Philip R. Belpasso 40-09 Kuiken Terrace Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07410

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PHILIP RALPH BELPASSO DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff, HONORABLE DIOj<INSON R. DEVEVOISE~ CIVIL ACTION NO. 8~-2268D

v. MOTION FOR hN EXTENTION OF TIME

TO PREPARE OPPOSTION TO DEFEN3ANT'S SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM & OR FOR A MOTION OF DISMISSAL, CO., INCORPORATED MORE DEFINATE STATEMENT

Defendant

Dear Honorable Dickinson R. Devevoise, Please kindly grant me an extension in order to prepare an opposition to Smith Barney's motion. I will have this motion prepared by September 7. 1983 and k~ndly make note that I will appear before you at 10r00 a.m, on September 12, 1983 to pre- sent my more definate statement.

;GPI----b------ S y~ yo

hilip R Belpass

------------------UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW .IERS~Y

HONORARLE DICKINSON R. DEREVOISE

CIVIL ACTION N0.83-2268D PHIILIP RALPH BELPASSO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SMITH BARNEY HARRIS UPHAM O;: CO., INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

PHILIP RALPH BELPASSO 40-09 Kuiken Terrace Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07410 (201)797-8~82 Plaintiff

-------------

STATEMENT OF MOTION

By this motion, plaintiff now sets forth the

necessary facts and calls attention to the Affidavits

of Sandra Reevesand David Warmin and to the incorporated

letters and exhibits.

This brief is in addition to plaintiff's recently

filed motion and the enclosed new motion to amend complaint.

This brief supplies information that shows defendant's

failure to use ordinary or reasonable care, and customary

methods and acts. If defendant's acts and, or omissions

were 'inadvertent' and resulted in unintended consequences,

and plaintiff does not believe defendant's acts or omissions

were inadvertent or unintended, this still constitutes

negligence by legal definition.

This brief also is brought to establish plaintiff's

right to a chance to be heard in the name of a trial.

-------------

PLAINTIFF STATES FACTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT CAUSE OF ACTION

(1) The cancelation of a transaction which has occurred

in its entirety and the crediting of accounts which never

were registered as the owner of securities, are a serious

threat to the securities market. The compounding of these

actions by fraudulent statements to the Bureau of Securities

demands a court hearing. The SchlumberRer option transactions

can only be deemed belonging to plaintiff's, my, account

because:

a. my account was debited, liable, and exposed

for the entire transaction.

b. Smith Barney bad every opportunity to notify

me that my account was transacting for another account

during the transactions; however it was not until I called

them seven days later that I was able to find out about this. c. Smith Barney put themselves in a position that had the stock dropped, there would have been nothing to

prevent them from holding my account liable for the loss.

Smith Barney has not presented any conclusive evidence

to the contrary. Smith Barney straddled, gave themselves,

the alternative two courses of action. In the past, I

have suffered the loss of twenty thousand dollars from

my account on blind faith; presumably I may have had my

transactions straddled in the past. This would explain

why my account is a loser. Smith Barney with the intent

to aid the act of procuring moneys out of my account used

--------------

fraudulent statements by telling me that I was never debited, liable, or exposed for the transaction; 1 CONTEST THIS AS UNTRUTHFUL and it CONSTITUTES FRAUD. They then slandered my motives in writing to the Bureau of Securities (see letter dated November 29, 1982) by saying that I was claiming ownership merely because the transaction was profitable. (2) Smith Barney did not initiate any kind of corrective procedure until seven days after the action took place; this confirms my liability and ownership. (3) Smith Barney responded to the Bureau of Securities investigations with untruths and slanderous remarks about me in an attempt to draw attention away from their manipulation. (4) My liability for all the Schlumberger transactions can be further proven by checking the computer records at the Exchange. I have already done this and found my

contention to be correct. The Exchange's records show my account to be the owner, the beneficiary of the profits. (5) As to the nature of the transactions being conducted in two separate quantities, I submit evidence that this was not an unusual practice in my account. (see exhibits E, F, and G; they are true copies of past simultaneous transactions proving this to be commonplace). (6) I am calling attention to the nine G.E.O. Internationals profits because my account had recently been debited for a like amount which I was protesting about. It was the

method by which I got the nine G.E.O. Internationals that

I reported to the Securities Exchange. I felt the method

-------------

was suspicious a~d it reconfirmed my Suspicions of manipulations

because: it was followed by a correction which corrected

NOT the balance (see David Warmin's only the stock quantity, affidavit of October 10, 1983, paragraph two, where he claims that my account is balanced) b. Smith Barney deposited into my account a sum of money within $50.00 of the amount of money they reduced

from my account previously c. the nine G.E.O. Internationals cannot, at this time, be proven to be a compensatory action, but they had the effect of further aggravating me and increasing my growing suspicion and mistrust of Smith Barney's dealings. Smith Barney held onto my account against my will. I informed the Securities and Exchange Commission about this and the nine G.E.O. Internationals, acts I felt to be very improper (see David Warmin's affidavit). Smith Barney held onto my entire account for two months. Immediately after reducing the monies from the nine G.E.O. Internationals, they released my account back into my possession. The holding and illegal reduction of my account were both done against ~II will, because the reduction took moneys which in turn further unbalanced my account and made it evident that Smith Barney had a serious lack of respect

not only for me but for the whole fudiciary establishment.

Smith Barney's conduct is considerably a breach of contract.

I have relinquished to then $6000.00 in commissions in

the past. Much of my time, money, and emotional and physical

-------------

energies were spent trying to find out if in fact I was a victim of stock manipulation and trying to get my account back and balanced. Smith Rarney failed to use ordinary or reasonable care and to follow customary methods and acts; their behavior undoubtedly constitutes negligence.

CONCLUSION For the reasons advanced herein and in the plaintiff's previous motion papers, the Complaint - as amended, supplemented and/or particularized should be supported by the court in order to have Smith Rarney, Harris Upham & Co., Incorporated

stand accountable for their actions in a court of law.

tl ·

PhilipJRalph Belpasso

xxxxx