# Appendix — Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0009%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 406 U.S. 128 ## Text "SUPREME COURT, U: 5. Ss. & . > : $ } ~ we i? -. . ‘ o. Z . es ; ar t s pte ‘ > 4 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 . oa eo . £ PETITION FOR -A . WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED FEBRUARY 9, 1971 { Sera oo. APRIL 19, 1971 x- “, 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 © Cross Excammimation 22.0.2... c.cccceeccscetc{ooeeseeensceelaveeseeensanessengeempenteseeecrneees LIQ: | 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 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 4 JN e ? Pe Pp . 0 Oe , cache “S LAIR Pe wm DAs BAS a 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 o —_— 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 | ) ‘ ee % =. 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- _ 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 — on 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- _ 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 2 » 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. ew a = . _ @ 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; ~~ (c) was a signstory to and bound by .the terms of a. 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 o >) was transfer ‘agent of and for the capital stock of © this action_employed by the First Security Bank of Utah at . a ° ’ , ‘ Pe "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 . (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. - 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 a ‘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 . | 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 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 Se 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. oe 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. “ i+ % . bd 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 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] a 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 t . [$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. — 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. ° . ° a2 I covidn' . = est. no aes any ne he else. RS b 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 ex 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 . We advertised for.". Now sfwas. that your: tes! at day? © 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” - a $% o iad 4 : 2tyeh § - . ” Et. x a , . oo 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 _. ) needed it, and I accepted it. © Ress Sitar! ay dass : >. \ 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 i: 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. ; 6 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 ; . we 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. . ‘ re © How old are. you, sir?. A.. Forty-one. ° (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 \ 5 53 ‘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. & ae Q.. You did. Yes, sir. -And in 1961 ‘and ‘62, and "63 © 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 a a 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 ” >. 3 ras > Q. (By Mr. Duncan) -All right, sir. The two you + checked are 12A and 11A, is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Both of those that have the signatures : in them are © 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. “ None. ‘of those: minors, none of thdse whe were. declared. incom- petents, : a a, | (931. -_ + 3. bd ‘ 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). ¢ _——¥ ‘MRE BERTOCH: He's presently: che of. the elven © ra MR. NIELSON: «He! “> ‘the schedule ihe: this. ener was adopted for. . ; aff : @ MR. BERTOCH: ne 6d pate let: benaticiary. , , fs oe : =, MR. NIELSON: There are at least fourteen on the “© | .schedule. In addition to. our assertion that everyone of them were wnder ‘Paragtaph. S.- There — fourteen subject to the . trust. ” : ‘ 5 a .-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. y te 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) y 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 = difference?" Did you ever say that to him? © A. No. . Bt Did bey over: do isa hte him? . ons re * £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? ae » 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 2 Se 72 © 9 THE 6 Ether 6 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 _—: > Did ps appear before. you?, ° AL. Yes. © i aa Ra -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 Lerma Gylilstrom, becausé that was one of your out-of-state ©. ' ' 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: } © They're destroyed as soon as we pay the ball." “You so testi- 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. é \ 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 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 that was. ae .@. 5 | Q.. In any event, you signed the check? A. Yes, = —— - Q.. It came from her money? A. Right. _ . | Q. Here is one 9/25/64, $550, "Bernice Vannoy." That. ‘" was some more stock? A.- This was some stock that. she had ‘pur- chased. The check wasn't signed by me. . j .Q. No.. And now, this next one dated 5/14/64 is First -. Security Bank, $3,500. Cashier's cheék. to First Security Bank _ from First Security Bank, signed only by. youy. John, Gale; -but * the. purchaser is Laura Wood. Laura Wood was another one of - your Clients who. was purchasing UDC stock through you? ‘A. Yes. _ Q. And this was simply the way of getting it into , what? Into the working account? “A. No. This would have just — been held-until the stock was purchased. - - 1s (104] Q. So you held this’ check fron First ecurity to First Security for the accourit of Wood? A. Yes. °- Q. Now, when you get a check like $3, 500, and you knew on - 7 L. . ; =: ‘ —~ oe you. had it on hand, and you knew how much Wood would pay, ‘nd for how many shares-- A. Yes. Q. And you would contact Mr. Murray ‘and say, "You find us some stock, and whenever you pay for it, we'll st for whatever difference-- A. Now - = Q. Did you ever do that? A. No. - . Q. Im any event, you. never told the seller that you ~—_—_~’ were making a. profit? A. The seller? a : Q. Yes. ‘The: mixed-bloods. A. No. . ss Q. Sometimes "eb told them you were buying it youself? A. Sometimes. I did. Q. Yes. 8/11/64. ‘Here is. another one. This is $650, payable to Jim May. But it's signéd by you, and the remitter is Phelps. This is Phelps, another one of your accounts: you . were holding, to apparently spill over some of. the expenses. Is: that _—_ that's fort . _ f108] A. I don't know...” Q. Phelps was one of your clients who was purchasing Picad stock through-you? A. Yes. Q. Well, I:don't know if any of these add very much. more, sir. Let's just look at these next two. 6/8/64, Robert Reyos for $225 signed by you. Here is one 6/8/64-to Russell Reed, .$225 to Russell Reed, signed. by you.’ And these were both advances. on stock, weren't they? . A. I think so, yes. . ‘ a a ee 2 Q. (By. Mr. Duncan) Now: Mr. Gale, at the ns -we' took . your deposition you supplied ‘me with, a ‘copy of. an affidavit. | _ That's what. it: was calieéd, and it was blank forms. You: see the indication "Deposition" in the corner. Right? A. Yes. Q. Now, the original you supplied us I believe was in bios ink or purple ink, because ‘you. nineographed. it at: eo bank?. A. Yes. . Q.. It's your tostineny. now that 72A is.a true copy ‘of the, afffdavit that was mimeographed by the bank-on the | (106) = S bank miméograph sathine: correct? A. Yes. . ~ °-_Q. And you kept 4 supply of these in the bottom. of. your desk?. Anybody that wanted an affidavit, “you. supplied it to them? A. Well, I don't know whether it was in my desk, ‘but ° it was there. ; ‘ ‘ d Seg en OTERO Se .@ the stock. ~ Q. (By Mr. Duncan) - Now, in. the early guarantees: Q. I see. Is your testimony now, sir, that you. know of * no instance ° [114] ‘\ I was buying it for $500. They were giving me $50. And any : amount over the $530 went into--went to them. , . Q. So you had an Owens checking account, and you had a Mathews eres account, and then you'd spill that into them? A. Yes. \ ; am Q. You'd make the deposits? A. ‘Yes.’ wo, \ MR. DUNCAN: I think we'll. offer: th®se two now. aes _were supplied to us on demand by the bank. — .Q. (By Mr. Duncan) I'1l ask you to identify then first. . If these. two represent--these are summaries--ledger cards that you supplied us from tHe bank;, as to deposit slips and deposits and withdrawals in the account of these two men. What is the 1 next number, Mrs. Gibson? ~ * * e ° . > cont (By Mr. Duncan) ‘Are these ‘correct copies of your bank records. A. Yes. os , Q. Most of the ‘deposits in fact were made by you for their account? A. Some of them. - (115) é 2:6. 6.-: ‘y - a ‘ “-Q. (By Mr, Duncan) Now, after the first purchase or so that you made of this UDC. stock you told Mr. Murphy, who. was the manager, _ you were doing \ this, didn't you? A. Yes. rn eee 16 2 ° . stock? A. ° ; : z Sis © . » Q. And. he didn't tell you*you shouldn't, did-he? | ra _ He told me to do the--what I did on my own time was my own bysiness. ~ on Q.° No. bank officer ever advised you not to buy UDC . . . o° - .. Q.. Im fact, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Haslem knew that you . ” were writing letters about these transactions and they were -. va phoné call from:Mr. Roy Hansen of Salt Lake City. That's Ae No. I might correct it here, so-you won't have to find. A. I don't know that they knew’ this. : being printed--or, typed by Utahna Berry on bank letterheads?. Q. Now, at some point you received a letter’ from--or, ‘correct, isn't it? -. . . tne that: Mr. Hansen is from Spanish: Fork. Q. «1°¢ ee read you, this from 104 of your deposi- ia f this is what you said then. You discussed ~ tion and ask you that you. had a call and that you were told to do certaih - things, And then we begin the questioning: "Question: Has .. the bank or any officer of the bank ever. consulted or talked .— to you or written you concerning your dealing in the stock. of Ute Distribution Corporation? "Answer: Not writteh to mg. I was talked to, yes, one time. “Question: By whom? “Answer: By Roy Hansen. "Question: Whe is he? "Answers He's our direct supervisor. “ "Question: Of First Secu ? “Answer: Yes. “Question: What did he-.say to you? "AYSswer: He said © what I did as far as purchasing stock on my own was up to me. "Question: When did he.tell you that? "“Answer:. I believe’ about last fall a year ago." Which-would make it August of '64 or thereabouts. A.. I won't change my testimoify on that, ae than Mr.’ Hansen.is not from Salt Lake. He's. from -Spanish. ork. - a.) oe aes : [117] : - + .Q. -But he was your direct supervisor? A. He-was my direct supervisor, -. ; NC ee foie Q. . "Question: And how did Mr, Hansen knew about that letter? "Answer: He received \a telephone call from the indi- vidual. who was selling to the fellow.in California stating that he didn't think that I should cut: into--er, use bank facilities . to olain buyers for stock that they had already found. "Ques- ~ te you?.; “Answer: “Yes. "Question: what did you say? "Answer: I told him that from then on i would not-interfere _ 9 with any purchaser that had already been contacted. "Question: _t . : . oa ne , : . ’ : - : 77 : >. , oa \: *. . YO a Now, I take it fron chat that this iin that called Sten California had’ bought stock before the transaction you're tatk- ing about? “Answer: ‘I was sending a stock certificate to him, « yes. "Question: . And asked him if he wanted to a toy some pore? tao’ wake he [118] Phe. By ‘uit BO a : A ip melee \ "Answer: . Yes." So when you transmitted the stock certificate . £Tom your branch out there to this man in California, you wrote him a letter and said, "I can get ydu some more stock"? A. This was included in my letter, yes. / ‘ Q. And it. was on bank stationery and signed assistant manager? A. Yes. Q., And Mra Hansen said the only thing, he, didn't like bu to do that on company time? A. Yes, - Q. He didn't tell you anything about your beinga trustee or that you euléa’s de deeting: with these. Indians at - all? A. No. ° qs Q. Nothing of that k you not} sir, that the questi . New, you also testified,. did i of purchasing the stock was _ - taken up at several of tie. officers’ meetings? That's the officers out et the Roosevelt branch? | A.. I think~=1- said that --one. There may have heen. other instances. oe ere dai Q. -And what was discussed? .A. After: this ‘nsthnni~- 3 ee baa Q- No. This is before that, fan t ist... nye OME o a don't recall, Q.. In any event, right after your gr ak IEE ied you ees . “Seiki aaphae mi ey "O19 . ou 6 A os /told Paul: Murphy you were buying UDC stock? A. Yes. 7” ' Q,. And_he didn't tell you: you're not supposed to; he 3 pore said, "Do it after bank hours"? A. Yes. |. ‘ é Q. Evan though you were writing letters during the day and Utahna Berry was md cnet them and you were tee them ae assistant-- : ‘ : {dis ‘THB COURT: “ pveia argunéat, Wee eae eet os : ” Q. (By Mz. Duncan) Yes, sir. I-withdraw the question. What were your. transactions. with Mills Topke of New Orleans’, A. ‘He would either wire--or, send money or haye us draw a check on hin and ive te individuals who he had--was buying stock. from.. . Where did you get his name for the first time? | As Oh, be called, the bank,. I. ine, - uh Isn't. it & “fact. wid you. got it: off the twensfer “ sheet hen weg Murray sold him stock? A.. No.” D See HGS Give Murray mene: | bm; ond: cuss you out a, ‘Methe: it-- 25 oe , {120} ‘ , See be a 6. OSB TA OF Q. (By Mt. Duncan) Did piles ONES, Clyde Wibiey' cuss - ‘you out ‘for going around him to Mills Tooke? , A.— pecnsy’ A was (handling stock for Mills Tooke, yes. | Q. He did do that? A, Yes. og Q. Mill's Tooke we an oil man ‘in New Orleans, wasn't ; J "4 he? A, Yes. A Q. And he was | buying a lot of stock? . Ay He was handling a lot, yes. .Q. . Now, when you notarized the affidavit of: Louise: Allen Case, did you have her swear and raise her sand? | A. I don't recall whether I had her swear. 7 i’ Did you: with Letha Wopsock?_ ~ -don't recall having done this. ia ¢ See Did -you do. anything other pore having them os aestie a Yes. -. Q. What did yoy do? ApS I astied them--if it ‘was on the affidavit that the agency had sent--if they had received | the money for the stock. . - Q. All right. . Now, did you do that with Mrs. Case? Re; Yes. ; ; ., nae ue | / Za qd. Did you do that with Richard Curry? A. If I signed. o- his-paper. — Jecaiea! gi oeea ’ . 3 Q.' Charles Reed? | oie S | ee et peed ue IO gee 7 , A AE Tes: 3 | : ~ a cee Q. Well, nay we eateily say, then, that: you did it with ; every person including all. of the named plaintiffs where your . Name appears as you having notarized. the affidavit? A. Yes. Q. And in every case they appeared rata you? A. : Yes. ‘ 0 Gs Q. And that you did not know or have ey knowledge ie * fact that any of these plaintiffs were taking automobiles or . atpceries or repairs? A. No. 7 Q, Is it a fact, sir, that on occasion when these. var-- .' ious plaintiffs came in, including Louise Allen Case, that they ‘, were accompanied by ore of these men that you have identified ‘*° as being known to you as car dealers? .A. Yes. - Q. In fact, that was generally ‘the case? When they - » in, there was generally. a car. dealer\with them? A. No.” yd better state, it céuld have been. But I don't recall of them specifically. * tee Q. You mean in eath case they could have been accom: panied by-- A. . They could. have’ be en ae by whoever. was ety td e¢- “Ne “parchaing me stetk.~ — | . Q. : I show you what's been marked as “Exhibit 64W and ask » ; : . . ° poss | 122) _ 7 . e ; ~ ew. 5 ; ; in 7 you if that-isn't a copy of the letter ‘you sent-- 7 © “* re * + Q. (By Mr. Duncan) .- I've shown you 64w, You sent that on or about the date it bears? A.. Yes, .Q. January 22, 1964, and you were trying to buy stock “that day; correct? A. No. ~_Q. I read you this paragraph: "Question:’ In regard . to your, stock which has been purchased from Gloria Reed Thorn- _ a > gren, this is just waiting for the preparation officers to Sign. As soon as it's signed, we will mail your stock. certifi cates to you. "In any event, for purposes of shortening this, I show you’ 64W, X, Z, AA, and AB, and ask you if you sent. those on or, about the date they bear. f 7, + »\ ‘\ oa [123] . — 7 * Q. (By Mr. Duncan) ‘And’ you've looked en through and refreshed your memory; and, as far as you know, every “one that: you have said sppeared before you did appear before you?: A. .-Yes. Q.- And all. of those affidavits were fully filled out ‘the time ‘they notified you?. A. What do you mean, veeily filted out"? , + as Sie All the numbers and - letters and so on were in. Just as r instance," Mrs. Case. © ; ae 7. fad - Ast Yes. ‘New, the name- > Wasn' t filled in who’ was. eam it; but other than that, yes. | Q. And that the. only oath you administered was to sak ‘them to sign it? A. I asked. them if they had received this amount. of money, and then had them sign it. _ your records indicates there was any change. You have indicated that you bought a share of. stock and that you sold it to Frost. and Jasper. Now, is that true, aor was just one? A. Thee... was one to each of them. Q. There was one to each of them. Now, do you know -from which half- blood you ‘bought those two. shares of stock? A. No, I don't. : Q. You don't recall that, is that right? “A. No. Q. .Is it correct that you paid, and the purchase price was $500 each, for those two shares of stock? A. ‘Yes. Q. And is it correct as it appears on here that the dates. price was $500? A. Yes. Q.: And that you made what? A $25. commission on each one? A. No, I got $25 for both of these. Q. You got $25 for both of them? A.--Ye Ss. . Q. .Not from each one? A.-. No. . _ : Q. Is that correct? AlI right. And I call your atten- . tion to--you have on here, "Sold to Gyllstrom."" Now, did three _ shares of stock that you purchased from the half- biood go to-- . re] did you resell to a man by the name of Gyllstrom? [132] es = & A. This was a lady, yes. Q. A lady by the name of | Gyllstrom. How much did you . pay the half-blood for those shares of stock? A. I didn't buy these from a half-biood. I don't recall who I got these from. ~ 2. Q You bought. _— from a-- A. I-don't — who they came from. . Q. .But it was not a half-blood? Was it from an Indian? A. I don't recall who I got these from. Q. Well, do you know whether it was-from.an Indian or ‘not? , A. Well, yes--well, the stock was in an Indian's name when I transferred it. Los Q. But you don't know whose name? A. No. Q. . You paid $500 a share for those three shares ; ‘is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you received $530, is that correct?, A. Yes. _ Q.. And is it true, Mr. Gale, that. you sold some ten ° shares of stock to Mr. Woods? A. ‘Yes. “ Q. . Did-you buy that from a half-blood?- A. They. were in: a half-blood's name ae eM were (133) on eT. s - P . — Arp ee aE £180 EDO SE TE vr REPEAT Riemer: eR Oy 1 9 st OMG TS PSI APS AS TR aad Arey be hihi gee lg 0 a! Pls wy esate 0 ANE thaw transferred. . . -Q. a vhalf- blood and sold them to Mr. Phelps? A. Yes. Ps ¢ . we . IRR ey es TR ET PE? DIPLO LDA LEI IND ALILA | EIKO II rae a . @ don't recall who I, bought them from.” Q. . How,much did ve pay for those shares? A. Five hundred. ; oo. > 6 Q And yo old them for how much? A.- I got $530. 'Q. That was he sales price, is that right? A. Yes- Q. All rig $530°'a share, is that correct? A. Yes. - Then is it true that you purchased five shares from Q. How much did you pay for those? A. Five. hundred. ,Q. How much did you get for those? A. $530. — Q. That! *S .for ‘each share, is that right?. A. For each -share. . | - Q. oldu Neiison_ did you sell 15 shares to him? A. "Yes, I did. Q. From whom did you buy those, ‘do you. ‘know? A. I think these were some that Clyde Murray had. Q. And you bought them from Clyde Murray. Q. “How much did you pay for them? A. I paid $400. [134] a Q. And you sold ‘them for $500 a share, is that right? A. Yes. 6 Q. ‘Clyde Murray is a white man, is that right oN ; Indian blood? . A. Yes. pote : , fo ; A> ; ft id: : Q.. Do you recall hew. much you. paid f that stock? A. . I den‘t recall. Generally, Mr. Tooke had made arrangements. 87 7 A. ine with ‘someone else in the Basin, and he. would just send the money. to the bank, and. I would handle-the transaction for him’ _there. . ; .Q You: mean you did not actually buy the pen for hii? Or did you on some occassions? _ A. I gave the money to | . the individual for the stock, but generally I think there’ were two instances where I actually bought stock for him, but-- Q. Do you. recai1l on those. occasions how much you paid for the steck?: A. : No, I don't. Q. Do you: know how much Mr. Tooke paid for the stock when he purchased it from you, or from whom ever he purchased, it?) A. No,.I don't recall what he paid for it.. Q. How much did Mrs. Vannoy pay? A. — a share. Q. $500 a share?’ A. Yes. - . Qs. That was the same amount for which you paid the purchaser, is that right? A. Correct. [140]. Q.. So you made no profit or commission at all.on the purchase for Mrs. Vannoy, is that right?. A. That's correct. Q. Did you make any profit ‘or commission on the stack | that was séld to Mills Tooke? A. I think-.on two occasions ' Mills Tooke gave me $25 for handling transactions for him. | -Q. $25 /on each? A. On each of the two occassions. Q. What was. the purpose - in your mind of this affidavit ‘which: we've been talking about here which some of these good people signed before you? A. So.that they would know that the stock they had in their name had been duly advertised for a _ certain amount and they’ were to receive this amount... Q. Do you know. if in your mind the First Security Bank “required that this be notarized and signed before they would _ transfer the stock? Did you:know that? A. We had to have a letter from the agency that they had been duly advertised. Q. Well, now, I'm not just talking about the adver- tising. I'm talking about the affidavit in-addition to the .- advertising; the bank had to have a certificate from the agency - saying that the stock had been advertised before’ the bank would . traneter the stock. Is that righg!. fos gs ig ; Q. ‘Now, in addition to that, what did the ee require, if anything, in connection with this affidavit? A. That it ‘be notarized, and when we sent the affidavit over to the agency, that there was 3 stock power: with 4 ed , A. think share was about fifteen or six-_ | toon, Souanteen shares : . : Q. “Do you. recall how many after August 36 * THE CouRT: - Did this 77 shares that you tirade udattined Anélude the shares you bought for your own account? : v THE WITNESS: Yes. eo Q. (By Mr. Bertoch) Now, let's go back to -the 77 again. How many of those 77 did you buy from mixed- bloods? A., I think there was around 6l--or, 60. .. / t= + Q. . Sixty? A. No--right - in that neighborhood. ris Q. Didn't you figure that out for me exactly? Do you biave some notes on it vege wha A. Well, let me see. {I bought 17 shares prior to ayer. of Bt Seventy-seven yhares. altogether. Py ste. r eit? PIED NN, SES REEe NSE MONS NR Dl NE SR, Ce aD -Q. 1 want to. xno altogether how many siarbs you pur-— “chased from mixed- -bloods either before or after: Kauge 27, 1964. A. Prior to--after? , -Q. Before or after. Altogether, how. many did you , . purchase from: mixed-bloods? A. There would be 79. : “Stee .G. Is that your answer? A. Let's look here just one _ minute. No, there would have been 80.: There. were three that I didn't have on this other. list. Q. | bras! that. you purchased from mixed- bloods,. or. 80 ” (146) Qe that you purchased. timation? ta, _Bighty that I purcha d altogether. - Q. How many of those 80 were shares that you purchased : from mixed-bloods? A. Let me figure just one minute. Sixty: , five ‘shares... ; if : ee Q. All right. And then the other 15 you purchased ~ . from people who had no Indian blood; is that correct? A. Par- on me.'.I got the wrong answer here. It would -be 15 and 3. It would be 18. It would be, 62, ‘and 18 that’ I had purchased : from other people. = + tres .Q. Now, tell me if you. can from your recérds there. where you got these 18 shares that you purchased from: persons other than. mixed;bloods--{rom whom you purchased then a 2 , pereeReee 15 eee from Mr. Murray, Clyde Murray. ; Q. A eight - How much did you pay for choad? A. $400. ee share? A. A share. | d ‘ Q. Did-you purchase those all at once? ‘A. Yes. o -. -Q..":When did you purchase m? A. They were purchased - --this was the purchase in the fail of, '64. | Q. All right. Where did “you get the other ay hai from? [147] “rt —_ One from Duane Accutoroop and two from Letha Wopsock.. Q. We're talking about white. pecfle now, not mixed” blobds? A. Pardon me. The other three came sieves Richar , Mufray. ‘ Q. , How much did you pay ‘for those? A. I don't have a ecora’ on the. two-shares. One share I bought for $150. pe es: 2514 Reb From whom? A. Mr. Murray. — - : - Q. When tid you buy that? A. July 4, 1964. e Q:. And, Clyde and Richard Murray were businessmen of © -RooSevelt at that time, “is that right? A. Yes. ? vu stock? “> Me, |. eee THE WITNESS: ‘It/was in the fall. I don't have’ the month, your, Honor. Pete in the fagi-= gS a : THE couRr “By [ead you mean after August? :% THE WITNESS: tt wound have eee >2. was ‘Teabbelite in the middle of the acid and it : would have been in: Movenver’ or -. . December. 3 » : a _THE* COURT: 98 1964? yas "THE WITNESS? "64, yes. > x 'The board of directors by _ unanimous vote directed Attornéy John S. Boyden to write a letter to First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., asking said bank * as transfer agent to discourage the sale of stock of. the Ute. Distribution Corporation by any of its stockholders and to . emphasize and stress to the said stockholders the importance of retaining saifi stock. - oe ety “This direction is self explanatory,-and we tru ou: will. impress upon.anyone desiring to make the transfer that there is no possible way of determining the true value of this stock. It simply represents their distributive share of the remaining funds to be derived from the balance of oil, gas and minerals of the reservation, the proceeds from any judgments to be obtained from litigation against the United States, and’ any other assets that were not susceptible to equitable or practic-. able distribution under law which provided for the ‘séparation of the property of the mixed-blood members from the Ute Indian ' tribal assets. Because of the peculiar nature of this corpoxa- tion, the board by way of by-laws or etherwise contemplates ‘ discouraging or. prohibiting the mortgaging or pledging this. . Stock." a ae, 4 A : - x . {157] YA ‘Were youever shown this letter? A. No, sir. . : _ .Q.Were you ever teld about the contents? A. This is ° on the fron of the stock certificate, but I was never told of the contents of this letter. my _ +. Q. You saw the front of the stock certificates, I ta it, prior to some of ‘these sales you've beep telling us about’. , ; . « o-* ” « “96 ’ = : . , meneame spe 9 . . — POLES. FORME LL RG PE SE LELERLE ELIA LIE LAGE ELIS SN IIE is ee eS os. paneer . SrA oe e A. I don't recajl whether it was prior or after. . Q. In-any event, I'm asking you about this letter. Did ‘you ever see it, or were you advised~of the contents? A. No. , Q Did you ever stress or.emphasize the importance to ese ‘people that came in, the importance of retaining the ock? A. Yes. — a Q. You did. Now, perhaps you could tell ug, Mr.‘Gale, hich. of the bellwether plaintiffs you,tried to discourage from Selling their stock. A. ‘I don't.récall any particular ones. | ‘But I had iff the past advised them if they could’ possibly hold ‘on to it, ‘not to sell it. st ar ones * -Q. Do you recall having advised any of the bellwether =: plaintiffs? A. I don't recall. . Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 88-0 and. ask you, is; {158}- that your guarantee on there? A. No, sir. a 7 Q: Whose ig it, do you know? It's.a- First Security stamp? A. No, I don't believe that's a First Security stamp. '-Q. All right. Now, there is no question about this. 88-0 stock power, is there? That bears, your signature, doesn't it? A. That does. : ry ans -- Q. Did Stacy Reed appear before you at that_time? “A. - Stacy Robb Reed, Jr.? He must have.. — =, " Q. Yes. Now, you testified, did you not, that when the seller was not a.,mixed-blood that you ‘simply directed that it be transferred; didn't go through the posting and advertising? A. This is correct. a sey ote’ ; : .Q. How did: you know who was. a:mixed-blood and who wasn't? Ae Well, by their statement. — If Mr. Murray came in, I knew he wasn't a mixed-blood. . Q. Are you saying that you knew, then whether each of the sellers that came to. you, .by looking at him, whether he was. a-mixed-blood? A. No. ae - “ .Q. The fact is, you had the roll and the list? A. No, I didn't. oe : i oe 'Q. How did you know whether.to transfer 4 given per- son's ( _ # : Q. Now, Mr. Gale, did I understand, you to éontiky thnk. you received no profit on the purchases | for Mrs. Vannoy? A. That's correct. ; Q. Did you call it some thing mieet “Did you get.a com- '-mission? A. No. ~ ' -Q. And so if Mr. Murray and you were. together on a Vannoy sale, eg teat inany is yn no profit? . A. That's cotrect. : : ie e id se . i” . 2 2 PERL EE not; and you've indicated generally that you took"their word for. 1 a . aoe Ps ° : : .& : . ' _ Ss al oe, rt LOS IP we ; Se: ~ - correct. Q. She authorized you to buy speck at $500 a share? A. This is true. . (162) Q. How much did you return-to her? A. Oh, thefe were, I think, two instances where I mailed her some money w. reqtested it. f Q. We have both those in evidence? A.—Yes. Q, And all the rest of -it was ‘spent on stock? A. No, when she--I don't recall when. it was: It was just prior to an interest-paying period that she requested the balance of her money sent to her, when I did. And I think it was right in the neighborhood of $900. : | Q. How much did you. returp? A. I think it was in the neighboghood of nine mundted.. Nine hundred plus the six that we're-- ° Q. * So you spent $11,000 or $12, 000 of hers? A: Yes. : Q. At about $500 a share. That would*%e 250 shares @ alone, or 260? A. I don't know. | Q. All of the stock that shows in these records as : a -going to Vannoy was purchased by you? A. No. Q. Did somebody , else buy for her? A. No--well, yes. She bought for herself. Q. . How about Jasper? . Do you know of ‘Jasper’ s buying aa of this stock other- than =e re ‘ (163) 4 A. No, I don't. % Q... And Phelps?’ A.. 7 don't recall. ‘ coy Q. Now, you testified that some of. these--the jiighest sale you knew was $500. - How much were these good people in Arizona paying for it — Mr. Mathéws. A.: Some of it was six and a half. eet ; Q. And. seven? - A. I don’ t know. 7 ., Q. And you offered to buy it for them-for~ a little P less? Mr. Mathews» became angered? A, 3 vaaebat. to sell to then. " Q. For less? Av x ee Soe ST . ’ Q. And Mr? Methews became angered about it? AL Yes. Q. So we won't burden the record or the Court, the ; transfers, the early transfers: to Mrs. Vannoy, were all yours? ° Ay. te. std Q. Did she ‘“ other than shinai you? A. Yes. * * *- * x 1164] os TOs aS - of hs . ‘ ; - ; gee . | s°- MR. DUNCAN: That's all we have. ‘ | “RECROSS- “EXAMINATION BY MR.. BERTOCH (165) _ = Q. Isn't it true that 13, 000 shares, five hundred--or, ; you paid $13,000 for 500 shares; that would represent, 26 shares; is that correct? A. Yes. - Q- Is my question clear? A. Yes. | 7 ; Q.. So doesn' t that $13, 000 involve 250 shares? It - involves 26 shares?. A. Yes. , - -Q, That you bought for Mrs. Vannoy? A. That I bought ‘or she bought. Q. Yes. Do you know of any transfers of stock that were made prior to August 27, 1964, that were not advertjsed and certified by ee to haye_been scams d advertised? AY Brack, I don' t. . o MR. BERTOCH: That's all € diete. \ : -. * * xe . * a [166] earn: hee a . STEWART EUGENE REED called as a witneds in his own be- . half,. being first duly sworn, testified as follows: .. 7 t' - DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DUNCAN aie Q. Will you state your name? A. Stewart pagenn: Reed. _Q. How olfgare you? A. Twenty-seven. _: Q. ‘Where do you live? A; 3825 Canyon Lake Drive, rapid City, South Dakota. | Q.: Were: you a minor at the date vf--well, when did you “4 recthi 21? A. July 21 of 1961. . . Q. 1961? Are you the same Stewart Eugene Reed that appears on Schedule A, Exhibit 17-B? And your mixed blood number was. then 3617. What! What's you? A. Yes. | Q. Right? .Now, when did you first sell your stock, Mr. Reed? A. The latter part of '63 somewhere. 2 Q. The latter part of '63. Did you make it- in more than » 3 eS " “> fier one sale? A. I made two sales. fe * Q. The first 5 shares to whom? A. Clyde Murray. Q. How did you come to sell it? A. Well, I needed a per, and I wanted some money. ‘So’ ee went down and sold it. : YY = all i . eh a’ You went down and saw the car at Mr. Clyde Murray’ s *car lot? A. Yes. — Q. When did you first post it tor advertising? Right around November. , Was it the same time you talked to ‘Mr. Murray? ‘A. Yes. eo ‘ Q. Same day? ~ A. - Same day. , Q. When did you get possession of the car? A? The latter part -of October. ". Q. Before the posting ‘was up? A. Yes. Q. Is that right?.A.. Yes. 4 Q. Did you get any ‘cash? A. I réceived $460.. Q. $400. What did you post it for? — [168] A. $2,500. - : _& ia re . ' : ‘ THE COURT > Please keep ‘Your voice up. pele 4 : My A. In the first part of '64. AS Q. _ (By Mr. Duncan). Who did you'seld that to? A. Wally Davis. © ’ 4 Sw, :Q. He was a car dealer in 1 Vernal? Ay Yes, he was. . How much did you get for that? AS! received an, , automobile and :$700.. “Q. What happened to your first one? A. “Thad an accident with it. -» Q. When [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0009%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.