UNITED STATES DISTRICT' COURT FOR THE DISTRICT' OF NEW JERSEY

PHILIP RALPH BELPASSO Honorable Serena Perretti

Plaintiff. I CIVIL ACTION

N0.83-2268D vs. AFFIDAVIT OF PARTICULARTIES

SMITH BARMEY, HARRIS

UPHAM 6 CO.

Defendant.

1. The plaintiff realleges his initial complaint

and more definete statement and wishes to add the

following evidence in his support.

2. Plaintiff was an investor at defendant's Houston,

Texas office.

3. Plaintiff has relinjshed over $6,000.00 in comissions

to the defendant.

4. Plaintant has sustained losses of $20,000 of his investment's value by defraud and poor managment by the defendant.

5. Plaintiff relyed completly on the defendant

------- page 2-------

as to the types of invesments, the quanity and times

of purchases and sales in plaintiff's account.

6. Plaintiff has never met anyone enployed by the

Hoston Smith Barney office.

7. Plaintiff was solicited by Ms. Sandra Revees

a Smith Barney representative January, 1982.

EXHIBIT (A) Statement Period 9/25/82/-10/29/82

Acct.

~ 062-070387 Philip R. Belpasso

NOTE THAT On STATEMENT UATE (SD) 10/13/82 Smith

Barney bought for plaintiff simultaneously two positions;

a. One (1) call Sfhlumberger option,

b. Five (5) call SchlumCerger options.

NOTE THAT On (SD) 10/14/82 Smith Barney sold for

plaintiff simultaneously two positions;

a. One (1) Call Schlumberger option,

b. Five (5) Call Schlumberger options.

These transaction had a profit per/option.

NOTE THAT On (SD) 10/19/82 Smith Barney began a

corrective manipulation to withdraw the profits

of the 5 call Schlumberger nositinn

-----page 3-----

NOTE THAT On (SD) 10/27/82 this corrective manipulation was completed and negating the entire transaction and profits of the 5 call Schlumberger position.

NOTE THAT it was five days between the date of sale 10/14/82 and the start of the corrective manipulation 10/19/82.

EXHIBIT (B) Smith Barney's letter of November 29;

1982 to plaintiff. Signed by David M. Warmin.

NOTE THAT Para. 1 and the list of persons receiving

copies of exhibit (B) indicates that this letter

is a response to a Bureau of Securities investigation

prompted by a letter to them by plaintiff Mr. Belpasso.

Therefore, exhibit (B) is pertinent to the case.

NOTE THAT Pars 3 of exhibit B refers as to "our

(Smith Barney's) understanding" that plaintiff

was never liable or exposed. However a review of

exhibit (A) will prove that plaintiff most definetely was liable and exposed in 60 much as;

a. plaintiff paid for the five 5 Schlumberger

options as can be seen by the debit of $1438.34 on 10/13/82 on exhibit (A),

b. because the corrective manipulation of 10/19/82 was five days past the finalization of the 5 call Schlumberger option transaction.

-----page 4-----

NOTE THAT Pars 4 of exhibit (B) refers to the simultaneous purchase and the simultaneous sale as a simple transposition. If so a simple transposition is immedeately transfered out when it is noticed, not compounded by a simultaneous sale. If so in this case the other account recieved

the profit without risk.

NOTE THAT Para 3 of exhibit (B) states that plaintiff was notified of an error by Ms. Reeves previous to the 10/14/82 sale of the Schlumherger options.

If so the simultaneous sale and the following five

day delay before a correction would then be questionable

EXHIBIT (C) Statement Period 10/30/82-11/26/82

NOTE THAT On (SD) 11/22/82 Smith Barney sold for the plaintiff (10) G.E.O International Options. Ironically at this point in time plantiff owned only (one) G.E.O International option which plaintiff had purchased 10/15/82 (see exhibit A). This over selling credited the plaintiff with $851.70 which was just $55.80 less then the $917.50 which had been nullifed out of plaintiff's account by the

corrective manipulation of 10/19 and 10/27/82.

NOTE THAT On (SD) 11/23/82 plaintiff received (for

free ?) into his account (9) G.E.O. International

expired options. This (free) entry finalized to

----- page 5 -----

the monies credited tO his the plaintiff account sale of (SD) 11/22/83 This account by the Over deposic of (9) G.E.D Tnternationa~ Wa6 patticular because it:

a. proved that Smith Barney waS capable

anddid manipulate poairions tO give and take securities devoid of any stock market

conditions-

b. the personel at Smith Barney were engaged in premeditated BCtS Of crediting an account through manipulation

EXHIRIT (DEXWr~~nr 1/1/83-1/28/83 =-F---

NOTE THAT On (SD) 1/10/83 Smith Barney performed another series of manipulations which negated the over sale of the 10 G.E.O. International options

of 11/22/82

NOTE THAT On 1/10/83 Smith Barney deleated the

$851.70 which the plaintiff was credited by on

11/22/82 when 9 G.E.O international were recieved

into plaintiff's account at no cost.

NOTE THAT On (SD) 1/12/83 Plaintiff's account was

released from Smith Barney and transfered immediately

after the deletion of $851.70.

NOTE THAT This 1/12/83 transfer is particlar because;

a. Exibit (B) para. 1 has a reference of receipt a copy of plaintiff's November 6, 1982 complaint to The Bureau of Securities.

----- page 6 -----

b. Exhibit (B) p,ge tWO reference is made to the breach of rapport and the suggestion that I close out my account this letter Was written more then a month before the deletion.

NOTE THAT th. balance transfrred out oi Smith Bsmey is incorrect which 1 challenge.

EXHIBIT (E) Smith Barney's letter of Feburary 16, 1983 to Plaintiff.

NOTE THAT in para. 2 of Exhibit (E) by David M. Warmin reference is made to 10 contracts rather than one again "erroneously sold", another error? Why then compounded error of 9 (for free?) G.E.O. International.

NOTE THAT In the same letter exhibit (E) Mr. Warmin acknowledges that it was the plaintiff who call attention to the authorities of the compounded error? However in pare. 2 someone must have give the 9 G.E.O. as "accounts were adjusted", what kind of an adjustment is compounded with an over sell?

Ilph Eel so Dated · September 20, 1983 Philip/ Ralph Belpagso

xxx