Philapolis
index
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T9' DISTRICT OF
NEB JERSEY
HOMORAELE DICKINS3M R. DEBEVOIS CIVIL ACTION
N0.53-2268-D
PHILIP RhLPI1 BELPASSO, Plaintiff, )
SMITY B~II~EY, HARRIS UPHA"I & CO.,
INCORPORATCD ,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CCRTIFICATION OI: PARTICULARITY
PERTAINI:~G TO EXHIBITS SUKEIITTED SY DEFENSE
PHILIP R. RELPASSO 40-09 Kuiken Terrace Fair
Lawn, New Jersey 07410 (201) 797-8352
------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF ISSUES THESE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS
COMPLAINT
1. In reference to Affidavit of Sandra Reeves,
Fire.
San~ra Xeeves states that she attenpted to wire
the stocle
exchange (Page 2 paragraph 5). This notification
was paramount as to market procedure. The wire service had from 11:12 to the
end of the day to issue this important message, but they did not. Sandra Reeves
should have called the plaintiff and notify
him of the fact that his account had made a
double purchase.
However, she did not, even though she had the
whole day. 2. The fact that Mrs. Reeves states (page 2, paragraph 6) that she
spoke to the plaintiff before the sale of 10/13, but neglected to inform him
that there was:
a. A doubl·e purchase in his account number;
b. A problem notifiying the market that there was
a
double purchase;
c. Going to be a double sale in his account
number.
3. Mrs. Peeves states (page 3 paragraph 11), it
was
the plaintiff who told Mrs. Reeves that he had
become aware of
the double deal by nail. Plaintiff adds that
"lrs. Eeeves' response
was that she did not notify plaintiff because she
did not think
he would have ever found out, and as seen by both
Defendant's
exhibits 11 and 12. (Plaintiff's statement and
Steven Graham's
statement). The double deal was covert until
10/19 which was 7 days
after the purchase; obviously it was not until
the ylaintif: notified
the defendant that he was aware of the double
deal, that the
defendant started paperwork to change the
situation.
-----------------------
4. In reference to Steven Grabam's statement,
Steven Graham's
statement does not mention plaintiff's
Schlwnberger option until
10/19. This is after plaintiff notified Sandra
Reeves that he
had, to her surprise, become aware that his
account was being
double dealt. Steven Graham is a Houston
resident,~nd by no
means a conservative investor, as seen by his
statement. The
$1903.50 YTD Com;rissions, $794.75, this month
alone, is considerable,
considering that his net worth was only $11,437.
Also, his interest and dividends were only $63.00, for the year, remarkably low
for rJovember, sug6esting that his money was always on the move. One move in
particular was a check withdrawn the
day he received my Schlumberger options, 10/19.
And note that
on 10/29 another corrective move is made, another
corretion! 5. In reference to David Warmin's affidavit, 3avid Warmin states
that his letter to plaintiff dated 11/29/52 was written immediately after Smith
Barney's compliance department had received the plaintiff's complaint forwarded
by the Bureau of Securities of Mew Jersey. If we look at plaintiff's statement
for Movember 1952 (Plaintiff's exhibit C) we can see that the GEO International
options were given to plaintiff on the settlement date 11/22/82 (11/19/82 was
trade date), well before Houston knew plaintiff wrote a complaint to the
authorities.
6. In reference to David Warnin's letter to
plaintiff
dated 11/29/82 (plai~tiff's exhibit D) David
~jarnin refers to
the 10/13/32 SchlQn~berger double deal. Dav~i·d
TJarmin states in
this letter that the plaintiff was told that
Sandra Reeves notified
-------------
him at the time of transaction of an error, but
as can be seen by her affidavit it was plaintiff who notified her that to her
surprise, he had found out about the double deal an or about 10/19. Contrary to
this letter, plaintiff's account was most definitely at risk. In reference to
Defense's exhibits 1-4 which are: order tickets in which plaintiff's account
number is recorded as purchaser of both 1 and 5 Schlumberger options, and
likewise plaintiff's account number is recorded as seller of both 1 and 5
Schlumberger options, the name is not significant to ownership and the name on
the slips is meaningless. This is apparent by the fact that plaintiff's name
has been misspelled on these in-house worksheets. The short duration of this
transaction is significant because transactions of short time duration of less
than trade to settlement time have the capability of not generating
confirmations being mailed to clients or of app~asing on monthly statements. 8.
Philip belpasso does claim the right to repeal all of his transactions because:
a. his order was for a few Schlumbergfr options (notone); b. his accout~t most
definitely was at risk for both transactions; c. because of the illegitimacy of
Smith Sarney's procedure as will be determined by the N.Y. Stock Exchange and
and the S_r,.C. %- xxxxxx