UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

CIVIL ACTION NO.83-2268D PHIILIP RALPH BELPASSO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

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

Defendant. Nd ·iill

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

PHILIP RALPH BELPASSO 40-09 Kuiken Terrace i""r'i

Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07410 (201)797-8382 Plaintiff

ti'L II

STATEMENT OF MOTION

By this motion, plaintiff now sets forth the

necessary facts and calls attention to the Affidavits

of Sandra Reeves and 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 ST _____ _` I~~'"'~' u"uJr. vr X~;IIVN

(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 Schlumherger 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 1 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

was suspicious and it reconfirmed my suspicions of manipulations because: a. it was followed by a correction which corrected only the stock quantity, NOT the balance. (see David Warmin's affidavit of October 10, 1983, paragraph two, where be 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 ~ 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 them $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.

Philipl/Ralph Re:passo