 27, 1964,

as being void; for-a money judgment against defendants and ~

' each of them for the difference between the value of the con- —

eo, ee

Sideration actually received by plaintiffs in exchange for

their said securities and the fair value thereof; against de-

fendants. Bank, Gale and Haslem and Murray: for the amount of

a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees;. for plaintiffs' costs

and disbursements, incurred herein and for such other and

funqner: relief as may appear justified in the premises.

Dated this 6th day of May; 1966.

naan’ M. Duncans ¢

Parker M. Nielson |

_ = Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Filed May 10, 1966

RR RRR

(394) -

Answer Of. First Sesurity Bank Of Utah, N.A. ~ | j

To Third Amended Complaint 3 | .

Comes now the defendant First Security Bank of Utah,

N.A., and for answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint

admits, denies and alleges as ponsene:

First. Defense

laintiffs fail. to state a claim apes which relief can

a grante ed... ; — , —

Second Refense | »

The Court has no jurisdiction over the ° ‘second count of

the: ‘complaint with seepect to First Security Bank of Utah, ON. A.

antes Defense

-1. Answering parasvaphe 1 and 2, this defendant does

not have sufficient information upon which to form a belief as- °

tp the truthfulness of. the en contained therein, and .

therefore denies the. same. .

. Be Answering ‘paxheraph: 3, this defendant’ denies each

and every allegation contained therein.

ia a aa RLS ‘ ll et ia ae COTES EKEO ET Ver htee yt

1 . . =

. 7. a

3. porate 4, this defendant siete that

eo, “John B. Gale and Ver! Haslem are now and.at all times mentioned

- herein were citizens of the United States and residents: of

‘Roosevelt, County of Duchesne, State of Utah. this defendant

denies each and every

(395) 2 |

other allegation contained in said paragraph 4.

, saree, paragraph S, this defendant admits that |

First denies Bank/of Utah, N.A. is now, and at all times

- hereinafter. mentioned was. a banking corporation with ‘principal

. offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, and branch offices located

throughout the State of Utah, including an office at Roosevelt,

_ Duchesne County, State of-Utah. This defendant ftirther ad-

‘mits. that at-all times mentionedsin the complaint, defendants

-John B. Gal¢ and Verl Haslem were employed by the First Se-

curity Bank of Utah at Roosevelt, Utah. This defendant de-

nies, each and every other allegation contained in paragraph

S.° ;

; / * “

' 2. Answering paragraph. 6, this defendant admits that

by” agreement, dated December 31, 1958, which said agreement

was approyed;by the Secretary of the Department of Interior

of the Unit d States of America, the defendant bank was ap-.

pointed registrar and transfer agent. Defendant denies each

and every other allegation contained in said paragraph 6;

6. Answering paragraphs 7 and as ‘this defendant de -

nies each and every allegation contained therein.

Te, Answering paragraph 9, this dufeniant answers: by —

reasserting its answers to peragrapns 1 “ee : as - hereto-.

fore set forth.

. 8. Answering oalepratte 10, 11 and 12, this defend-

ant denies each and avery allegation contained. therein. |

woe, . 9. Answering paragraph 13, this defendant Ccalsad s:.

“and realleges its answers to paragraphs 1 Parone 8 inclusive,

as hereinabove set forth.

10. Answering eirexrapan aay 25, 16, 17, ‘18, 19 an 20,

this defendant denies. each and every allegation contained ae

therein.

° : vy

‘Wherefore, this defendant. prays that plaintiffs take

130

[oe nares AES FSET EGS OE EE EE RINE NAT PE shal cae TEST nT ee inate

- “3 pisdiction by" 28 U.S.C. 1331 or 1346(b), or ies any other ‘statute.

e nothing 7 . 7 = a . oe , - * ae —*

_ £396)

by reason of their third anended. complaint; that the same be

dismissed; and that this defendant have. and récover its costs —

incurred herein. - o

Ray, Quinney §. Nebeker

: By Marvin J. Bertoch

oe Attorneys for Defendant First

Filed May 26, 2966 © _' s Security Bank of Utah, N.A.

. ° anak J . .

: ; (404) °

Answer To Third Amended Complaint

‘The defendant, United States of America, answers the

plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint ds follows: :

First Defense 8

The complaint fails to state a claim against the. United

“States upon which relief can be granted.

- —— Second Defense ee

The defendant-denies that this Court has been granted ju-

Third Defense

_ . + 1-This defendant denies all of the allegations todad in

Paragraphs. Aaa s 15, 16,17,18,19 and 20 of the Complaint,

2-This defendant is. without Lnowledge or information: ‘suf-

ficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations con-.

‘tained in Paragraphs -4,5,8,10,11 and 12 of ihe Eeeetee ee For." -: ¢

this Teasen, said paragraphs are denied. — “

$- Answering Paragraph. 2 of the Complaint, “this defendant

‘denies that each of the, plaintiffs received ten shares of stock: y

in the Ute Distribution Co ration, but admits all of the other

etiegerses* me fous in said paragraph..

[405] .

-4-Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, this defendant

denies that the Secretary of Interior approved the Agency Agree-

‘ment between the Ute Distribution Corporation and the. First Se-"

‘furity Bank of Utah, but admits all of the other allegations found

| in said paragraph.

S-Paragraphs 9 and 13 of the Complaint. are otherwise an-

swered herein and no separate answers to these paragraphs are re-

quired.

.«

, Fourth Defense

; This defendant -sets forth the following affirmative de-

fenses to: plaintiffs’. Complaint.

| 1-The claims of some of the plaintiffs are barred by the

statute of limitations as set forth in. 28 United’ States Code,

Secti@i 2401(h). ve

2-. The plaintiffs have failed to join certain int spen-

able parties to this: action. -

2-A The acts or omissions of Government agents relied”

on by the plaintiffs in this action fall. within the purview of

the Discretionary Function Excéption to the Federal Tort Claims

Act, as set forth in 28 United States Code, Section 2680. .

_ $- The agents and employees. of the United States were. not

acting within the scope of their em when the atiegee _

negligence occurred. ee os

4- The -hegligence’ of the agents and plane. of the.

United, States, if any, was not the proximate cause of’the dan-

ages Hprurred by the- plaintiffs. ; 7. :

a 52 The damages claimed by: the plaintiffs, if any,. re-

sulted from: their own negligence.

6- The negligence of the plaintiffs was the: proximate

cause of thé damages alleged in. the Complaint.

7- The plaintiffs ‘knowingly and willfully parficipated

in the fraud described in the Complaint, and said plaintiffs

[406] <

engaged in a conspiracy with ‘other persons to circumvent ‘the pur-

’ poses and requirements of the statutes and regu}ations.. of the

‘ United States as they pertain to the sale of stpck in the Ute. ;

' Distribution Corporation. In particular, said plaintiffs know-

ingly executed and delivered false affidavits and made false

statements to the representatives of the Bureau of fadian Af- ..

fairs pertaining to the sale of said stock. o ;

8- Pursuant to provisions of Public Law 671, as set forth:

in 25 United States Code, Section’ 677(v)., the Federal supervision _

over the mixed-blood Indians ‘of the;Ute Indian Tribe was termi-

nated on August 27, 1961 by proclamdtion of the Secretary of the

Interior. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were not entitled-to any of

the.services given to Indians because of their status. as Indians.

Therefore, subsequent to August.27, 1961, the defendant United

States of America-owed no duty to the mixed- bloods which would

give rise to liability under the provisions of the Federal Tort

Claims mee or any other statute of the = seaalaiviae

a | | eR,

Se . | | ' 15 .

‘ ca : , ae ae ‘ ;

Wherefore, this defendant prays that the plaintiffs‘ Com-

Plaint insofar as it pertains to the United States of America be

dismissed, and that this defendant.be awarded its costs incurred

in connection. herewith. : ates

= « Dated this 17th day of June, 1966. — - a

| o | -H. Ralph Klemm”

-», -. Assistant United States Attorney

: . ; Attorney for, Defendant United.

Filed June 17, 1966 | . States of America re,

- .

~ + whee H+. eee See

[496]

Pre-Trial Order

[497] |

This case came on for’pretrial on the 12th day of: July,

_ ~~ 1967,_before the Honorable A. Sherman Christensen, United States

District Judge, pursuant to Rule 16' of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; Adam M.. Duncan, Esq. and Parker M. Nielson, Esq. ap-

- peared as counsel for plaintiffs, Marvin J. Bertoch, Esq. of Ray, .

-. Quinney & Nebeker,. appeared as counsel: for defendants First Se-

curity Bank, John B. Gale and Verl Haslem, H. Ralph Klemm, Esq.,

Assistant United States Attorney, appeared for defendant United

States of America, and Ford R.’ Paulson, Esq., appeared as counsel

for defendant Richard Murray. — . |

ae at de Jurisdiction - oe

‘ A. Plaintiffs' First Count against defendants First Se-

curity Bank, Gale, Haslem and Murray is based on alleged viola-

tions by these defendants of provisions of the Segurities Ex- .

. change Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. 240 10b-5) promul -

gated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or

are pendent to claims based solely on provisions of. said Act and

“Rule. © Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under and venue is

based upon Section 27 of the. Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Title 15 U.S.C.A., Section 78aa). Jurisdiction and venue of

Peon, Court over the person of defendant . .

ON (498) |

United States of America and over plaintiffs' claim against said

defendant is based upon the provisions of Title 28 [U.S.C. ASC

7/12/67, (handwritten notations) ], ¥:S,C:-Seetiens-3333-and 1346b.

(MJB. HRK: AMD ° FRP (handwritten notations) ]. ;

‘&

. B. Defendants contend that 28 U.S.C. 1331 does not

provide .jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. —

a BAe Ea eet ON Daa Rmoings woe) os Ber 2

a C. With respect’ to defendant United. States of America,.

jurisdiction and venue are hereby determined to be present over

‘the person of that defendant and the subject matter involving

- that defendant, except for the basic contentions. of the defend- .

-ant. ‘reserved in the solhowing contested issues of fact and law.

D. Jurisdiction and venue of the Court over ‘the person N

of defendant First Security Bank and over plaintiffs' claim

against said defendant with respect to the Second Count of the

_ complaint are based on the principle that the Second Count is

pendent to. plaintiffs’ First Count, which is based solely upon

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 28 (15 U. S.C, 78aa).

i | With ‘respect tig the defendants *First Security Bank,

Gale, Hsslen. and Murray, jurisdiction is hereby determined to be

present over the persons of these defendants, and each of them,

and over the subject matter, subject to the contingency that.

the Court may in the course of trial find that the plaintiffs’

First Cause of Action is not sufficiently “substantial to enable.

the Court to retain jurisdiction of the Second Cause of Action on

the rneary of pendent jurisdiction as to oe First Security -

‘II. General Nature Of ‘The Claims a The Parties

A. Plaintiffs! Claim:

/ (1) As to defendants Bank, Gale, Haslem and Murray:

aici’ a: -

. _ (a) In their First Court (against defendants First Se-

curity-Bank, Gete, Haslem and Murray), that these defendants; in

connection with the purchase from plaintiffs of shares of stock

of the Ute Distribution Corporation, by défendants Gale, Haslem

and ‘Murray and others, either directly, or in aiding and abetting

others, violated Sectidn 10(b) and Section’ 29(b) of the Securi-

ties Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S. ae 78, and 78cc) ‘and Rule

10b-3# (17 C.F.R. 240 -10b- ~5). att

e ‘

; @) In their Second Count (against defen ts First

. Security Bank and the United States) that these defendants

were- negligent in discharging their statutory, contractual

‘and assumed duties to protect plaintiffs in connection with

the purchase, sale or transfer of plaintiffs' shayzes of capital

stock of Ute Distribution Corporation and that plaintiffs

prior to August 27, 1967, were.not sui juris and cannot be

charged with contributory negligence.- St

(2) ” As to defendant unitea States of Americe>

BRK

o “.¢ . a 2. 4

(a) - That plaintiffs were wards of the government as Li

to their Ute Distribution Corporation stock, and that the United

~. States failed to exercise its duty to protect and supervise

their sales of Ute Distribution Corporation stock prior to

August 27, 1964: = > . _

(3) Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to an

award of reasonable attorney fees as a separate element, of- ’

damages under the Utah Securities Act and the doctrine of

pendent jurisdittion. | .

B.. Defendants’. Claim: .

(1) pespecting plaintiffs’ First Count, that none of

the defendants violated any provision of the Securities and

Exchange Act or of Rule 10b-5. 2 © -® —

re ¢ > “Respecting plaintiffs’ Second Count that none of

‘the sotecy” owed any duty to the plaintiffs to safeguard

_ or protect

&. o *.

{s00) |

them with respect to the consideration paid or given for their |

‘stock; that none of the defendants was negligent; that plain-

tiffs were contributorily negligent;that the negligence, if

any of the defendants, or any of them, was not the proximate’

cause of any loss sustained by, the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs

sustained no loss; that the claims against pobrht yelper

States of America are barred by the statute of limitations and

‘the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims.

Act. .

Ill. Trial Procedure

| The plaintiffs are some 85 individuals. The claims of

each of the plaintiffs involve a number of common questions of

both law and fact. In order to facilitate trial procedure, -

counsel have agreed that plaintiffs shall choose feur six

cases and the defendants collectively shall choose feur six

cases, and the cases selected involve the following plain-

tiffs: [Corrections initialed: .MJB AMD FRP MJB HRK AMD].

Plaintiffs designate:

1.{ Glen. Reed P.M.N. , a

2.[ ree Burson P.M.N. .

- 18

- - AMD -3.[ Letha Wopsock P.M.N.°

MJB _4.[ Louise A. Case P.M.N:

; [S. Melvin Reed P.M.N. “ 7 |

(6. Marguerite M. Hendricks P.M.N. (handwritten)) -

‘Deféndant United States of America designates: .

ees _» 1. Jpseph Arthur Workman . . viene

. sy 5 ‘ Leonard Richard Burson

4 v4 \, } re + 5% ot er at tt yg .

; - _ Defendants First Security. Bank, Gale and Haslem desig- -

nate:- | | | - Wak

oe Se ‘Oran F. Curry.

- * 25 Stewart Eugene Reed

» Defendant Murray watves=designatton. (designates: MJB

t . (handwritten correction) ] : is ee

AMD 1. \(illegible)

se MJB 2. Richard Henry Garry and Charles T. Reed B G Per 2

| ASC 7/25/67 MJB AMD, FRP MJB HRK (handwritten notations) } ,

“\ The initial trial proceedings, to the Court sitting |

without a jury, are to proceed with respect to the claims

of said eight twelve [MJB (handwritten)] plaintiffs. oe

(Reference is made to the "bellwether" procedure employed by

this Court in trial.of multiple-claim litigation in Ranchers.

Exploration § Development Company v. Anaconda, 248 Fed. Supp.

MOS (1965) .) J ONS. Sgseag es : |

| -*- The trial herein will prooceed initially to determina- .

tion of the claims of the e&ght twelve [HRK AMD MJB FRP (hand- —

written) ] designated plaintiffs. No party’ hereto shall, hoy-

ever, be limited or restricted in the proof of any fact, or

the introduction of any evidence relating to the entire sub-

ject/matter of this cause which may be material to the deter--

mination of the rights of the designated parties. -All. evidence+

adduced in the initial proceedings involving- the rights of the

designated parties shall be deemed admitted in ‘and part of any

——— proceedings herein involving disposition of the ;

claims of the remaining plaintiffs, provided, however, that — -

none of the parties shall be foreclosed. in any such subsequent

proceedings, from introducing additional or further evidence.

= . _ @ IV. Uncontroverted Facts

‘The following’ facts are established by admissions in.

the pleadings or=by stipulation of counsel subject to ruling

P ** ; -_ . : “\ Bote se

° ° . im F

' its Roosevelt office as Assistant Manager.

”

‘¢

‘by the Court at the time of trial as to their relevance or.

materiality: .. = ‘neg; (6. te

kh. o Ute Distribution Corpération was incorporated under a

the laws of the. State. of Utah and its corporate charter ssued

or or about, December 9, 1958, and said corporation is jlow and

_at all times’ since incorporation has been a corporat n validly °

existing under, the laws of the State of Utah,

ae ee ae all times pertinent to the Claims of plaintiffs

herein,” Lae rigs err be

(1) /Defendant First Security Bank of Utah, Pree

: Regd (a) Was a corporation organized under the .laws’ of the

United States; : oh ’ 7

ibution Corporation; ~~

1 agreement dated December 31, 1958; °

, 502] |

fs ; : visyes

“Tol (ay petd in-dts, main office in. Sqlt Lake City; ‘Utah ©

possession of the issued Ute Distribution Corporation. stock

certificates of ‘the plaintiffs prior to transfer thereof; ©

(e) maintained an office at Roosevelt, Utah.

(2) Defendant Gale was at all times pertinent to this

action employed by the First Security Bank of Utah at its . ;

Roosevelt office as AssiStant Manager. »

(3) Defendant Haslem was’ at all times_pertinent to

eo;

GC.‘ Bach of the designated plaintiffs was, prior to -

) enactment of Public Law 671, adopted by the. 83rd Congress on

. Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah. — . oo

“August 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 868, 25 U.S.C. 677, et seq.) a

| member of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Yintah ‘and (Ouray Reserva-

tion, Wighs 77 85470) 1%, pe? this) a pene ar

>) was transfer ‘agent of and for the capital stock of ©

this action_employed by the First Security Bank of Utah at .

a ° ’ , ‘

"Dp. By reason of the enactment and implementation oe

‘public Law 671, each of the ‘designated plaintiffs was a so~-

720 .

called "mixed-blood" member of the Ute Indian Tribe of the ~» |

S ’ e a; e . cf . ‘ “4 . ¢ , P ’

Lr ae ‘Bach. of the designated cndaninn was ‘Aiapued 40°

shares of capital stock of Ute Distribution Corporation:

F, Coftatn shares of the. capital inaale of Ute Dis-

tribution Corporation, théretofore owned by each of. the. desig-

mated plaintiffs were transferred on the’ transfer records of

Ute Distribution Corporation by defendant Fitst Security Bank

- prior to August 27, 1964. a 1be és

nae G. The Articles of re of. Ute Distribution ee

% Corporation were approved by ow United States prior to: their |

adoption. ee Aaee

’

| {503} |

Vv. prea Issues of Fact and Mixed .

- Questions Of Fdct. And Law.

ee The contested issues of” fact or ‘mixed spies itons of

fact and ‘law _Temaiming _ decision are:

(1) ‘Dida defendents., ‘First Secewity. Bank, Gale, Has-

lem and. Murray, or each or any of them; directly or indirectly,

‘,. by the use: of: any means or instrumentality of interstate. com-

merce or 9f the mails, in connection with the purchase. or

sale of shares of capital stock of Ute. Distribution Capes

- a to 5.5.3 ee. ue sues,

(a) Employ any . device, scheme or. artifice to > defraud Op

"es plaintiffs; or eae Leck ie

_(b) Make. any untrue statement of a material fact or.

omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the

Statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which ”

they were made, not misléading to the: ehalgeitane or ;

‘(c) Engage in any act, practice or course of bps iness

‘ which operated or igre operate as a fraud or deceit upon the

viskaeneens OF i :

»(d)_ ‘Use’ or employ any manipulative or: deceptive’ device

or contrivance upon the platatifts; ‘or te

' “(e) Aid or abet eock other or any other person in

' violating any provi; ion of Section 10 of the Securities and

Exchangé; Act _ ‘of (193470 e -10b-57, war a.

’ : af

e “OF lf 50; ‘what. 5 aucune if any were sustained by

plaintiffs by reason thereof? ae be j

ee (3) Did: defendants First Security Bank and United

States of America, or each or either of them, oWe any duty

to plaintiffs herein to protect or safeguard them with re- °

spect to the consideration paid or given for theif stock -

7 : "age Fi ict

“8 [504] ae . . . : . ° ew.

(a). By reason of Public Law 6717 irr potan ee ay

(b) By reason of contract?

a2 ee = ae BE BETES

Ss (c) By reason of "holding out" or assuming to act in

- “Qheir behalf? = 1. as bo tes oS | |

: (4) If so, did these defendants, or either of them,

: breach such ;duty?_ ‘ Make ie 4

c \ LAGS) If so, was such breach.a proximate cause of the . q

- Jess, if any, suffered by the designated plaintiffs? q

Le B- % - (6) \If so, what. damages, if-any, were sustained by.

: @ plaintiffs by. reason thereof? ~— | aia hey \ :

| 3 ~ \ : aa ; ” : : ’ : x {

ee (7) T£ damages were sustained by the plaintiffs, or

any of then, were said plaintiffs, or any of them, con-

‘tributorily negligent, and jf so, does such negligence bar .

yecovery? 000 Se a: :

: / ~ ; . 5 .

NB. (8) Were the claims of any of said plaintiffs went a

bythe statute of limitations? ‘an

ba (9) -Were the employees of the defendants First Se-

‘curity B of Utah: and United Statés of America acting ,

within the Scope of their employment in connection with the’,

| acts or omissions complained of by the plaintiffs?

2 ee eel EN

5.10) / [Ef allowab¥e<MJB HRK AMD FRP (Handwritten) ]

- What is a’reasonable attorneys! “fee to be. awarded plaintiffs

for the use and beriefit of their legal. counsel? a Cen

andwritten))

[Initials illegible) [11. Does the claim of each ..

‘plaintiff as to Count 2 exceed $10,000 exclusive ot interest

and costs. MJB HRK AMD. FRP (Handwritten)] ASC 7/12/67 ©

. “ ‘ , % é : ¢ ie

oe ae ane: eee “VI. “Contested Issues Of Law

The contested issues of law, in addition to those .

implicit in the foregoing Contested Issues of Fact and Mixed -

courier of Fact and. Law are: rare

'Q). Did defindants Pirst Security Sank lind United tet Nike.

States America, or each or either of them, owe any duty

_ to the Plaintiffs to protect or safeguard them with RESEOCE

- to the consideration paid- or given for. their stock .

(a a): By reason of Public Law 671? | Ne

.. {(a-) Did public Law 671 and its. authorizéd (word ?

illegible) ‘end the (word illegible) relationship: between’

the plaintiffs and the: Gove nt?. MJB HRK AMD FRP (Hand-

wet Stns’: : 4 e Pee

(b) w Hicks reser of contract? - . ?

. (c) By reason of . "holding out" or assuming | to act

in their behalf? ;

*€2) Were plaintifés, or any of ‘thea, sui juris in”

relation to the issue of contributory negligence with respect

to the purchase, sale or transfer 8f their shares of capital .

stock of Ute ee worponesi ay prsor to August 27,"

19647.

‘(3 Is the: award of akiaees fees allowable iv an

action based on violation of Section 10b of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5, or under the Utah Seeuri- .

ties. “—" > .

(4) Are. the plaintiffs aaticied: to have the transfers

involved declared null and void? ... . -

; (S) What: legal effect, if any, is attribetebic to the

approval ‘by the Secretary ‘of Interior of the Articles of In- —

_ ae of the Ute Fis tests aps Corporation? ; spe

(6) ‘Do the acts or. sateniens: relied on by the plain- |

tiffs for recovery ainst defendant United States of America

fall within the purviéW of the discretionary function excep-

tion of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth ain 28 U. S.C.

2680a? hig .

iia fea (7) Are. the Fe ey of the plaintifé Pe Sn acts

or omissions of agénts or employees of t “United States of “© |.

‘

4 ‘

23°

- America exercising due care in the execution of the statutes

, and regulations of the United States? .

.(8)° Are the claims of the plaintiffs barred by the |

’'-exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act set forth in 28

U.S.C. 2680h? tt; ee ad sae .

(9) \Did the proclamation of the Secretary of In-

terior as published in the Federal Register on August 27,

1961, terminate the federal trust relationship existing 7 3

petween the defendant.United States of America and the.

plaintiffs? ; Sa a ~~

(10) ‘If it- is determined by the Court there was no

‘violation of the Securitigs and Exchange Act in connection

with the sale ofsthe plaintiffs' stock, does that eliminate ©

any negligence and, therefore, liability on the part of the

-defendant United States of America? |. te '

(11) Have plaintiffs failed to join Certain indis-.

pensable parties to this action, to-wit: the present owners .

of the stock? | \

(12) --Are-the-plaintiffs-entitied-te-recever-at- ” |

torneys!-fees-against- the-defendant -United-States-of-America

under-the-Federai-Tort-Ciaims-Act? ;

"112 Aside from jurisdictional foundations of Count

2 as founded on the SEC Act, (words illegible) do the allega-

tions of Count 2 as amended state a jurisdictionally (word ;

‘ illegible) federal claim arising under Public Law 671 (25 USC

677). | i he 3

{12A-. Does Count 2 as amended present a federal ques-

* tion for jurisdiction purposes (imitials illegible) 7/12/67

MJB FRP HRK AMD: MJB HRK) ] : 3 |

s VII. Exhibits y-

a The ._parties were directed to identify for opposing

counsel all exhibits which they intend to offer at the trial

and to cause such exhibits to be filed with and marked by the —

Clerk of the-Court on or before ten’days prior to date of

‘ trial. If the respective parties desire to interpose objec-°,

tions' to any of said° exhibits one any. ground except materiality

or relevancy, such objections must be made gts B served |

upon counsel: and filed with the Court:on or before five days -

prior to date of trial. : ak -

_ 24

9c SROs Gag h ne Malin din tps» tei bre PAe ES

“they pi propose to call at least 10 days prior to the time of

‘trial, in accordance with the Court's. usual P/T form.

on file in this matter may be made without.the approval of —

the Court made in the manifest interests of justice\

Sn nares a et wun Saas Secbtt sae

. order of the Court * prevent manifest. ‘injustice.

- peared. Reasonable opportunity has been’ afforded counsel

Hereafter, this Order will a th

4°

Exhibits ‘sO marked, together with all depositions :

which have been filed in this matter, including all exhibits

attached thereto may be withdrawn upon receipt by counsel of

record, to be ‘returned to the office of the Clerk Withis - a

reasonable period of time. .

“[VIT- -A

Parties shall give .& serve notice of the witnesses

Agreed to by parties ASC 7/12/67 AMD MJB FRP HRK (Handwritten

insertion)] |

vitt. Amendment's To -Pleadings

No further amendgients to the respective pleadings |

1+ « Discovery ,

_\ . . .

_ The’ parties may continue reasonable discovery, pro-

viding that the continuation of the-discovefy process shall

not cause a change in the trial setting or a delay in the

trial of this matter. -

. — X. Other Matters:

The inclusions of any document or fact in Paragraph

IV of this Pretrial Order designated "Uncontroverted Facts" -

shall not foreclose either party from. offering such documents

or evidence of such facts. at trial and’ supplemental or ex-

planatory. documents, provided that evidence clearly. repugnant

and inconsistent with any. statement set forth thereat may not

be offered unless the offering party is relieved of said \

stipulation upon consent of ‘the parties and the Court or -

°o

» a

XI. Modi theatiens - | Interpretations

This Pretrial Order has been tormulated after confer-

ence at which counsel for. the respective parties have’ ap-

for corrections or additions prior t signing by the Court.

course of the trial

_ , . | oe . : . 37

~~ . «

™~ :

and may not en amended except: by consent of the vitiias and

the Court or by order of the Court to prevent manifest in-

justice. The pleadings will be deemed mefged herein. In™

the event of ambiguity in any provisions of this Order, |

reference may be made to-.the record of this conference to the

extent. reported by: stenographic notes and to the pleadings.

, [508]

an)

XII. ‘Trial Setting 2 c * ,

Initial trial proceedings inttax to the claims of

the designated representative parties, as provided in. Para-

graph III hereinabove, shall commence on [Oct 3, 1967 at.

10 AM MJB FRP_ HRK (handwritten) ] to the Court sitting

without a jury. Estimated time of trial of said issues is

‘four days. Counsel for the parties, after Serene i ad-

.. vise ,the Court that settlement possibilities appesr, un-

; favorable. . ; ,

be 76

Made and entered this 12 isy of July, 1967.

| ‘By The Court:

> , A. Sherman Christenson

United States District

Judge ,

_ [509] os

The foregoing proposed prstriis order - is mere’?

approved this, 12 a of July, 1967.

Adam M. Duncan by P.M.N.

_ Attorney for Plaintiffs

+ = Marvin J. Bertoch

: Attorney for Defendants.

First Security Bank of Utah

John a. Gale and Verl Haslem

_ H. Ralph ‘Klemm

§ Assistant United States Attorney

Ford R. Paulson

‘Biled July 12, 1967 |

~[S10}

ie Saal RAN ERE: ER at Ee ee

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN REYOS

LETHA HARRIS WOPSOCK called as it ea in her own

behalf, being first duly Sworn, testifie as follows:

».

“* *

, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR: NIELSON

-Q. Mrs. Wopsock, will you state your nane, please. A;

Letha Harris Wopsock. _

Q. Could I get you. to talk to where I. am over here.

Where do you. reside, Mrs.. _Wopsock? A. . Whiterocks, Utah.

Q. Was your .name. “published on the mixed- blood. rolls of.

-. the Uintah Indian Tribe of t tg. Uintah a and Ouray ‘Indian reserva-

ete es

£@

‘tion? A. Yes, sir. |

Q. What*degree of Indian blood do you have, Mrs. Wop-

sock? A. Three- fourths. ; . ; 4 < x . ;

2 ,

Q. . Three: fourths Indian?. A. Yes, sir, :

Q. Is that all Ute. blood? A. Ute blood,. yes, sir.

Q. Three-fourths Ute.. Mrs. Wopsock, did you receive

_ten shares of stock in’ ‘the Ute oeateiwaree Corporation? A.

- Yes, sir, I did.

; . : “ “

Q. . And that was. pursuant to the Termination per ae

termination--the termination procedure which started in 1954; oP aee

is that correct? A. Yes, sir. a

“Q. When you received that stock, Mrs. Wépsock, ‘how

" were you notified that. you had ten shares of stock in this

corporation?: A. .I wasn't. They just--I just heard that Just

from others. They' ve. had’ snipe ink but I never aid, go to any

of the meetings.

Q. . Well, did you get a. stock certificate in the mail?

AL. No, ‘sir, I didn’ t.

Q.. Did yo@? get. some. sort of a letter telling you that

you had ten shares of stock? A. No, sir, I didn't. .

Q. Then you dust — it by Tumor , is that weent! A. - ¥

Yes,-sir. = : yo

. m\\ a ; .

Q.\ (By.Mr. Nielson) How many shares. of stock did you

have in this corporation? A. .My own, or inherited?

Q. \Well, all of them that you owned at any ‘times A. \

Well, I, ‘let me see, I have ten. of my own, and I received. five

— my mother. ‘ .

-Q. So\that's a total. of. fifteen shares? “A. ‘Yes, oe

Q. When did you sell your first shares--well, let m

withdr@w that question. and put it this way, Mrs. Wopsock. Did

you at some time ‘after you. became aware that you had shares. in

this corporation cause the shares to be noticed for sale with

, the tribe out at Fort Duchesne? A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q.. You: didn't?..A.’ No, I didn't...

Q. Mrs. Wopsock, I'm going to show- _you: some documents

‘which are compiled in an exhibit which is numbered -3A and which

purport to be all of the pertinent. copies of all of the. pertin-

‘ent documents relative: to your shares. I'11.show you, first of

all, a copy ofa stock certificate bearing No. 467 for ten

shares, and the stock here has vour name on it. Have you ever

seen that stock certificate before? - ote 7 Z

. a (14) . : So wae

A. I don't remember. I don't think I did. ® =

~Q. You don't think you did? A. 1 can't reneaper:

: x «* x * *

, Q.- (By. Mr. Nielson) Now, Mrs. Wopsock, the ses docu-

ment in this file is--let me refer, first of all, befor@ turn-

ing from the stock certificate, at-the bottom of the. stock

certificate there is some printing tinder the words "Warning,"

Have you ever seen that printing before, Mrs. ‘Wopsock? A.

No, sir. :

Q. .If I may direct your attention to the spinon :

certificate which has now been received in evidence, you'll’

[15] : "2 ;

. note that the warning is printed in red? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you ever seen that at all? A. No, sir. |

i Has anyone: ever read that to you? A. No, sir.

Q. Turning to the next document, there is a document

in the file entitiMi, "Offer to Sell," and it's dated September

3, 1963, and it purports* to bear your a Is that your

signature? ‘A. . Yes, sir.

| Q. I'll ask you, Mrs. Wopsock, if you can recall, to

describe for me the circumstances under which you signed that

- offer to sell. It's dated’ September 3, 1963. It has your

signature and the words, "Whiterocks, Utah, " uaer the signa-

ture. A. I don't ‘know.

. - THE COURT: Pardon ‘me. You'11 have to speak louder.

_: What did you ‘say? Re, ae SC 7

A. I want to ‘know if this was' the first one I sold was to

Clyde Murray.

Q. (By Mr. Nielson) “Well, was ‘your sale to Clyde

“Murray sometime after September 3 of 1963? A. I sold to him

around about. the first of August.,

. 4 P * oe: *% © ’ ak

Q.° About the first. of August? <A. ‘Yes, sir.

Q. %&In 1963?* A. Yes, sir. .

..Q. All right. But do you remember signing this docu-

ment entitled, “Offer to Sell"? A. -I remember signing it.

Q. All right. Will you tell me how you came to ‘sign. .

that document? A. ‘This is offering to sell?

.Q. -Yes. A. Well, I went in to Mrs.. Logan.

ees | é ay

$ Q. You say Mrs. Logan. is that the. resity~ -officer at

the Uintah and Ouray; agency?. A. Yes, sir: Je erat

Q. All right. Go on. a, And» I ‘asked her how they —

done that. I said. I wanted to sell. And she told me that you

have to fill these forms out and then advertise. And:she asked

me how much I was going to advertise for, and I told her, well,

I didn't really know; that someone had told me all they could.

get $500 stock, for one stock. So I-thought that's what I'd

ae [17]

advertise for. ,

; Q. And so your offer to wend was for the ‘sum of $2, $007

A. Yes, sir.-.

Q. And that-was. for five whartet i. - Yes, Nee

Q. All.right. Now, had you talked to. anyone about

selling your shares before you went out there and signed that

offer? A. No, sir; I didn't.’ I didn't understand much about -

Ait. But I had talked to Clyde Murray on. it, ‘and he told me

that before, they had some papers. And then I filled’one out.

And then he satd, "No," he said, "my understanding is that you

have to advertise first." “So we tore that ‘up. And I filled

this. paper out to advertise.

Q. . Now, the next document in. your file, Mrs. Wopsock,

is a document entitled; *Notification,;" and it's dated November

4, 1963, and it's addressed to you at Whiterocks. Do. you, remen-

ber receiving that? A. Yes,‘sir, I do. . .

Q. And it has the letterhead of the United States

Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and

Ouray Agency. A. I remember. | °

Q. And -it was the original copy of that that you

Feceseee —— by Superintendent Zollar?

[18] ; |

A. Yes, sir.- j c

Q. And the’notification. advises you that ‘you may $e1l

' § shares for the sum of $2,500.no later. than. May 4, 1964. ‘Is:

that Gene ag A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now,. the next document, Mrs. Wopsock, is an affidav-

‘ it. It's a rather poor copy, but it's dated November 5 of 1963,

and it purports to bear. your signature. Is that: your ignature?

A. Yes, sir. 2

Q. Do you remember signing that document? A.

wes,

siz, :

Q. All right. ‘Will you. teal me on ciscunsth neces under

which you. signed that’ document? ‘A. Which one is thig?

Q. This is the affidavit: that “says that you got $2,500

paid by Clyde R. Murray, and it purports to be notarized by Mr.

John B. Gale. A. Well, on this I. was--t didn't receive any

Tee

cae

‘cash; But: we aaah & Car,. 80.we ‘traded: our other car in. on

this-one, this newer one. I was getting. And-* ’

Q. All right. .Now,. let. me. interrupt you ‘there, Mrs.

\..Wopsock. What kind of a car did. you have? A. My-GMC. pickup. -

EB Qs “A an ‘Pickup. truck?” He ree “ty 2E

- F

; re po)

A, Yes, sir. ;

- Q. . And what your was ‘it? A. It was ‘60.

Q.. A 19607 A. Yes,.sir.

Q. And you went to see Mr. Murray about getting a new

truck? A. Yes, ag A '62. ; _ ©€@ :

zs Q. A '62 Uh huh, |

Q. And mae vas. your reason for going to see Mr. tear'-

ray?) A. Well, we just wanted a new car, and that was the only

way ‘we had of getting. it. And I dlways dealt with him on GMC

truck, and we wanted to get another GMC pickup.

. ‘Q.. Do you remember what date that was, Mrs. Wopsock?

A. It was around about the first of August. —

Q. In 1963? A. Yes, sir. * 6

Q. And did sign some papers? A.. ‘a ekgned some

papers.

fie Q. And where were you when you signed the paperat AL

At the First. Security Bank.

Q. And is thay the Eras Security. Bank re Roosevelt?

A. ‘Yes, $ifts:

& Who did you see at ‘the First Security Bank in

‘va?

{291

a Réesevelt? | Mr. Jeha. B. Gale.

sire

Q. Is this affidavit that. I've. Misctes your- stieietes

to, one of the papers that you signed at that time? A. Yes,

G,: hows. I noted, Mts. ‘Wopsock,« that the affidavit is

- dated: Novenbor- § 5, 1963. Now, ‘are yeu. sure of the date when you

- signed that? A, ‘Yes, sir. That date isn't right there, be-.

cause I signed around, it was about the. first of. August when we

got the truck, and that! '$ when’ we made the deal.

Q. All right. . Now, is there any. particular reason whiy .

_ you can remember that. it was thesfirst of August? A. Well,

everyone was--the Indians, we all like-to go to Sun Dance. So

‘they Was Sun. Dance on. then,’ And we wanted to have a new car ‘and

, @ Camper ‘to take our fdmily to Sun-Dance.

Q. Is-the Sun Dance always held in August? A. Well,

we have two- Sun. sperepee i one in oeay and one in August.

a. Poet Ais Se Bate 5 en 5 sgh

. Heke: When -you. went el to ihe. Gale sie ea

signed Sate: paper. that I'm directing your attention, the affi-

davit, were all of the blanks f#lled 7 at that time? A. They _

. couldn't have been,-because this is the wrong date. —

ee arr

a =

| + oe SL 2 .

Q. All right. ‘Now, I'1] turn to the next document in =

the £ite, A i E a8 Secu eetis PAKS

ee ae ee eek Cue, # ; ‘Te %» *

v ae, ~ F es

/- Q. . (By. Mt. Nielson) _ While Mr Bertoch is + teokiide 5

the affidavit, Mrs. Wopsock, I'11 ask $ou to relate ferme any . 9

conversation which you had with Mr. Murray when. you went to. ‘ e

talk with him —— getting the new pickup seach," % He AY oe

sae : ee SO as a Neel, 5 :

Q. (By Mr. Nielson) All right. Mrs. Wopsock, do you . #-

remember. my question? A. Well, I.offered that stock to Mr. . e

Murray. I told him. I had advertised for $500. for one stock. /:-;, -—- :

| But he told me that was too much. He said, "I can't get more i

} «than $300." So I said, "Well, if that's. ‘all I'can get, that's .

+ .what I'll take.". That's what I got, $300.

. _Q. All right. Did you get $300 cash? A. ho, sir,

.. x” Q. Tell me what you aid get. A. Just got our truck, -

* pickup. truck and ay camper. © I. didn't receive no cash. ,. er

\ ¥ $ : . : f Fl

wees [23] ees ‘

yin SS

Q. hin 1 what did’ you give for this pickup truck and :

the camper? A. Do| you mean. the stock? » i:

a tee Qos Nerd, did: you-- A. The value?

«ES: ens BAe you | sive Mr. Murray anything besides. the *

stock? A. No, I give him-the stock, and then-we had a balance K, can

‘that--the’ camper. wes paid. off, -but we had a balance, to pay on eS

the truck. — : 5

QQ. You: ness ‘balance to Pay on the ‘truck? ms Yes,

sir.

Q. Of how much? Ac It was. $54 pls I believe it was

three years. ’

Q. I see. nd eo about your “old truck? Did you. Keep

the old truck? A. No. We turned it in, too.

Q. So then you gave Mr. Murray-5 shares of stock and

your old truck, and you got a new truck and. the camper and owed.

Mr. Murray $54 a month for [three years; is that right? A.

Yes, sir. We had--we paid /Yellow Manufacturing Company in —

Denver. That's where we sent our monthly payments. ;

31 | : 1. ’®

_~ a

she j ‘ “ks

. , Si piste ; ” a2 Powe; :

Q. All right. Turning back to’this affidavit. again, |

Mrs. Wopsock, when you went down to see Mr. Gale, was anyone

else with you? A. Just my husband and I and Mr. ‘Murray..

» 4 z [24]: , , ‘

: was that in the bank? . A. - Yes, sir:

Q. Did you have’ any conversation with Mr. Gale about -

‘this transaction? A. No, sir.’

. Q. Did Mr. Murray have any conversation with him while

you were present? “A. °No, sir. ( :

“\Q,. Was anything said at all by anyone? . A. No. Just

making the deal ‘for this--these. stocks. .

Qi Well, was. anything Said “about making the deal? A, -

_ We just tol him that we was letting him have it, but I don't

believe he me) oned the price that he was offering us--I mean,

that he was telling us he could give us. | .

Q.. All right. . t- down to Mr. Gale's office, _

| 7 ie Me.

Q:. Was anything said about the tr tk? A. He asked us’

' if we was getting a new truck, and we told Him yes.

Q. Anything else about the truck or the deal ot any-

thing at'all? A. No, sir. Big es A

Qi Gil Fight. Now, I'm going to turn to the next

document, and that's a document which purports to be a stock

signature? \ 2°

power, and it purports to bear your signature. Is that your

: ‘

A $56) -

A. Yes, sir.

A. We

- Sign."

Signing that document?

Goi Q. ‘And where were you when you signed that document? —

A.- The First Security Bank. ‘*. tates

August.

; Q. And it bears Mr. Gale's signature in the lower left-

hand corner. It Says\ "Signed, sealed, and delivered in the

presence of John B...G le, assistant manager." Do you remember

A. I guess I.do. ake 3°

‘Q. And was Mr, Gale there? . A. Yes, sir.

; . Q. Was the document. cOmplete when you signed it? A.

I don" t> remember. -$ . Le:

Q. Now, what. about the date on it? It says, "November _

5, 1963." “Is that the day when you signed it? A. Is this té

Mr. Gale? _ | | eed ae

-Q. No. ‘This is to Mr. Murray. A.. No,, I signed in

4% Q. I see. At the time you wére down there before Mr. -

Gale, did Mr. Gale have you. raise your hand and take an. oath?

A A No, .sir.

“1. What did he Say to you when you signed the paper? .

just signed it. Just told’ se that "Here is where you. |

{

sp: ae

qa:

| Q» Did he ask you to sign it?

ae a g 4 <i a

f * dat - he Yon Sg 045

hos , te ; eae yl OO gins pg ae

° a he, -

ke Just laid the paper there... It was a littie ite: 4 jane { ih

Q. .Now, the next document in the file, Mrs... Wop

: is entitled "Certificate," and it purports to be s ned,

Superintendent Zollar, and it says--I ‘ll read jte-. t says: x i “7

hereby certify that. on October 3, 1963, <5 shares of Steck.

the Ute Distribution Corporation owned by Letha Harris Wops.

MB 467, were offered fer sale to members of the Ute I:

Tribe for .an amount of $2,800, in accordance with law ‘and cone AWE

rer ions of the Secretary, as contained in the act of August

964,,°(68 Stat. 868) and 2S CFR, Part 243, and as further set.

forth in the Articles of Incorporation and on stock "certificate

No. 467;. further, that. there were no acceptances of said offe Mor ge

Dated November 8, 1963." And signed by: Superintendent Zollar

Have you ever ‘seen that document befere? A. Yes,. sir.

ee ee ais

- ® Q. You: have seen that? A. Not that one. I've seen.

one like it. | TOME OS Ue Tae A Be fod: Oe: oo

:Q. You haven't seen that’ particular one, though? : A.

Ne, sir. .

ee Q. And the next document in the file purports to be a

letter from Superintendent Zollay transmitting’ your stock

certificate and others to First Security: ra Have ‘you oper

seen that letter? A. Ne, sir.

Q. All. right. I'm. going to. turn now to. the next docu-.

ment in your file, which is another stock certificate for 5

shares. It bears No. 509, and it’s made out to Letha. Harris

Wopsock. It: looks’ just like the other stock certificate,

doesn't it, except that it was for 5 shares? A. Uh huh.

Q... And it was 5S shares that you ‘had left now after

you. had made this sale to Mr. Murray, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir.

Q: The next document in your file is an offer to sell,

and it looks pretty much like the other oné that we referred

to. It says for 5-shares, $3,500, dated December 16, 1963. Is.

that your signature? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the next document is an ovisines notification

' from Superintendent Zollar. Did rea receive thee in the mail?.

ae . eae 98 ‘ : oer ,

oh eee ee oe

Yes, sir. eek we ; ,

Gs" 28 tells, you that you can seil five shares: for

$3,500: before: August 6 of 1964; is. that correct? A. Uh huh.

Tome

a <4 +

ioe & “ ys tt

oF - PP re ig:

| ‘whet ra ‘So. ~ Rag agreed to ate me the #5 See:

MAES.

‘eo

Ali « Now, af ér. you teceiv d. that nitice from

: @id you /undertake to tak to anyone about

stock? an auty one I talked to was a Mr.

thet. / oe

talked ‘to Mr. Hoops? Ass Yen” -

yeu tell me the. ciycumstances undér which you

A. Well, I asked him if he wanted to

“Well, I "t have too much money to buy."

= you want . it?" And-J told him what I had Bis

+ Amd at ime I owed. co a:bill for grocer- __

map ciothing | ‘had 38 for my children, | because my -

Fa Let we interrupt you there. What business is Mr.

.- 4 a. We owms Whiterocks Trading Post there at. White -

Q. You owed hin ‘some peney for groceries and cloth-

img’ A, ~~. va. Z

Q. ae fe ‘on with your. conversation? | A. And “I

tone hia -if “¥ bought t, I could clear my: bill | ls :

| .

att ey he ‘[29)

4 shares did you sell fim? . A, ‘Five. —

Q. - five shares? A. Yes, sir: . .

Qs. ree Bandi to show you in your file, Mrs. Wopsock, an

affidavit dated: the 18th of. February 1964, Letha Harris Wopsock. -

* It's an affidavit reciting you. received $1, 400 from James. W. —

.. Hoops for 2 shares. A. This--five of them ‘that .it is refer- .

ring to.is ‘just that one sale. And this was another - aie.

Q.| This was another sale? A. Yes, sir. eye

Q..: ‘ Do you Temember. ening. that. affidavit? A. Yes, .

.Q. It says. thet it. fds signed before Joseph A. Work-

many's @ notary. public? A. Yes, sir. .

Q.* Was that sommnent complete when you signed it? ‘..., ra

Yes, S8P4 2.\5 5

*Q, \Did you “receive $1,4007 A. Well, I'did, ia. cash,

-- but’ didn't take it. all ‘out ‘at. once," V uae: left it with him “

| and drew it but as.I needed it. :

Q.: In other worse, you got ‘credit a ties. As Store;

rhea MM

“i : oo | ee

Q. -->trading post, didn't mak. A. Yes, sir.

Q. . Did. you get any:money at.all? A. .Yes, sir; I. did.

Q. .How much money did you. get? A. Oh, I think I. th

“hag of that in cash.” |

i So oe of $1,4007 A. And the other. half. I: drew out

in sed store. ; —4

ee ‘ . - . -_

at : ’ , . PNR TILER OE AS ETN METI IEA PRT RI

. i eel ale il

£ letter. Have. cee fron Seen that? A. \Yes, sir.

Q.: I: see. Now, ’ ra show. you the next sacubeut -in your”

; se which is a stock power reciting that you. sell 2 shares.to |

James W. Hoops and Verne Hoops. Is. that your signature? A.-

Yes, sir. ot

~ 'Qé And it. says, "Signature. guaranteed by, hn. B. Gale."

- Did. you: go. before Mr. John B. Gale when you signed that? A.

Yes, sir.“ yi De

Q. Now, this is the sale“to Mr. Hoops. ‘Did you ea

‘down.to see Mr. Gale at. that time? - A. i, i signed this, but

I never was. in'the bank with Mr. Hoops and-- »

‘, Q. Whether you were in the bank with Mr. Hoops, did

you go down,and see Mr. Gale-- A. Uh. huh.

Q.. +-at. that, time? And then\the next document: isa.

certificate just ‘like the other one, from’ Superintendent .

Zollar; saying that yom had acini mags the. stock. - Have, you.

a (31) » | a ee ee

ever seen that before? A. Atm 1

Q. You've. seen this particular. one? .A. Not that one,

but one like if.

Q. Then the next document in'the file is a transmittal

Q; That*s from Mr. Zollar to First Security. Bank.

Have: you ever, seen*that letter? A. No, \I didn't.”

Q.. Now, let’ s turn to the next stock transaction. The

document in your. file * ‘is a stock certificate No. 628 for 3

‘shares. Now, that's the number of shares you had left over .

after you. sold 2 to Mr. Hoops, wasn't. it? A.. Yes, sir,

- Qs. Did yousever see that. stock certificate? A. No,

I didn't.

Q. The next ‘document in the file is a sak see us

dated August 28, 1964, to James W. Hoops and Verna Hoops,

signed, it Says here in the lower left-hand Corner, "Signature

guaranteed, First Security. Bank of Utah, Roosevelt: Office,

John B. Gale." ‘Is that your signature? A. Yes, sir.

pox ' Q . Did you sell bg shares to James W. Hoops and Verna

Hoops?. .- ae. Tey

cape Meee. 7. (32)

«MR. BERTOCH: Now, just. a minute. May I ask a\couple

of questions ‘on voir dire that might clear up some. confusion?

These last 5 shares we're talking about, Mrs. Wopsock, were ~

they stock of your owr, or were they stock of your: father's of

which: you were guardian or the administrator or something? — Do

you recall? . ae

tad.

3 ‘THE WITNESS: No, sir. I-only sold one stock that was”

‘my father's. He sold’his other share. ’- }

MR. BERTOCH: So these shares of stock which you're (

tadking about' now sold on ‘August 28 were your own shares of

stock, is that correct?

_ THE WITNESS: » Yes, sir.

MR. BERTOCH: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this.

time to any evidence with respect to any sales made after. ;

August 27, 1964. This is a.serious problem in the. lawsuit of

Serious concern to everyone, and I think we might as well try

to dispose of the problem. at this time. As I understand it,

clearly from the complaint, ‘professions of the complaint and _

the indications in the pretrial order, this is a lawsuit asking

for damages in connection with the sale of stock prior to

August 27, 1964. .I call the Court's attention to the complaint,

which is, of course, urged in the pretrial order. Merging § ©

‘doesn't do away with the obvious professions of the complaint.

I call the Court's attention first to the prayer of. the com-

plaint, your Honor. ™ 3 4 _ =.

[33]

MR.- KLEYM: Would this: be the third amended complaint?

MR. BERTOCH: The third amended. complaint. °I'11 wait

until you find it, Mr. Nielson. he

“ (Argument by counsel, Discussion. }

THE. COURT: \The fair intentndnt of the complaint really

.does’ seem to be to Limit the glaim to stock sold before the. .

27th, and the pretriai\order isn't so:limited. 1 don't think

the problem was discussed at the time of the pretrial order; as

far ag the Court was concerned-- es XQ:

MR. NIELSON: Your Honor, if I may address myse

that particular point--

THF COURT: ‘Just a miriute, Mr. Nielson. Paragraph 11 -

of the pretrial order says that: "In the event of ambiguity | oO

in. any of the provisions of this order, reference may be made

to the record of this confergnce to the extent reported by

stenographic notes, and to the pleadings." At this time the °

objection to the testimony will be overruled. .Whether this.

transaction was after the date of--what is the-- —

36.

. = erent me tata ye . Le * - -

. - PRR TIRES one LAIR TETE Sy) UR OCIS RNAI ay 7

PEEP BIER I OL OR AINE TOES RC ° : 2

“any of. the dotendiste’} It may be. relevent and material. for:

MR. BERTOCH: August 27, 1964. .

THE “COURT :. --August 27 should: be deemed part of: the

proceeding or not, I think rir reserve and receive the evidence

| for what light, if any, it. may throw ‘upon the state of mind of

the Plaintiff Wopseck. or in the state. of

a, 8M

that- purpose. -It does “dccur to me that unless the defendants

can show some prejudice, it would .be unfortunate,” and’ the Court.

would be reluctant to LiMsE ATS particular plaintiff's claim,

for instance, where she's already Were in Ceurt and sold stock

before and after, to an arbitrary date. If I have the power

fairly to do it, I. would certainly be inclined to try it.’* Now,

how many more cases such as this? You say there are very few?

MR. NIELSON: Let me say this to clarify the situation,

your Honor. Now, Mr. Bertoch's objection was raised at the

point where we referred to the document dated August », 1964..

Now, our evidence will show that.in many cases, and in ffact

possibly even most cases, the actual transaction was t on =

daté that the documents bear, and I think your Honor has already

seen that with respect to this. withess's, testimony thus far.

And. so we would take the position that many of these ‘transac-

‘tions which on. the face of them appear to be. after the termina-

.tion date were in fact before that date. And beyond ‘that, it's ©

hard for mo--we have ninety plaintiffs in this’ case, your Honor,

and I can't just’ recall how many there are that were: after the

termination date; but it is a a

{35]

substantial number of sales, of transactions. All of the ones

‘in the Left Hand case, and-that's fifteen plaintiffs. ope

_ THE COURT: Well,: the Left Hand case, has that been a

separate claim? ~~ : Nery

MR. NIELSON: -It's ‘bowie consolidated with ‘this case

for the purpose of taking. trial and taking. evidence, which is

deemed to apply to the Lefthand case, as well as pursuant ta

the Court's direction... We don't have any of the Left Hand

_ plaintiffs here to testify, but-- s

_. THE COURT: Well, “let's study the pieodingss.: 1 don't

see why ‘that pleading was drawn so rigidly as tied to that

date, if your claim was beyond that. Theremay be something.

else _— we maven t--

Gout . MR..NIELSON: Well, it's because of - ‘the ‘situation with

, the United States; your Honor - that we have tied that date into

. , the pleadings,. because we made no claim apeiast the United -

J " States after that date.

THE COURT: _I appreciate that. But: it's integrated °

‘with all of the allegations, an’ particularly those with regard

to the bank, in which it first appears; and the enumeration of

stock refers specifically to stock acquired, before that date,

rather clearly implying, if not alleging, that that was what the

suit was about. Well, let's study . the matter.

(36) a

(Furthd+ argument and discussion. )

_ MR, KLEMM: Por the purposes of the record, I'd like to

inform the Court that plaintiffs' counsel have agreed that ‘they

would seek no damages for any sales made after ‘August 27; 1964,’

as against the. Governhent; and I think Mr. Nielson has stated

that Cues ‘in his argument.

“ THE COURT: Yes.

— MR. KLEMM: And we would just want the Court to have

that in mind. - 7 ie re 2

THE COURT: When was that understanding reached?

MR. NIELSON: . Well--

THE COURT :: I'm addressing counsel.

MR. KLEMM: . This understanding was reached I think

basically within the last two weeks. We had eiatuenet this

throughout the. case. However, we had never-- he

THE COURT: What do ye mean, discussed: it throughout

. the case? .

° MR. KLEMM: We discussed ‘the fact ties there are two

possible. termination dates in which the responsibility of the

Government: would end: . August 27’, 1966,°and.August 27, 1964;

but basically, in no way could the Government be ‘esponsible

for iad sales after the second date: ” ;

hg SS THE COURT : By ‘reason of ‘the restoration gr--

° sta MR. KLEMM: By reason of the terms of the ‘statute.

Fe | . | - .

discussed the matter ful¥y and. ngtees that. this would ‘be the

case, Isn't that correct? } |

PN ne Tia, ee Oe Cee a

mee

’

ele airs ciit

a - j

Poi faite ab ie Sid RAY er es acrdensteriae want)

Rah EAE ae Tal PG e ie tele DEN git Hak Ble eh

THE COURT: I see. .

yd te ' ’

anes © 1/5 ae ee

"8. Pee ta Or

; MR. EM: ‘Public Law. 671. And. we. had never come to.

any formal agreement. wever, within the last two weeks we

~ MR. DUNCAN: - We only’ add one. proviso to that. «Mr.

Nielson suggested this.. There were a number .of sales that.

were in fact. on the records that will be introduced dated after

‘August 27, in which the consideration and the instruments: and

so on were finalized before that date. So we don't mean the

“stipulation to bind us to the transfer date, necessarily, but —

the. date’the transactions of which we complain in fact were

placed. There were. several purchases made before when money —

was paid down to certain of the plaintiffs and the stock was -

‘actually: transferred after — 27; and we say borg Government

was liable for those. -..

MR. KL EMM: I think we can argue that particular point

at a later time, because we. argue that we jwould' not be respon-

sible for any sales:where no offer of sale’was made to the

tribe, because we would have no notice of such, sales. But I.

think that we could argue ata later time. Pas

MR. NIELSON: Mr. Klemm Mic beoenie: up the other ua

fication I wanted to make. We claim where an offer to sedl was

in, fact made before termination date, there is a stipulated

period. ‘What was it?. Sixty days? In which the

{38}

sale can be made after an offer--. =

MR. KLEMM: Six ‘months,

_ MR. NIELSON: .Six months. So if the offer was in fact.

made to the superintendent before the termination date, we

would take the position that there would be a residual. "duty :

which would. carry on for a short period of. time. after actual

termination as. to that sale only, because of the offer having

been made preee to Augus 4 27, (1964.

_ state for the record this, is. shi: 25

this case that Mr. .Nielsan. has il

in' t. believe that’ s part of the .

}

MR, KLEMM: I mig

first: time since I've beén

ever raised that. issue. Id

—— , -

MR. NIELSON:° i'm not ‘sure we have, any ‘such chse. I. .

_ just make that remark. Where’ the Governinent fakes some action

prior to August’ 27,-we' take the position. that. they might also

incur some liability; but we'll have to wait and.see where the

evidence takes us on that. . | wid :

THE COURT: From what I understand, your stipulation

or agreement is that any sale effected after August.27, 1964,

would not involve liability on the part of the Government,

leaving for determination the question of what should be

_Tegarded as the operative fatts concerning the sale.

MR. ‘NIELSON: Yes. - .

THE COURT: - And your Stipulation doesn't go to

| ay 139).

that. And the Court would have to make ‘that determin&tion in,

view of the law. Ahd this other matter that you last mentioned,

I assume you've had: no Specific understanding on that..

€ Pe « e

- MR. NEELSON: No.

. q =

THE COURT: And we would just have to meet that when

we come to it. Now, with regard to. this. other matter, I'm

going to study the record and the Pleadings a little further.

I'm inclined to think that if there is any limitation in the ©

pretrial order with regard to the issues as between the other.

'defendants and- the plaintiff, I should give- serious. considera-

tion to permitting an amendment. It doesn"t_look to me like an

amendment is’ necessary. to the pretrial order. And if some

- formal amendment to the pleadings is necessary in the ‘interest - ;

of justice, I won't rule that out, although pleadings are merged

in the pretrial order. 1 don't think we should fragment these -

matters, particularly. since the reserved issues ‘between other

plaintiffs and the defendants, including, I Suppose, this last |

filed case where admittedly the transactions, I understand, —

'. arose after that date, will still be before me for considera-

tion, and considering the fact thatthe intent of alI counsel,

as I understand it, would be to get Taear a

(40)

- Tepresentative cases covering all spectrums of the Case, I

should fragment particularly this claim of the plaintiff, this

particular plaintiff. | don't intend to proceed on that ~

_ assumption. I give notice now. that \f amendments are necéssary

to carry out the Court's idea just now expressed in the interest |

° pee Ae 7," \ a” . ge

; Pan : .

. { 0 .

- ; j ‘ . * , . .

® ; *. , . & .

« 7 Pe ON NS TEAS BIDE ER

bai a

5 atta eas - — . . . ‘

eet Ske ee ee)

interest of justice. ‘Proceed. aK

Q. (By Mr. Nisisen) Soe; aes Wopseck, I was. just

4ivecting your attention to. the stock power dated August 28,

the beliweather

ait

~—

1964, and ‘which recites that you were selling the stock to

James. W. Hoops and Verna Hoops. Do you recall that transaction?

A. Yes, sir.

Somewhere ‘around the 14th of July.

he said yes,. he would.

Yes. |

sir.

Q. 14th of July? A. Yes, sir.

Q.. Of what year? A. ‘64.

Q.° Could’ you tell me how you came. to see Mr. Hoops

about. that, particular stock? A. Well, they was hav#hg a,

going back te the Sun Dance again, and I was asked by-a Sun

Dance chief if I would have the Sun Dance stand, the. concession.

And I had to have money to. pay the Sun Dance chief for that. -

So I talked to Mr. Hoops on it, if he would pay that one.

The. day is

- Yes, sir.

of justice, and they can be made ‘and proceudings conducted with-.

out prejudice to any party, I certainly am not going to.apply an .

overly restrictive. view of tiie proceedings, which I think would

defeat the common standings. with regard to :

-claims, according to my notion, anyway, and not be in the

Q. All right. Would you tell me when it occurred? -A.

Q. Doe you recall signing. that document (showing)? A.

Q: At the time you ‘signed that. document, was. “ig com-

plete? Was alt the-writing in the blanks? A.

wrong, because. it was in. July 14. -—

-Q. I. see. Did you go to see Mr. Gaie when you signed

that? A.- It was.in. the bank when I signed that. :

* Q. I see. Did yo see Mr. Gale? A.

Q. - Did ‘he “have you raise your: hand ant ‘oe: A.

“

% .

Q. All right.. Now, that takes care of 10 shares, if 1

recall, Mrs.. Wopsock. -I‘11 turn te the next document in your

file; which. is a Certificate No. 556 for S shares’ made out to.

Letha: Harris Wopsock. -Have you ever. seen that certificate’ °

before? :

- oe [44]

A. Ne, sir.

Q... Could you tell. me- how: you came to ants aaee 5

shares of stock -in this. corporation?. A..

mother, Annie Pike Harris.

Q. When did Annie Pike Harris. diet Bes

‘ a" |

N 2 toe 41

Reet eer sn accrues mrage naan: PERSO RRS OORT ES

. ‘

: inherited fren ay

I don't remen-

er ereeerotam

se hae

And é

Ket

o°

ber. sus EAs ae ay are |

: Q> Do. you remember approximately? A. No, ‘sir, I don't.

Q. Well, let’s turn to the next document, which is a .

document entitled, "Assignment," dated--well, it's undated. .Let

me ask you this. Mrs. Wopsock, did your mother die before or

after August 27, 1964, do you recall? A. Before... .. *

“Q. %It was before? A. Yes, ''sir. |

Q. Did-you sell gny of those shares of.stock before 7

August 27, 1964, the ones’ you inherited? A. Yes, %ir.

ae Q. When did you-sell them? A. That was in July.

Q: July-- A. I ‘sold one in November. ,

- _ ,Q. ‘One in November. So that would have been August

27? . Ay: hbtee,. ar a

Q. Yes. And who did you sell those to? ch

(43)

MR. BERTOCH: Your Honor, may I have continuing objec- °

tions to any evidence with respect. to transfers after August

27, 19647 | : ’ : : 2 Le

¢ >

_ THE COURT: You may. The objection is overruled.

Mm PAULSON: For the record, your Honor, we join in

that objection. . °

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

Q. . Gye. Nielson) I just asked you, Mrs. Wopsock,

whe you. sold the shares to in November of 1964. A. Mr. Gale.

Q. Mr. John B. Gale? A. Yes,:sir. Se eee?

Q. The defendaneg A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is hein the room here today? A. . Yes, sir. glee

ies _Q. Would you point him out for me? A. He is sitting

_ right back there.. says ‘

: _ .Q. Is that-ghe man with the glasses and has a piece of -

paper in his hand? A. Yes, sir. ~ ti og pei <i .

‘THE: COURT: I assume there is no question about identif-.

ication, — hs a3 eee: a eae

Q- (By Mr. Nielson) Wij1.you describe for me the cir-.

cumstances under which you went to see Mr. Gale about :

<r e lenis

your, steck? A, -Well, at that. time there wasn't. hardly anyone

buying, and I was told the rumor that he was buying. So I went

and talked: to him and-- i ee

pe J Q. Now, whére did you talk. to him? A. In the bank.

;

‘

o™

;

+ 4

CVE ERAN Ce PENNE ERT PIR HOT TRG Sh Poor veto py 4

ESS,

- sen pier ey tas isabel ”

- e

; : , : - } . ou -

'Q. That's the. First Security Bank in Roosevelt? A.

Yos ,° GAS: 5: 5 “aerrt;

~, Q.: All. right. Was anyone else present when you ‘talked

‘to him? A. No, sir.

Q. All right. , Will. you tell me what your conversation

' with hin ‘about stock was? A. Well, I asked him if. he was buy-

ing” stock, and he told mé that he. was buying. for. ‘Someone, but

he didn't. say who. -

- Q. All right. A. And all they were offering was $400

a “stock. And -I told him, well, if that's all I.coyld get for

my stock, well, that's what I’ : take, .because it was getting

close to Christmas, and I needed. some Christmas. money “for my

children. Besides, I needed to buy. some coal amd,.some food for:

my children at that time. So I told him I'd be back in. So °

next time I went back in-- °°

- Q. How long after this was it you went’ back? A.

‘About two or three mei afterwards, disit:

[45]. | : ms

. Q. Bid you ais snofher conversation with him then?

A. Yes, aft. --

~Q. Tell me about that. A.’ He told me thdt the man

» that he had been buying for wasn't buying any mére, he was

_ buying for himself. And he said that all‘he could give me was

$300. And I told him, "Well, you promised me $400." He said,

"Well," he said, "I-toid you the man I was: buying for isn't’

buying any more,-and I'm buying for. myself.! ". So I sat there

a little while dnd said, "Can't you give me $50 more?" And he

sit: there awhile, and he said, "Yes, Jt1 give 7 that much.

more." So he gave me $350. .

~Q. Did you complete that transaction there in the ‘bank?

A. He said: ."I. don't have any money here. We'll have to go up. .

’ to my house and get the money." So we went up there.with him,

my husband and I. And ‘he got his money, but we went back down

‘to the bank, and when we got back down tothe bank I asked him

‘if he ceuld just give me a little &t a time, because if I took ©

it all,:I kngw that I wouldn't save: enough to buy my kids'

stmas. So he said that: would be all right with him, that

I coyld come in and get it when J wanted. Ang! think I went

in and. got it ssnabid Nascaesre times. — e es,

ae ne | | [46]

oy Cn Mg ESM ‘Did Mr. Gale have you sign a paper that dayt

A, Yés, sir.

Q. Did he have- you saiee your hand and swear to it? ‘sie

No, sir. ~~ :

« id

_Q. I'1] shew you'a document in: your. file: entitled,

Assignment." That's: one we just referred to, and: it doesn't

have a date on it. Is that the document’ you signed that day?

_&- This is. my signature. =

..., -Q. When you signed: that document, were the blanks

filled in? A. .No, I don't know. This Johnson, there was

nothing up there. =~ ; aed 7 ae

. -Q.- You're referring to where it says you"hereby ae

_ assign and transfer ‘to Norval R. Johnson. and Fern Johnson,

_JTWRS, 3 shares."' Is. that what you're ‘referr hg to? A. Yes, .

gir, eM: ,

: gh ‘Q: Do you know anyone by the\name of Norval Johnsen

or Fetn Johnson? A. Ido not. — \ : Sn

ye _ Qe. Have you ever sold any stock to anyone by that .

- name? A. No, sir. 4 nat Cas ee . 52; ,

et Q. All right. -So going back to my original question, |

was that form filled out when you signed it? A. No, sir.

he os [47] sa ta FES )

l eo ee : hs

. | Q.. All right. Now, that's for 3 shares. So that ;

uld leave you with 2. shares. Is that right? A. Yess sir:: ~

Cores Q. 11 turn to the next document in the file, which is

"a stock certificate, No. 922, bearing your name for 2.shares, ~

‘. and on the back of the stock certificate, which is the second

_ page here on the duplicate, there is a-form. that appears to

bear your signature. Is that your Signature? A. Yes, sir.

, °Q. And it has the date October 10, 19--it looks like

1961, but I assume that it would be-1964. Is that right? A.

YO, Bbrg he a eS : eer ee hy ay. Eu

: Q, .Did you sign that document? A.° Yes, sir.

_.Q. All right. Will you tell.me the circumstances _

under which you signed that one? It recites that you're sell-

ing one share to Jolin B. Gale and Ruby E. Gale. Will you tell

me-- A. -I don't remember, only that I needed money; I don't

-Teally- remember. Se le fees? ;

Mel ie Bp that ‘the right date on that particular document?

A. It must be, yes. ok .

Q. Do you remember it? A. Nee, - 680): F 6s 2

. Q. And then thé last document in your file is a stock.

“Iss]

eee a ; ;

certificate for one share,in your name. It's No. 958, and on |

the back of the stock certiéicate, again, it's endorsed November

‘3, 1964, Letha Hayris, Wopsock, John B. Gale, one share. Is‘ that

your signature? A. fres,: sir. RAS te BORN a eas :

, Q. Do you remember signing that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you give me the ircumstances surrounding that

: :

\ . @

\ e

PLEO EE EDD" DERBI LST RE OATES LL ELEN OED VE) AG LO

‘ utes am

J /

sale? A.. Just. Like the. rest of: the oalse. I had’¢e. have ss"

money, and my husband wasn't working at that time; and:we have

a family of about 12, and I. needéd ‘the money. So I went te

him. .

Q. How much oauny did you get. fer that. ene share? A.

I | get: about four for that one." ~~ : ee

- Q. .$4007 A. Yes,.sir. I don't remember.

Q. Did-you get that in cash? A.\, Yes; sir.

Q. The preceding one for one share © you remember

j. what you got for that one? A. I got $350 £ eae one.

Q. $3507. A. UK huh. % : ie ee

ei Was that in cash? OE, EG

_ 49) Bitte: a ei

he Yes, shi |

Q. There is also in this file, Mrs. Wopsock, a document

that purports to be a power of attorney--excuse me, it's a stock

- power--in which you purport to sell, it says: "Letha Harris

_Wopsock for Clarence D. Harris, Sr. 3 shares to Edgar G. Calder.

‘and Irma H. Calder." I believe you referred-a little while ago

to a transaction involving your father's shares. Is that. the

one you had in mind?) A. Mr.-Calder, he just sold one.

Q. He just sold one? A. And--" :

Q. Bxcuse me. You're-correct. It does say one. And

that's the one you had reference to? A. No. He done that

himself, but I was with him and signed that, because he had a

car-- .

: Qt seé. A. --that he wanted fixed, and he didn't

‘- receive any cash. He just. had the car‘fixed and turned one .

stock.’ And this. is the stock. But the one: that I sold was

Verl, Ver) Haslem--I was with Verl Haslem at that time, and he-

was doing. business for Bili Hoops. my father sold that ore ‘

_ to Bill Hoops.

Q. I see. Did’ you sign the papers: for him at: that

' time? ‘A. nt signed the papers to Verl Haslem in the ‘bank.

” Did you have a power attorney for your father at

[so] -

thrat ‘times A. Yes, sir. : es

Q. What did your father get for that « one share of stock?

A. He got $500. ; ’ ‘

. Q- $5007 A. Yes, Sity © bids

Q. Was that in cash? ; Yes, eit.

Q. Mrs, opsock, befghe “you received your Ute Distri-

bution siock, or before you w notified that ’you had some Ute

Nisivibueron scock, -had yet ever owned a stock Certificate .

wy ; Ms & . »

: | ee

> ee

7. on.

* . Wopsock. aes, of this certificate at any time prior to

- mixed - -blood member s of the: Utah

wer

? i . . : \ . ‘ . . *

. “ . . . .

before? - A. No, sir. - .

Q. ‘Did you know. what a ‘Stock’ ei was? :A. “Nos

i fe.

Q. Do yeu -know that "dividends" are? A. Noy sir.

Q. Do you-know what “unliquidated ‘and uiedjudicates ,

clatas agrees one United States": are? “A. No, I-didn'te:

Q.. Do you “know what "assets not susceptible to. practi-

cal or equitable distribution" are? A. I'm sorry, I don't.

ws Q. Do you know what "oil shale" is? Ais] don't know

what it is, but’ I've heard of it. 7 ."

es ae (s1]

QST see. A> I've haaed ‘of it, but IT don't ‘know what

Q: Has anyone ver told Fou~that . your Ute iisicibution:

. stock represented your share.in all of the: atinerals in the Ute

Indian. Reservation? A. N@.~-Sir.

Q. - Had anyone ever--I'11 read a statement to you, Mrs.

August 27, 1964 © a person not a member of the Ute Indian

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah, as defined 1n

Public Law 671--83rd Congress, approved August 27, 1954, 68”

_ Stat, 868,. shall be invalid unless the: certificate of the Super-.

intendent of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation is endorsed.

thereon. showing that a prior and proper offer has,been made: to

members of said tribe in accordance. with law and the ‘regulatiens

- of the Security-of the Interior." Had anyone ever told you that -

before? a we, war.

. Q.. #'11 read you another ‘statement. “This eertificate

'. does not, represent stock in an ordinary business corporation.

. This corporation. is organi -ed for the purpose of distributing |

A. the stockholders in_the. future their. respective'shares in .

t procetds | or income fren all.claims ‘and assets in which the

. [$2 ]

Indian Tribe of the. Uintah ‘and Ouray | Reservation, Utah have or

- will: have an interest urder the provisions of Public Law |)

, 671 83rd Congress, approved August 27, /1954, 68 Stat, 868, as

"amended. The- future value. of, or return on, this stock cannot |

be determined. -This. stock certificate should neither:be sold

_ tior encumbered. by. the owner. thereof, but should be retained: and

preserved for: the benefit of the: stockholder and the stock- ‘

halden's family.".. At the time you entered into these transac-

tions relative to your stock, had anyone ever Tead that state-

ment to you? .A.- No, sir.

Q. Did Econ know that?_ A. Noe I didn't.

‘Siechdpma lalate Biss ieee citi i ta Ss 0 pial

hiieast >

i Seria NG bill

sinathe res Rie,

Peirce UE BREN, BRL CREAN te MEAS

offered those for sale-to the Tribes ites you? A.

- CROSS- EXAMINATION BY NR. KLEMM,

Q. Mrs. Wopsock, Eo many. ‘years of . school ing have you See oe ee

had? A. To the tenth grade. .

Q. During that ten years I asiune . that you learned to

read, didn't you? “A. Yes, I dida~”

Q. And you can read now, can' t you? A. +I. can eed.

but--some of it I don't understand.

“a - - Q.. You're at least. able to read ‘che: documents that

were shown to you today, aren't you? A.. I' d be able to read.:

‘them, but I've-never been shown these certificates om anything.

fy ve: never seen them. ys .

Q:.. But you: would be. able. to read them if you, took: the :

time ‘to do so? A. ..I' da be: ‘able: to read then. if I was | Shown:

' them,

» Qe ‘Now,: let's talk about’ your stock for a. minute, Mrs‘

Wopsock. “How many shares did you-sell.in all? A.; Fifteen.

Q. And they were ten that you received? A. Yes, sir.

-Q. And also five that you received as the heir to your: .

‘mother, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think you said that you sold five sharés - to Mr.

—<— is that correct? A. Yes, sir. i

ee — would be ian Murray, wouldn' t it? “A. - Yes,

sir.

; Q, ‘And I think you said that ‘you\ sold ‘chews on August

1 of 1963, is that correct? A. Yes,‘ sir.

~ Q You remember that date specifically, don' t your

A. It was around August i ,

an Now, you also sold. some. shares to Mr. Hoops, didn' t

you? . Yes, sir. ra

“at How cad did ‘ue se11’ to Mr. Hoong ;

| [ss] -

A. rors ae ¢ !

. Q. | ‘Now, that wasni' t all at. one cine, was it? A. -No,

sir. :

Q.. ‘You sold 5 to Mr. Hoops the. first time, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you went to.the ‘Bureau of Indian Affairs and -

No; sir. -

-“&

(

s ae . ox

7. +Q, ‘Didn® t you fill out some papet's to. be advertised,

I think you. said? A. ‘I filled out papers to. be advertised,

‘but I didn't understand that that was being offered to the Ute

_Tribe, because I tes told ‘that the’ Ute, Tribe wasn’ = interested

in buying them.

Q.:° *All rig You have been — that’ the Ute Tribe

. didn' t er eon Yes, sir.

Ist ieeibce reer? That you went to the Bureaw of

India} Yr ning and.you filled out the papers, didn't — “A.

—_ pe Mrs« Logan, and I filled’ out the aper.

All right. By- the way, how oe id you put in for

these vee shares. of stock as posted price? The ‘first five

I sold to Mr. Murray, why, I advertised for 3008

Q. ‘How about the second five? ~

(s6] . - |

‘ha: Well, 1 tanked to Mrs. Logan, and se told me that they-

- should be worth more than that. And I told her, "Welf;'! I.-

said, "I'm going to advertise for $700." And ‘she“said,’ "Well,

I think they're worth more than that, too." .

Q. Wéll, did-you advertise for $700? A: Yes, sir.

@, ) 6Aed when you sold them to Mr.- «Hoops, you got $7200,

“dian t you? A. I got $700. in credit--with some cash and some,

cnegit. ~: me

Q. : Well, you' re siigtied. with that sale, aren't you? :

~ A. Yes, sir.

Q. You're not objecting to that sale here,,are’ you?

A. No, sir, not with Mr. Hoops. ~ -

. Q.. You think you got a squaré deal on that sale, don" t

‘you? A. Well, I got what: I asked for,\but I've been told--

t Q. Well, you did get what you aSked for, Mrs.. Wopsock?

—_A._,¥es. : 1 didn't — oapernenee what it was. So that's ©

what I asked for. —

Q. { Then:you sold sope shares ‘to Mr. Clyde Murray: —How——

much did you get for those shares?. A.. $300. .

a 'Q. ‘How. much did you post those for? A.. $500.

Q. Now, Mrs. er ‘between the time that you poweet

(57] @

-those shares. and the time that you sold those haves, you , .

received a notification. from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, \

didn't you? A. What kind of notification?

. Q. Didn't you receive a letter from Mr. Zoller about -

Se Sot

“that? A. I may have. suet ches

Q, I'if show, you a document entitled, "Notification,"

that has previously been identified as-part-of Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 3-A_ and. ask you if you received . the original copy of -

* R

r ‘that letter ‘from the: ations of Indian Affairs. A. I may ‘have.

3 Q. Well, did ‘you receive this original copy. of the ty

3 letter. from, the: Bureau of BE eae BOTY in regards to the sale

4 Q. | You said I think on your@direct examination that Pe Be

- you ha” received that letters . Didn't. that. come \from your own. :

% files?. -A.*° It must have. ’

7 Q. Did you furnish this to your attorney? A. I gave: .

= that to him. \ ee

i Q. So can we assund that you must have received it? a ae

A. Yes, ‘sire

—*Q. You received it through . the mail, didn't you?. ke.

3 Yes, sir. .- _s ae ;

f ¢ . ta dex is ns, : io

: : oo / a . { ‘ ¢ : me

do. | | ae ' [58] ; ot Lect

- cy

g. Did you “also receive, aniothbe copy _ that letter in

connection with vane. sale of your shares" to Mr. Hoops? A. Yes,

sir, + /'

1 Q - Excuse me. In regard to your’ shares sold to Mr.

Clyde Murray? A, I don' e remember that ‘one. PP oe he

Q: Well ,»did. you read the letter that yous veceived : °

that you furnished to your attorney?_ A. Yes, sir.’

.: Q. -Now, were you aware at the time you ‘sold your share’

“.to Mr. Murray that you were supposed to receive the same: ‘amount

2 as what you posted them for? A. No. I wasn't. ~ Ps

: 2 You didn't know that? A. Because a lot of them was — fi

o just getting what they could get. out of it.- :

4 ‘Q.' That was your case, then, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir.

Q.. You. jqst got. what they would give. you, i3s\that cor-"

rect? A. They told me that's all it was worth a that! s aly

' they could get for it. : is ee

- Q. Did you try to sell ada Wt Ae anyone else? A.

ght that time [ was just interested in buying a car, and he said

that he would deal with me. So->

Q. Now, on each + eed that you sold your, stock, Mrs. .

re ae

oe, Rb its Be

(so)

Wopsock, - you sold your ‘stock on ‘your own volition, didn't you?”

You went to the people to sell your stock, didn't you? As head

sir. :

Q Nobody’ cane to you, did they? A. No, sir: »

Q. “You went to them? ssn't that correct? A. Yes,

sir. | ~ ne

—- . Q. And you Were willing to sell_your-stock, weren' ee | “

you? A. Yes, sir.* _ ‘Bo

Q. And that was your: intention in going . to these , _

' people, wasn' tit? AS Yes, because I had to have the money.

° . °

I covidn' . = est. no aes any ne he else. RS

A. Thatys a ans it has there.

i nave! sir,

Q. Now, you testifi out some other. sales that you

made. I think you said you sold some te Mr. Gale and some

-oth6r shares to Mr. Hoops, and. then there were some shares. to

a Johnson; is thas correct? | Re =: never. did selk any to, John:

son..

Oo; hn many. did you. sell to se, Gale? A. I sold

three the first time -and then two another time...

Q. So you sold,5. shares: to Mr. Gale?, Is that-~correct? -

[60]. : et ee

Q. But: in connection with those sales ‘you dida' t gg to

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, .dfd yqu? -A.sNo,-sir, *

“°Q. Why not? A, Well, I don't know. I. Sever: 434 --g0t

, “—* help from them. So I didn't “think--

Q. You.didn't go- down there and tell them that. you

_ Were going to sell the stock, did you? A. No, sir:

: Qe In. the cases of those shares, you went to the bank, 2

dign't. you? , A.” -I went.to Mr. Gale. :

Q: And you actually signed the ‘stock certificate,

didn't you? A. Yes; sir.

; Q. Mrs. Wopsock, do you. remembér when on a previous

occasion you testified “a connection with. this case? A, “Yes,

sir. % aos >

Q. Do you venenber when you came to an office on State

P Street on. June 24 of 19667 A, Yes, sir.

Q. And you Senneging. wibn: your deposition » was taken?

i? 'm going to read you some Soseuleny: that: was taken.”

at that ‘ime, _ Then whey I ae through. I'm going to. ask

Se mind emma

you. if. that. was your testimony on the santas of that inpevitien.

I'm ‘referring to page 10 of the Wopsock deposition, and yy ae

' beginning on line 7; This is my question to Mrs.-Wopsock: - —

"Question: Well, did anybody ever write you.a letter--write

a letter to you, and tell yeu. this?. “Answer: I. think I got one’

from, the Superintendent orice telling. me. that we--that-what. we

advertised for, we were. Supposed. to. receive . that amount, what

A. Yes, sir. ire ee Nae et

Cee el 2g

a eee ae ace tte Relate al

i (CROSS-EXAMINATION. BY MR, BERTOCH

Q. “Mrs. Wopseck, the shares ‘that you sold ‘to. Mr. Gale,

ou sold just before rsspeioeg I think om, said, of 1964; is” -

iad

4 :

2tyeh § - . ”

Et. x a , .

Tthat fight? A. November.

a Heh abe Ee (621.

. In November of 19647 A. Yes, sir. 2 4

} Q. So was it your-understanding at. that time, since it.

was ‘after. August 27, you didn't have to advertise them with the.

‘Tribe; is that’ copfect? -A. Yes, sir. 0 SRST. eo.

+ ° -Q. ‘It wés your. understanding that they could be sold

2 by you, at any pr ce you.wanted to sell them for? That's -true,

isn't itt. A. Yes, sir... PEE : “vee 2

se Q. “Now, at the time you made the sales to Mr. Gale, at _

| that time were you satisfied with the sales? A. Well, I

‘wasn't satisfied, but that's all I could get. Se:‘I--I-really _.

>. \ Q. ‘Now, when this lawsuit started; when you talked to

j your attorneys, were you aware that you were bringing a lawsuit.

| against John Gale?. A.. Well, I really signed against Ciyde

| Murray and Dick Bastian, but I had dealings with Mr. Gale, so--

_ Q.-. But. you. really signed initially against, Dick

| Bastian and Clyde Murray, and you’ didn't know--you n't.

intend. at that time to sue Mr. Gale, is that right? A. I. 2

didn't. know I was coming in. against him. But- that was the deal-

ing I've had with him, and I’made\my. statement. ok

Q. But you did kriow. You_were suing Mr. Gale? : the ge

a ST See ee ace |... 1 aE

Ks, No, I'didn't.understand the case. te es

Q.. All. .right.- You.didn't understand .you were suing.

3 Mr. Haslem, is that right® A..-No,-1 didn't.

i i. -Q. +-And-yourdidn't understand you were suing First

7\Security Bank; is that right? A. Well, -I was told that First

Security Bank would be involved.. See

: ~.Q. You were told that, but initially. you didn't .ask to

sue First Security Bank; is that right? A. I didn't understand

ees Q. All right. Do you think that .Verl Haslem owes. you .

‘any money, Mrs. Wopsock? A. Well, I couldn't. say. _ ; ‘

Q. You didn't sell any stock to him, did you? A... No,

sir. ae: eu, gc, Oe plese

——Q. Now, you saw the’ stock certificate Se the time you

sold your. stock to Mr. Gale. - That's correct,.isn't it? A.. -

Yes, ‘sir. : . ica Poe tens as

; Q. If: you had .wanted to read it at that'time, yeu.could

have. read the red print oh the front ‘of the stock certificate?

} Is that right? A. Well, I wasn't told to read it, or if I--I

_ wasn't asked if. I understeod that certificate. All it was was

‘to sign ye ee ce hoes aay or :

[64] af

here. bss ak

a a But you saw the certificate, is that right? A. 1°

ie ‘seen the certificate, but I. never. read ats arid no one ever

explained it to’me. 4 : se

£ : . ; ‘&

MR. BERTOCH: All right. That's all Ihave. *

REDIRECT Coe BY MR. WXELSON - tae

at .

“Q. Just a question. or two. Mrs. Wopsock, when you went

down -to Mr. Gale's office to Sign that certificate, how did the

certificate’ get in ‘Mr.. Gale's _hands, do you knowe.. A I do not

know. ;

Q. Did you take it to. him? A. No. ar Keres te B ed fee

“4g Q. Did he have it when you. ave maepeet A. He must

have, I nevem did have ‘it. | on

ty als * Did me" show you- both. sides of the certificate? A, é

‘ E 2% Which side did he show yout ey “The front part

where I signed. ee, 3

Q. The part where you. Signed, ‘is: that what he showed . oe.

| you? A. Uh huh. *

apie ie ask you to-read. d. the ‘certificate? A. lat

MR. pores “That! s all.

(Discussion. MheFeupon a noon recess was taken from

‘124 EG PBR. es pontine oie, im, J.

ve ;

. (65) -

‘ * *# *& -

; JOHN B. GALE called as a.witness on behalf of the plain-

‘ease’, wears first. duly yeere testified as follows ; .

THE CLERK: State your full flame, elgyse™ ; ies

THE WITNESS; John ‘B. Gale.

on, Pre ‘DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DUNCAN -

he -Q, You're one of the defendants in this action, Mr.

Gale? .A.° Yes, sir. . ‘

(66) fas |

-@@- Where do you live? A, Roosevelt, Utah. m ‘Hs

- , ° ‘ o ° .

a . ” . *

rs SELL GLE IEA IE GLLIIIAE® S08,

‘ “ ah oan 2 , a mae eS bat - - ° ag

. J - . . . " .

= ee . bs a e rong

~ a F

4 Q. ‘How 16mg: have you lived. there? A: About’ 17 Sars.

a Q. -How long have you worked for First ‘Secur, ty Bank?. .

“A. Seven years. Going on seven.. ae

9. » So.you came to work for, them in}:

50? “A.. «Yes; sir.

: . What did you. do in the Basin-Before’ ‘thet? I'm talk-

ing about the Uintah Basin. A. 1 worked for- i a ange office.

Uintah Basin Statidard. — eee

- “Qs How long were-you' there?_ A. ‘Ten’ years.

Q.,; ' Now, how-Tong have you been a justice. of. the peace;

Mr. Gale? A. Now that I--I don't recall exactly. Prior to

going’ to thé “First Security Bank I ‘was justice of-the peace.

‘S6_P+ve probably heen. there eight, ten years, or--

— “Q. Se during’ this period’ of time youve lived. ig or

near Roosevelt? A. Yes, in Roosevelt. .

Q. And you during 1963 and 4 knew most of. the mixed-

Siesis by sight, ‘didn't yoya A. Well, I didn’t know whether

they: were mixed-bloods or. whether they . were a. full: blood. I

knew most. of the. >

ye te, (67) cS

‘there. | - tl . :

: Oo 3223 ask you, sir, “ie this isn't your ‘testimgn i.’

your: deposition. on. 23 December .'65.-on page 8: "Question:. How

about. the mixed-bloods? Do you know most of them? "Amswer: I

. know a lot of them by si ht. : Most: of them. I don't. knoW them

by. name. personally." And before that didn't you respond. to *

this question: , "Question: Would you. say it would’be a fair ;

statement that you personally know most of the people in Roose-

velt? “Answer: ‘tn. Roosevelt proper, most of them." Is that

. what you testified to? A. Yes, sir. ‘e K

, Q. Do you wish to change it today? A, No. I know

most of the ‘people. in Roosevelt. °

Q. And you knew most of the mixed- biseds by. siuit in

~~ 1963 and 19647. A. Well, I wouldn't know that they were

‘mixed- bloods or whether they were full- odeescae + but I knew most

of the people.

*Q. Now, tell us how you warked “your. way up the ladder.

at the bank. What @#as-your first. job? A. When I was first

emplo ed, I was employed as what they oer a utility” man, learn

ing the “operation of the bank. _

* [68] _, a @

Q.- This was. supervising the tellers, was it not? ey

Not: at this time. I ‘started out by learning the--how the bank

operated, the sorting of checks and the posting of checks and

the operatioh of. a window and the taking of financial.state-_

2 an \ ae me - y

‘As Yes.

- ‘after. going to the bank. :

. how, it could have been. It was shortly afte

z Pe

eine: takin of Neck sppliications’, and ates: wy fae been there |

some time, then, I was able to take toga applications and cae

sent then. y

Q. As a matter of fact, you bosons assistant manager

“in 1961, did you.not? A. This is very possible, yes.

Lis Py Did you or did. you hot, sir? Do you recail yeur

testimony? . A. I did.

and "64, your particular. duty was’ in charge of- Time-Way loans?

Is. that correct? A. Yes. | Gr

Q. During thet period of time you. had authority. to.

‘make a loan up to $500 without anybody's approval? A. Yes. ~.

*. Q. During that period of time you signed cashier' s

.checks for the bank as assistant manager? A, Yes..

“s Q.: And without any Committee sor other sbproval for

these Ceeneamnanne eo gen Sie ‘

}

‘ pe , (69) ee %

“public? A. The’

It- was -soméetime :

Q. ‘How long have ~ been a nota

date that I-was a notary, I don' t recall.

sir? A. Well,

I had gone to

-the bank. In my work. I--or, in the. bank we ned¢ded another

Beterys and I was-of age. So I became a not

_ Q. %I refer you to page’ 9 of: your de

rik: this quéstion: "Question: But you've

sometime in 1960, and you are now?"* And your answer was yes.

Is that ..your testimony? A.. That would ,be my testimony. .

. Q. Now, at all times’ since then you've always bee

justice of the peace, and that’s an elective office? A. e

@... During that time you had:a number of mixed bloods -

come before you on criminal matters, didn't you?. A. “Yes.:

Q. Somé of them you sentenced to jail? A. Yes,

Q: _ Does 1960 sound about right. you,

y- .

sition and I ask

Q. Ip-your capacity with First. Security. Bank as ‘assis-

" q

tant: (SeaDerepsed you = nad: ccess to all-credit information, °-

PRs: 26 avestquc a

loan applications,’ financial statements of eeuiie ‘that had

loans or were apply ite for iat did you not, sir? A. aie

I did.

Q. ‘Now, when did. you first ‘become aware of the Ute

en a notary’since .

Distribution.Corporation? -A.- The time. I don't recall. Prior

_to it Wecoming the Ute Distribution Corporation, it.was known

as the Affiliated Ute Citizens. The stat taal time I'm not: sure

when this’ was, I don't recall.

‘

“©

;

poenpiienss

Re. ‘te! was shinee the tine of: the first sale, was it not,

sir? A: “It could have been.

; Q. And s shortly, after the first ania, a re

came through to the bank showing ‘who had sold and who had bought

stock in UDC?. A. Na, I don't.believe so. at this timg. - . |

' .Q.« Is it a fair cots that, you received copies, of

the b pak’ s. Salt Lake ‘transfer sheets from time to time? : Yes.

=~, Q. So you knew who sold and ‘who bought and the address

ofboth. from time'to time? A. Yes... |

Q. Now, can you tell us then, sir, when you. first heard

about the--and I. think for the record we'll Adqneseyrune” 1 as

the. Ute b PSE NERS Corporation--when did you -

. ; ». 3 j ” >.

y re . :

first: hear. of that ‘corporation, as distinguished from the Affil-

‘jated Ute Citizens?- A. -F couldn't ‘Say the date right now when

I first heard of it. .

Q. Let'"s*be very specific. ’ When ‘did you first Start

purchasing the stock for yourself or ate ised é1se? A.- 1

think it was in. August. — s t. gw

-Q. August of what year? hy "64, ' ‘aa

_ 'Q, . August of '64 was the first? - A. I'm not! sure.

Nowy’ this I’m not positfve on. . . |

‘Q. .Perhaps. I can refresh your memory, sir. First of

all, let me have you. Adentify an affidavit that you ~filed in

this “ and ask you if this is’ your signature. That's a con-_

py. I'm afraid it isn't going to be--but do you. é;

ee signing that affidavit: (showing)?. The. original is in

the file. A. I don't--I may have signed this..

os te ar aad ‘4 22 | M4 ie ‘%

VA? (By Mr. Duncan) ‘Now, with that Stipulation, | Mr. .

Gale, I'm going to ask you if you “prepared or are aware that

this is a schedule of your purchases and sales that was attached

<5 the ae you signed? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you swore in here, did you not, sir, that on the

th day of Jul » 1966: /'To affiant's best: information and be-

ief, the information containéd. in the. attached exhibit. is 5;

sccurtue"?: A. Yes. ik Sie

: .. ty it?- i” Yes.. To ay Anowledge.. ie Fe.

4 ee NS . ; ;

a ” Cae) - i ’ , s

Y t ; *:. @ * +

A s 5

in farenthesis, aren't there? As “There: are two’ qeres yes.

That would be lag .

3 ae

Q.. You only waite two purchases before ae August .

1964, date? A. Personally, yes. ~~.

_Q. -I- don't think--what do you ean by "personally"?

A. That. 2 purchased myself.

»~

Qo. So. except “for the limitation a°) os you purchased

5 for somebody eise, it's your. testimony that: this is..all you

gears erg listing fifteen ‘different. ater A. .Yes;

I believe that's correct. \ :

Q. Sir? .A,- This wis. correct. os

Q. That is your testimony? A.. Yes.

“-Q.: Now, there are a number of names here eas you fam-

iliarized. us with during your deposition. "Sold to Frost and

Jasper, Gyllstrém, Woods, PhelpSw Stevenson, Carpenter." Each

one of those was an out-of-state purchaser for when row were .

working; is that. correct? A, Yes...”

GQ. . Now,. will you tell us .how you. first came inte pos: + |

*y,

| session. 6f moneys with which to purchase UDC stock? | e

3 MR. - BERTOCH: rsd Honor, I'm going to have to object

to this now. I've let* it go a long time. ‘It realty is all.

irrelevant, It. hds nothing to do ‘as far as I'can see yet with

any | ‘One. of: these twelve plaintiffs. ; *

[74].

Now, if you “deal with ‘the ouvtticses nid from one of the twelve

Fare then - would have no: epeent tee

‘

THE - COURT: ‘What relevancy and materiality do you Claim?

”

“MR. DUNCAN: The wes gesittie. the procedure this man fol-

lowed over. three years, how he. acquired the money, how he dealt

with the mixed-bloods and some of the plaintiffs he dealt with ..

diroctiy: all of them I think they guaranteed their signature. -

hens, THE COURT: Are ent any of the plaintiffs besides

Mrs. Wopsock? : Be

os MR. DUNCAN: Yes. Yes, there are.a number. of others.

It's essential to show the scNeme of the man, what he did-be-.

fore, and these twelve just fit into part of the plan.

MR. BERTOCH: JI ‘Submit chee ‘only what is important is”

- what he did with ee particu@ar plaintiffs. ».¢

‘THE COURT. + AS I_recall. the pretrial order, it limits

our considération to matters relevant to the twelvg plaintiffs.

“selected, but also any general matters. that might, be applicable

“to them, even ‘aug. inapplicable to others. Under. that assump-

. . ~—

. i e

2 _ , a3

. os : 7 . ° FA af

exmenmnyetegussiapadenepnnaanemiagienemats

ee ae re

“| aes:

;

RS ae aes pos secre Rane 7 a

“tion I think the - objection shouidfhe overruled. oF Sle aie

aon "OQ, (By Mr. Duncan) One of ‘the named plaintifi's is.

Glen'Reed, and you purchased ‘stock from him, S shares for $350. ‘+

ean tts1° 5: an Hgd: 94! :

.a share, and sold it to one E. Phelps; correct? A. Yes.

: Q. And you sold it«to E. Phelps for $500” A, That's,

true, ere | oats Ns 9 Sea p ae

ea - .So you made a $900 commission on Mr. Reed/ Dad you

tell Mr Reed you were buving it for E.° Phelps? A MBI don't

recall having--told him. Pete -, ok eet aes

'-Q.. You didn't tell him? A.. Now. 2° .

Q: And asa matter-of fact, E. Phelps. wasn't on aiy of

the instruments when you notarized it? “' ae aos

~* MR. BERTOCH:,-I object. Irrelevant and immaterial. 1.

‘don't see what difference it makes whether he..todd whom he was:

THE COURT:- The objection is overruled...

MR. DUNCAN: May I,have the question,read back?

MR. BERTOCH: May I make a- special objection to all ‘the

Questions that have bees asked‘with respect to this exhibit .-. ’

‘Which has been:put in evidence and the exhibit ‘itself, as far’

&s First Security: Bank is concerned, on the grounds that it's

irrelevant and immaterial. ,

THE COURT: The objection is overruled... Uniess it's

‘connected up, of course--the matter of materiality and rele-

vancy may be presented at an appropriate time. On the rule of

convenience, the Court doesn't believe the — ay

[76] ‘

case should be fragmented, and objections on\the ground of

materiality and relevancy urged with legitimate) effect. when

only a Small part of the case is before the Court.. There will

come a time, of course, when it can be. determined whether mat-

ters have been connected up or not; but any party has the right

to make his or her case by pieces of. evidence and can't have ok

the: entire composite all at one time. Under. a theory and under .

the. rulé of convenience, the objection is overruled. ig ~e

: : isan eae . : , “ee ce

(Question read.)

]

A. This is correct. | :

.. Ments, the name‘of the grantee or the assignee on Mr. dReed's or

‘any. of these others that you prepared, the name of the _——

"may have been on some of: them. sa

* _Q. . Now, I showed you-a few minutes ‘ago, sir, for the

_convenience of yourself, Court, and counsel,’ Exhibits 1A through

°12A. and.ask. you if you could verify thatyghe documents therein

" which purport to bear your signature as either guarantor or os. oS

- notary are in fact your signatures; have you been able to do

PapAt: Bs: I got through two. I haven't got through: the rest.

; ue i) ae * \ . >

ras > Q. (By Mr. Duncan) -All right, sir. The two you

+ checked are 12A and 11A, is that right? A. That's correct.

yours? A. Yes.”

Q. Now, did’ ‘you “ever notarize an affidavit that had

Some incomplete ree blanks, or figures not filled in? \

A.. No. _

; Q. And that was never. the case? A. Not without

figures, no.

f ‘e, Q. And I take it that you saweye had the person whose

"signature you. were rots ee patamas appear before you? A. That's

_ correct. : ae,

Q. Now, whenever the instruments. that we're. talking

about here were notarized by you, there was.a charge, wasn't +

there? A.» For a- notary fee. . a

Q. Yes.* And that was fifty cents?

“grey

ee That! s correct.. tere

. Q. Ard that-went to phi: bank? A. Yes. |

Q. And it was done on the bank's: premieeet A. Most

, of. the a... Y

Q. But the fee went to the beak? A. “That's ane ae

* °Q. Now, from time to time mixed-bloods would come into.

the bank, .and- you.would talk to them about ‘various: business

matters; isn't that correct? A. Well, this’is very possible.

-Q. Well,. they came in often, and you Saw. them? They: Z

‘ wanted l6ans, or they wanted various things, including guaran- “

tees and notary? A. This is correct,” - .

Q. Now, during 1963 and 1964 were you abquaineyy with -

Richard Murray? Re. SOR -

Q. You knew him as Nick? A. Yes. _

Q. What business was he in? A. ‘I believe at the time

‘ 4 re

58 te

a : . Re

he was in the service station business and had- 4 used'car lot _ :

in connection with it. ge ? |

Q. Did you, see. him three or four times a week during .

"64? A. : I could have. : mK y ca ae

[79] aa Ss a .B

- Q. Yes. He banked there, and his checking account was. -

theretl A, Thee centeee, 2998 ee” ST ee ng

_.. Qs. And he bought some cashier's checks from time to

time from you,. from. the bank?. A. ‘Very true. pr8

Q. What business was. Wally Davis: in. over. in Vernal?

A; He Was in Davis Chevrolet. : ye

. Qs Who were the principals in Jet Chevrolet in- cs

Roosevelt? A. Dick Bastian and Earl: Diliman. ! -

_ .Q.. And you knew this in 1963 and. 19647 A. , Yes. .

, + Q.° What was L.§ L Motors? A. They're a car: dealer.

a Q. « And they were in. 1963. and 1964, and: you knew. it?

A. Yes. . Pt ns eae

, Q. Now, Mr. Gale, wére you ever. shown this document.

Vat

- we've marked and had: admitted as Exhibit 18, which is an agree;

ment between. First Security. Bank and the Ute Distribution Cer-.

poration? I'11 ask. you if You've ever seen that before. -A..

Ne, I.haven't. — ere ee ze Se ,

i, , Qs This was never-shewn to you during '63 and '64 while

ae you. were. employed as assistant manager? A.- No, it wasn’t.

ment?

-A,. Pavaent - . —— bs Se , .

= ! 2. “ <2

Q.. Were you. ever. advised that this agreement existed. .

_ - at that time?. A. That-we-were their stock’ transfer -agent?.

Q. Yes.: A. Yes... ie | Sealer eaeiaiies

Q.- You: knew. the. bank was a stock. transfer agent? . A,.

Yes. . = “ . , oe . . < o 34s

Q: I*ll-just read this te you. "The cerporation has

“been organized fer the- purpose set forth in its articles: ef

incerporation,.a cepy of which is. attached: hereto and: made: a.

_ part. hereof. The corporation--" That's UDC... "--requires a

stock transfer agent, a depository. far its funds, an effice in

which te keep its records and books ef account, and. where its

business may be transacted, and an agency to keep its beoks, —-

disburse its funds, and othe-wise assist it te carry inte

_ effect. its corporate. purpeses.". Did you, knew. that was in this a

_ agreement that First Security Bank had agreed.te this-instru- .

ment?) Al No, I.didn't. » | | :

Q° Were you ever advised of the existence of this agree-

o}y : : ; <

QQ’ - You: didn’ t know that these facilities were to ba

provided by UDC, as the agreement says? A, No, I didn't...

- - Q. Now, i show oe what has been marked and received

as *

| Te 1]

‘Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17A, which is denominated, "Affiliated Ute ‘7

Indian Trust Agreement." Did you ever see that before? oe

’ e . e . e

Q. .(By Mr. Duncan) 17A,. you've had a chance: to. look

at - te os oe oY

[82]

it? A. What. was the. question?

Q. Denominated "Affiliated-Trust Agreement," and 178

is attached te it. Have you ever seen it? A. No.

_ Were you. ever advised of the contents of it? A.

Ne.

a -Q. De you know what the bank agreed to ‘0. in “this:

instrument?, A. No, 1. didn't.

Q.- Did: you know that there. was to be an offiée pro-

vided--let me read this to you, sir--- .

“MR. BERTOCH: Just a moment, ,I'm going to move to:

‘strike this exhibit at this time on the grounds of immaterial-

ity and irrelevancy. Your Honor, this particular document,

"Affiliated Ute Agreement," has nothing to do with this law- .

‘suit, either_these twelve”or the other ‘Seventy- five.. The First

Security Bank, the.one agreement. which is admitted in evidence

_te which I do not object to, were made a transfer agent for UDC.

This .agreement made the. First Security Bank a trustee for. the

minors of these half- bloods and for eleven or twelve individuals

who were declared by the Secretary of “the. Interior -to be. incon- -

petents. And they served as trustee-and still serve as trustee.

> None. ‘of those: minors, none of thdse whe were. declared. incom-

petents, : a a,

| (931. -_ + 3.

‘ remained inogmpetents, have ever. bad a share of stock sold #r

transferred. First.Security Bank has never.permitted a sale or

transfer of one share of’ stock of any of those individuals. Soe

this dis aerices with Rites Security Bank has nothing te do with

‘

eT ee er ae) ne eer Se

Trust Agreement that it was drawn up and signed with the ‘purpose

doesn't make--.

the job of First Security Bank as the transfer agent. It's

entirely a separate and distinct thing and has nothing to do.

with, olin lawsuit, because none of the shares were involved of

‘these minofs. : . : a

w ar :

if . 2 : é

‘THE COURT: What a you dc g: for that? .

— MR.” .DUNCAN: Your Honor,.we spent some ‘pages in our

‘trial erint on the ‘subject; and I think we've set grorth aaah se

’ THE’ COURT: What “ you claim for it?

MR. DUNCAN: -We claim for this Affiliated Ute indian:

and intent that it be dor the protection of every single mixed-~.

blood. We will have testimony that this is what the bank repre-.

sented it to be. The first paragraph provides that it shall

only relate to certain named beneficiaries--

THE COURT: The objéction is sistained. at this time.

| MR. BERTOCH: Is the epee striken, your Honor?

¢ . e.

' THE COURT: Well, it. may remain, ‘subject to being

connected up. He -doesn't know anything about this. It

past iy ROAM me her RFE Fo es

THE COURT: If you want te. show he does?

MR. DUNCAN: I want to show he does not.

THE COURT: ° I thought he said he. didn't. ;

MR. DUNCAN: I want to know if he knows specifically

“about this provision of paragraph 5S.

_ MR. BERTOCH: Five? I object to that.

MR. DUNCAN: The: bank told him that he was maintaining

an office out there for = these people. :

= THE COURT: ‘eos the other agreement that has been —

received provide for the mass reneece of the office?

‘ “MRS DUNCAN: No. ‘Tt. sous t- say where. This one says: .

in er (n hesne. Countys + ce a bu ots

pt THE COURT: ‘By “this one"-«

or: DUNCAN: 17A, one: the Court; ‘has. ruled inadmissible

at this time. It says "Shall maintain an office. in or. near

Bechesne: County. ~ .

ie ee : “4. *

“_.”* MR. BERTOCH: “For the beneficiaries, your Honor,*of =

' that trust. agreement. And none of, 8 pleyatiers are. benefici-

. aries. a uP : a, foe

MR. ‘NIELSON: ‘Well, ‘that dude: ‘simply isn't true, Mr. .

- Bertoch. Several of them are, and I'll direct your attention

to Stewart Eugene Reed. He is one of the

’

(es).

_——¥

MR. NIELSON: «He! “> ‘the schedule ihe: this. ener was

adopted for. . ; aff

: @

MR. BERTOCH: ne 6d pate let: benaticiary.

, , fs oe :

.schedule. In addition to. our assertion that everyone of them

were wnder ‘Paragtaph. S.- There — fourteen subject to the

. trust. ”

: ‘ 5

.-4 THE \COURT: ‘The Court: will | rescind As erase precluding

the exhibit. ‘You: may. proceed. j ;

Jo. @ SMR. DUNCAN: Thank you, your AMener.

: ~ Q.. (By Mr. Duncan) ‘In any event, Mr. Gale, you did

know if, if such is the case, “that the bank agreed. as follows

"To this end the trustee--". That is, First Security Bank.

"--will maintain in or near Duchesne County an agent. for the

purpose. of conferring with such persons, agencies, and‘: ‘benefic-

_ daries, and.will cause an officer of trustee with authority to

_ Make decisions “periodichlly to make | himself available for con-.

Sultation by such persons in or near‘ Duchesne County." Did you.

know; that. the bank Had signed an agreement. to that effect on

‘July 28, 19607

designated ones. -And he's on the schedule. < (8 eo .

’ aan ‘

THE COURT: ~ Such. persons being: what?

a a ‘ Ae Fd eee |

MR.. DUNCAN: First Security Bank and Secretary of the

Interior ,_ : :. Bie ayy

Ke No, I did not.

-Q.. You did not know? You were never advised of the |

contents. of 17A? A. -No.

Q. Did any bank officer ever tell you” what you. were -to

do when the Indians, the mixed- -bloods, came into.the. bank, -how.

_-any kind?. A. _ Not ‘specifically, other than ‘that we were a

2 trust agent ‘for: them. jc ay

Did

~° No...

ea Se Q.: | Didgrou. have. an understapding’ ‘what that meant?

tell. you. what jit meant to be*a trust agent

MR. KLEMM : Object. to his understanding es pemereriay:

THE cover: overrule. CS tae

‘A. Will you. state. that? .

¢ ' Qs (By Mr., Duncan) Did you. Rais an’ vileeitaabthe what

it. meant. to be. a.trust agent for them? A. Oh, the general -

: meaning of trust agent. = e

Q. What was that? A. To assist them in any way that .

> y

Q. Now, right from, some: of the first sales, including

. Mrs. Case, who is, one of the named plaintiffs--you, notarized

_ the various doeuments, didn't you? Ag Yes, I did. I'm sure.

Q. Now, will. you explain tothe Court.and for. the

record ‘the mechanics of how a sale was effected by a mixed-

blood. before August 1964? .A. ‘Prior to. the mixed-blood being

able to sell, they had to offer their. stock for sale.; This

-was to give the Ute Indian Tribe and other mixed-bloods. an

opportunity to buy. This was my understanding. And then put

on notice. as to the stock. they wanted to sell andsthe amount:

they wanted for it. And ‘this—was done in most instances that-

I know of prior to August 27 of '64..

Q. All right. Now, after a mixed- blood had signed

this first instrument--I think it was’ called an offer to sell--

and it. was posted, where was it. posted? A. Well, I was in-

ver

ce)

formed it was. posted in the Post office, although I had never

Q.. You didn't. know they were posted. in six places? A...

Mo, Idid not, § -

‘Q.- After the pesting had been done? were you aware

that the a ncy would send the mixed-blood a letter of notifi-

‘his that the Tribe and the other Indians, includ- -

s, had not purchased his ‘shares and that he

saa aaa (88) te eh . 3

could then sell? . A. Yes.”

_ Q.. That. was called “notification,” wasn! t it? ,,

That' s what the letter stated. a

.Q. And you knew that. the letter of. aptification said

the Indian must not sell except on the same or better terms

than those that were advertised to the Tribe? A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever know of. an Indian getting jess--that.

is, “a mixed- -blood--getting less than he advertised for? As -No.

na Q. Never? A. Never. .

aR Q.- Did fou ever know of an Indian advertising that he

- would ‘aevet an automobile? A. ‘No.

nee Q. Did you ever. know of an. Indian accepting an autono-

‘bile? _A. Not prior to his selling, ho.

Q. Mr. Gale, wasn't this the way you.did. it: several

times with "Nick" Myrray: You would tell Nick. you had some. -

money from out of state, you'd say: "Nick, you can pay up to

$500,.-and you get it as cheap as you can, and: we'll split =

Bt Did bey over: do isa hte him? . ons

* £099 “ee ae.

Q. Did. you eve “dplit a a prodit, with Aint A.

“+ - «= Q... Now, you received a letter at some point f

- Vannoy.. Do you. recall. that? A... Very possible.

cas Se NE a ee tf

-Q. @y Mr. Duncan) Will yeu ene it inte the recera, ; 7

just the part ‘before the. verification, and then tell us-- A.

"To whom it may concer: I, Bernice I. Vannoy, am this day

- authorizing John Gale of. Roosevelt, Utah, to bargain, for, |

purchase, ‘and have issuéd to ty name Ute Distribution Corpora: .

tion’ stock at a price of $500 per.share,"

Qe: Did you send that. to her, or hemes she oend it to.

[90]

Bee

I 4

. - : Marre mie

4. ‘She: came in? A. Yes. Lod icy Mie ane |

_Q.. Where did she_come. fiom? Asi 1: think she: came from. me i

Arizona at this time. ) 4

. Q. Who contacted. her originally and told her Soyer. upc?

‘A. Elmo Matthews, — »

Q.° How do you. know that? A. . Because he hed édvised

ime ‘that he had. ales

; MR, BERTOCH: May I have the date on-that letter for the

record? aa 2 ' Ee

a. ‘. , : ; . . MH, “

MR: DUNCAN: Five May 64.

*@.. (By Mr. Duncan) ‘Dia ‘you. talk. to. fixo Matthews be-

fore 5 May '64?. A. That is correct. er

7 Q.. Mr. Matthews says: "I have“some. peo down in

Arizona I.can sell the stock fo." - Iss that spud states? As”:

In essence. - é

| Q. “And: you get it for me, and we'll pay youd connis-

| sion for getting. at"? A.: Yes. .

Q.° And you made an arrangement and understanding with

Nick Murray ‘that he was. to contact Nick Murrey and get if for -

you? A, Not necessarily. - . °

Q.. What was Asa arrasgenant with Nick Murray?

» a SEY Aaa tae Be eee Rde. aka Aer

._ A. When he had. stock and I had someone te .buy ft; then I would

“eb it from him,

‘Q. And sell it to these people in Arizona. at a prefit

‘to yourself? A. I had a commission on ‘several shares.

'Q. The commission varied depending on how cheaply you

could buy the stock*from the mixed blood?. A. No.

-. Q,-.Well, if Mrs, Nesaey authorized ha to ber $500--

me Correct. oe

' Q.: If you. bought. it at $350, you. made more money than :

if you. bought it at $4007 A. Yes. var 4

Q. So the commission varied? “A. No. Not on this

transaction. — Ss aa ae

- =Q.- Now, your arrangement.with. hirrey was that if he

_ brought. the mixed-blood in, you'd split the difference. between

'_ what you could sell it for and what he had: you . pay - ‘the Indian

for itf* A, Ne. |. .

; Q. What-was your arrangement? A. With who? : ;

“Q. Nick Murray. A. That I a buy stock. from, him iss

- at $500 a share. .-

\ Q. Did —s buy stock from. him?

My a

Se 72 © 9

THE 6

Ether

Me ee 9: : ‘ ie

Es Q. -Is it on this.affidavit you've sigpedt A That he

- had--it was stock that he had purchased or that he hes: made

_arrangements--- : o

Q. So all your purchases from Nick Murrey, you ‘didn}t |

put on your affidavit? A. Yes. eo ad

Q. Yes. They're all on here? a Yes. e:-

Be Q. In any event, how much money did Mrs. Vanney send ,

jigs he 2 don' t recall how much money. she sent..° | :

Q. Does: $13,000 sound right? A. This I think was the *

‘amount tifat, was finally there in her name. ¥! —

Q. In ‘her deposition you couldn't remenber, but now obi

reainber. that you received $13,000 from her? A. If I remember

correctly, my deposition states that that was about how much

there was. ;

- Q. Did you tell “Mr.

I don't recall telling hia

‘Q. Did you show ee

I don't. recall. ..- \:

.Q.. Did you show his the check? . A. ‘I doubt it.

'-Q. mes: how mach money did you receive from Stponter,.

that you had that: money? A.

at money.: °

‘letter from Mrs. Vannoy?. A.

08 etapa, Pe

H. D. “Cat penter? A. ‘Now, this I don’ t. recail.: :.

Now, so we have the Court and the, record clear, you ‘

-couldh'"'t’ tell us at the: time of your deposition, and you can't.

tell us now, because you didn't ‘keep your canceled checks ‘for

any schedules of these purchases. and sales; is. that correct? ®

“+ A, ie $s correct. 9. be? an

Mah Q. . And. you: can't tell us how sary long - -distarce sions: ee.

calls pepe eg because you paid for them by check, but paattey---

ved them inmedjately thereafter?. A. No. %

et That: isn't your testimony? . A. No:

: .Q. , Now, king gt Mrs. Case's file--I believe ‘that

_ was. one of” the £ tgse you. notarized--the document here dated 7

May '64:has her name on.it, or purports to have it. It. says-+

well, it says what it: says.- But yom Signet it? A. “That's

_—:

-Q; Is it a fact, sir, that. certain of the. names were in ™

blank?” A. This could havé been. ~

- q. ae: Like ‘the name’ of the grantee was ip blank? _

, 3 is ; Zs * 194] - ; . ; f y Ds

Correct? _A, It‘ could’ have been. Yes. .

: Q. ‘How about. the affidavit? You, also notarized that,

eat you? A. Yes. - ;

@ On 7 May "647 A. Yes.

BR LEN o :

ee eS Sie A E as

@Q. And isn’ t it a fact™ that ‘the figure $1, 400 is writ-

“ten. in in ink, and the Test of it is, typed? A... Yes. |

Q. And that was put. an after she wagnet it? oA. No.

Q. It was not? A. »No. ee

Q. And she didn't know that ‘she was selling Tillie. ao

' dontacts, wasn't it? A. Yes. This came out of that file

Oe Rn SS Rte ven,

of |

@ (hafiding).. es ae

Q. ‘Now, calling your. ‘attention to _page 54 of your 4

deposition, Mr. Gale: - "Question: Do you have those record Lae

long distance calls? “Answer: No, I don't: "Question: You.

didn't keep the records of your eri distance calls-in 64 and

Sins se *. , ba se ae PM Bs |

pa ; aes oe, com rig! trons a : ie. ¢ J

"Answer ty, No. "Question: You're sure they' re gone,’ the records?

. “Answer: Our telephone. bills? “Question: Yes. “Answer:

oA ean? A. s Yes. a ‘ , ,

Rg , -Q. ‘Now, tron time to time, Mr. Gale, you dictated,

letters. to your secretary, who was a _ bank pent pye? by ‘the name. ic

& a ene ae aia oceans palin bed eet ik oe

‘

of. Utahna Berry? A. Y6s. -

«° Q. She-worked for you in the bank as a ‘Bank’ employee. fe

in ‘63 and '64? A. She was the secretary, - yés. , off

. Q. Yes. ‘And fom time to time you would ‘send out

stock certificates or letters regarding UDC stock and have. her ~

type them for you?. A. Yes. ‘ ae kad

| Q. Now, as-a "For instance," I show you what! s been

> “marked 65A, and I'll ask you to read it. ‘A. It gays? "Gleff

3 Reed, 306. Redondo. Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Glen: eon

oe enclosing an assignment for you to sign to 4ile with the

ie. oration in connection with your agreement. to sell your.

i k'.to me. I wquld- ppreciate it if you would mail ‘this back, .

! tnd upon wling it with °

bts “9 hp

. -. fa

v Pe oe 196)

= ws

* ..- ‘the. pn RE { I serail ss be able to. davance you a little

7 more money."

ae Signed John B. Gale. assistant manager, on First “7

‘Security. jank letterhead; ere ie Cee | Ride

: eo * Qs ‘And dated July 7%, "649° XK, Yes. vio apie

‘Z Q. | So you were advancing money to Mr. Reed on that

. & date on ‘tthe purchase of his stock? A. Yes.

2 (Q: Now, that' sone you didn't list on your ‘affidavit,

aid you sir? hae gadis any reason sic: Ail .

Cr, ‘* . % ‘ *- ie ( : . °

- “Pp. . Seas ; C. ge! Dey

| ee ame I ae ay ay oe oe BE

“—

MR. BERTOCH: Glen Reed is on.the affidavit.

MK. DUNCAN: -Not that he advanced him money on July 8,

'64, counsel. | oe 7 ge et.

THE COURT:’ Never mind apf suing between counsel. Ask

"your question. . - a in *

_ °Q.° (By Mr. Duncan) Now, Mr. Gale, I- show you what's

' marked 68B, and these are jugt the fronts, because we don't «a

- have the back, of bank money order, First Security Bank. I'm

going to take you through them. $1,400, 7/16/64, payable “te

First Security Bank, purchased by Jet Chevrolet; and the author-

ized signature is John B. Gale. Do you know what that was. for? :

A. No, I don't. ,, .-

. Q. . That. was a purchase of. stock, wasn't it? A. I don't

ow.

Q. So you could sign a $1,400: cashier's check*at that -

time without. any authorization further than you had? A. Yes.

Q.. .Now, on 8/11/§4, again with your signature as author-

ized signatory. ‘for the bank, $1,000 payable to Glen “Reed, 8/11/

64.- And it. says: "The Remitter, bank, for stock," what's that

_ all about? A. This was probably a check that I gave him for -

soma stock... .

Q.: On 8/11/64?. Right? And you took: ‘it out of Some of

. ‘this. ‘money that you had from. out- of state buyers?. ‘A. bit have

to see who-- | vA

a Didn't: you. testify that you. didn't: have: money ‘at

that time to buy stock?. The only stock. you could: buy is money

_ that other people sent you?. A. ‘This is true,

e+ Q. Se. you know that money came from somebody other 4

than yourgel$?: A. Yes. | :

Q. But you. don't have any records te know who it. came _

_ from?. A. ‘I'd have to. lock at. whe bought his stock.. ; i

Q. In. ony: ws you, didn't: tell Mr. Reed that you. q

were... 28 ; -

ay ae | bee: aan

setting 4 it to senibally elise other: than. yourself, did b yout AL

@ Did yeu tell him you hada lot. of money or any = os

money. you. were. holding for out-of- state purchasers and making

- & commission. on it? A. Ne. ~ ;

24.

Q.. You didn't tell hin. :

or mad i ie, that. that wasn't @ fair price,

Q.° You didn't. attempt* ‘a dissuad :

from selling the weeck? P ade or discourage him ;

. ¢

. * * *

« :

Q. (By- Mr. Duncan) Did you. ever iticeapt to dissuade

_Glen\Reed from selling the stock, telling him he shoulda't sell

it?’ A. I probably told him he shouldn't: sell. it.

i. ' Q. You. probably teld him. “Here_is another one, -

September 22, 1964. That's before the August, '47 day. This-

is an $1,800’check, and it shows that the purchaser/reffitter 4

waS. yourseif, and it's payable to Mildred. Danielsen. She ‘wes.

a mixed-blood? A. Yes.

Q. So. you were buying ‘stock from her befere Sopeneeer::.

[99] .

Right? 5 A. Right.

Q. Is*there any reasen. you didn’ t pyt: her an “the. affi-’

davit?) A‘° No.

Q. Now, here is one’ datied. 6/15/64.. Again, you sign it

for the bank. It's a money order from. First- Security Bank,

$175. The payee is Glen Reed, and the remitter is Jeha B. "Gale

for stocka Correct? A. Correct.

_ Q. You were. advancing him money against. the stock:

" because. it wasn't through being posted. yet? A. It. had arohehiy

been. posted. ' .

Q. Why. were you odvdncing him money? AL ‘Well; he: had

posted it, and I-was buying it from hin.

Q. But. the letter of notification hadn't: finally been:

' received? -A.- Right.

Q. So before the. rdcter of. netification. came. that. the.

Tribe -had not: purchased it, Be "advanced him: some’ ‘money? ‘AL

Right. 7 7 . ‘ .

wR. BERTOCH: Mr. Duncan, who was ani I nissed ie.

MR. DUNCAN: Gle: Reed.

Q. (By.Mr. Bunéan) Now, here is. one chee kind of <.-

hard to read. 5/3/64. $1, 500. - Once.again, you. signed a First

* [100]

Security Bank money order, and here is what-you have written-on

<€

5/5/64 to Harris: “Down payment on Ute Distribution stock.

Mrs. Vannoy." So this $1,500 was sent to Mr. Harris before:

_. the Harris posting was up, as an advance against the\purchase

for Mrs. Vannoy through you? A. It could have been.

¢ Q. Did you tell Muse Harris that you were purchasing

for Mrs. Vanaoy? A. He was selling directly to her.

Q. And you told him that? A. wie knew it was, because

he had made the contact with her.

. “fe 2m ~ In any event bought the steck for Mrs.

Vannoy? A. I signed the cashier' s check.

Q. And. you also were the purchaser, were you not? A.

Well, for Mrs. Vannoy. —

Q. Yes. ‘On 7/@8/64, ‘here is a check again signed by .

. you for. the bank for $1,690 payable to Emily Hone, and it

~ lists the remitter as. “Bank and Dick Bastian." Do- = know

what that's about? A. No. ~

Q. Isn't it a fact that you were buying that ‘stock

from the payee for Bastian in. the form of a Chevrolet?. A. No,

sir. >

Q. Now, here. is one . dated 7/16/64 for $175. Anethei

one \ ‘ni : e+ #28

. : . ; : ° ’ _ 7201), - . . .

to Glen. Reed, who ie one of the bellwether plaintiffs, signed

by you, authorized signature. And the remitter is “Self. "

That's you, isn't it? .A. Yes:

Q Here is another $178 that you ivakeed to Glen

Reéd? A. Right: - ;

Q. On your affidavit you list that you actually closed

with hia. after; is that correct? A. YeSay

*Q. Here is another one to Glen Reed, 6/16/64 for $400.

‘Again, the remitter is. "Self," and the signator is: yourself or

er bank? A. Yes. ;

Q. Same answer? - Yes..

Q. Now, here. is one 5/5/64, and: it. says savable “to the

eetie of First. Security Bank for $5,250. And the remitter is.

hour de The signer.is yourself. What were you doing there?

A. I don't recall what that was.

Q. Isn't it.a fact that you were. taking money out of

hemicheck and putting it. into the bank so you. could write a

cashier's. : Check for. the purchasé of stock? A, _That*I don't

recall, ;

Q. In-any event, it was. for the purchase of. stock,

because. s , : ‘ e . . ;

, a OM | ae

| | - (102)

$ /.

a g . 7 e me

it's toy/ure, Va Vannoy? ‘A. gp Yes.

; /Q. Now, here is one again stgned you as ‘authorized

signator? A. Right. 2

Q,/ First: becat ies ak money order, “1/17/68, to Western

Union for $658.58; ‘and ‘the remitter. is "Wired to Mrs. Vannoy.

from savings." Do you know what that's ‘for? .A. She had went. .

into. Nofth Dakota, and her husband hadn't gotten work, and sha

wanted some money from her savings. £4

Q.” You -kept the ‘money in savings until you. could buy

stock or her? A. Yes.

'.Q. And I. take it this next one, ‘which is $200, - -6/10/64,

"Savings, Vannoy," is the same thing. A. Yes.

Q. And this next one. Again, all of these are signed

only by. you ral First Security Bank.* Glen Reed is the payee,

7/16/64, $575.° "Vannoy stock." - Did you. also tell. him that

money came from Vannoy? A. I don't recall having told him.

Q. Did you tell him you were ‘selling it to Mrs. yaaney .

for more than he was: getting paid for it? A. No. ‘

Q. Which in fact ypu weren' t? ".

a '

oo . [103]

, Ae ‘Yes,/ a

hes Q. Here is another one. This is 5/5/64 for $4, 250,° to

_ First. Security Bank. You sign it, but the purchaser is Vannoy.

I take it that's simply to set up this account to buy: stock? A.

: ‘ I don't know why it was made

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.