*2
LUMBARD,
Before
FRIENDLY and
Judges.
FEINBERG, Circuit
Judge:
LUMBARD, Circuit
*3
Dioguardi
ap
and
Ostrer
John
Louis
judgments
peal from
of conviction en
April 12, 1973,
on
a three-
tered
after
January
week
trial held in
District,
in the
from the
Southern
and
by
Judge
denial
Chief
Edelstein of
forty-count
in
new trial motions. The
May 27, 1971,
dictment was
filed
against
appellants
the
and seven others.1
charged
Count one
the defendants
conspiring, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.
provisions
371 to
of
violate
the fed
§
regulations,
eral securities laws and
McGuire,
Harold F.
Jr.,
U.
Asst.
S.
77q(a),
77x, 78j(b),
U.S.C.
and
§§
Atty.,
(Paul
Curran,
S. D. N. Y.
J.
U.
78ff,
S.
10b-5,
and Rule
17 CFR 240.-
Atty., S.D.N.Y.,
Andrew
10b-5,2
Schaffer
S.
the federal mail and
and
wire
Nields, Jr.,
and John
U.
W.
Asst.
S.
fraud statutes, 18
U.S.C.
and
§§
Attys.,
Y.,
brief),
D.
S.
N.
on the
for
remaining
charged
1343. The
counts
appellee.
pro
substantive violations of these same
visions, except 18
1343.
Oberman,
U.S.C. §
Gretchen White
New York
City (Jay
City
Goldberg, New
York
26,
January
On
the
found
brief),
Dioguardi.
appellant
guilty
of the seventeen
Ostrer
on eleven
Elsen,
City
by
court,
to them
Sheldon H.
New York
counts submitted
Dioguardi
(Orans,
Polstein, Lewis, Shapi
on four of
Elsen
and
the nineteen
&
ro, Anthony
Henry
J. Ferrara
Prior
and
counts submitted as
him.3
J.
securities,
pro-
purchase
1. Of
seven
in the
sale of
was
defendants named
indictment,
(Mi
original-
guilty
mulgatеd
78j(b),
pleas
three entered
under 15 U.S.C. §
Exchange
Hellerman,
Goodman,
ly
10(b)
chael
Fred
and Mi
section
of the Securities
Caricato).
jointly
chael
Three were
this rule
tried
of 1934.
violation of
Act
Wilful
separate
punishable
32(a)
by
criminally
trial and were
of one
made
section
convicted
(Gary
Exchange
Fredericks,
two
of
offenses
Act
now
Richard
of
Securities
Greenberg,
Anthony Soldano),
§
see
15 U.S.C.
Unit
78ff.
Greenberg,
ed States v.
7. Miss Rush’s letter reads as follows: write good you Street, within I saw the seen. When W 152 trying; your York, I hard wife was and how New N.Y. 10031 appear prayed February before word it. One 8th- —1973 repent repent. you Dioguardi, and a clean If run me Dear Mr. you good that will within circum- business it Under the situation and such gain you you, you hope right have will what save I that I have made stance explain my I must I continue I lost. Before decision. talk to friends Bertha eyes something you. this, agree and ears I have her Olive about Olive husband things happen. you. Bertha, however, I it I see before I can write they you against Nevertheless, and what I can tell about other I felt had it. Dioguardi’s attorneys copies psychiatrists pointed sent out that fur- psychiatrists, psychiatric analysis the letter to seven all ther needed be- diagnosis responded (one affidavit) in an fore whom could be ventured with opinion, any that, certainty, in their what effect it could said before infirmities, had indicated halluci- Miss Rush written that Miss Rush’s whatever symptoms possible might natory tendencies, extent, their nature and ren- have psychosis, paranoia, grandiosity, pro- comprehend dered her unable to inability ceedings general appre- psychiatrists and in The trial.9 fantasizing.8 reality given ciate without The were no information about thinking doing. wrong If I am are IWhen call the Federal cen- information yesterday they about this it is the first time. ter record room all you. They know all seem to have it you. I I visit would like to like to would you. deep Its seated like within them you appear me. talk about what before personal matter. my eyes fully I like do so when Sincerely, They open. open. partly are I don’t open. Genena present at the when will know printed The letter sheets were with the word put Unfortunate, upon them a curse was picture “LIBRA” and a aof woman with years ago. people I have some some working page letter, scales. theOn last under Everything on them. picture, wrote, sign Miss Rush Li- “The can done that be done. we will have So heavenly bra is the house of zodiac un- to appear As I stated I cannot what wait. omit der I which was born.” letter ad- me, before when I was on the Dioguardi, dressed to “Mr. John Federal You bench. feel this is the end for Institution, Bury, Correction Dan Conn. you. However, Something ap- it is not. 06813.” pear I before me do. is the that must good you I use within that must and with- copy Dioguardi’s 8. The of the letter which good, you gain you what have attorneys original used at first If, however, wrong lost. I am is the from Juror Rush. Rather it was a hand- first time. copy written made original you Why, relationship and which he had let such a exist forwarded you transcribing them. Somewhere between a man like the word Hellerman? changed good “omit” was When I think to “admit” the fifth I saw up. paragraph you sentence of the first within and also does add Where did get paragraph. the ninth Hellerman sentence of the those fur second coats? Does he question. Thus “I have cannot omit I seen sail? Omit the I what have really one, .” “I if became I can’t afford I cannot admit what probably and, similarly, have . seen . afraid to wear .” “I can- it. ” appear not omit what before me . . Why persecute your wife? Your mis- appear became “I cannot admit what before your guilty take then take it out on her. psychia- me. .” seven Six you put through The ordeal I wonder (all except Portnow) trists Dr. received how she survive it. One word *7 copy their of the letter in this incorrect appear before me brave. is a She brave may form. These errors have influenced girl. you.' stop loving love She She never reading subsequent analysis their of you single a Tell moment. her letter, significantly. we but do not think please be careful. From I what suggest can see concerning The defendants’ contentions she in is still business. I it is not competency of Miss Rush rest as much being wise this at I time. believe she is any partic- the letter taken as a whole as on watch. belittling ular sentences. im- While not its good lawyer you That was a had. I en- portance, we do not think that reliance tain to send him some custom as as soon was, gov- the incorrect word “admit” as the my eyes open. contended, ernment “the cornerstone of praying Tell I am for him. psychiatric opinions.” [the] various Dioguardi, Mr. I want ask a favor of you please. supporting psychiatrists 9. The letters of the you I want to look me as a woman and the affidavit of Dr. Portnow need upon you I length. Samples look as a man and not be set at of con- out agree white man and black woman. Olive clusions are as follows: 1.) Stanley (affidavit
with me. L. Dr. Portnow out, April 1973) Let’s leave color OK. : you positive I presumptive told have to serve [T]he letter makes given. juror one showing third of the time So relax this that . . . suffered you psychotic thought is not the end. Soon bewill free. from a chronic disorder infirmity, to render efficient mental service, efficiently to have functioned relationship with her severed which so reality 6.) in the case concerned. exercise unable to that she was (letter of March Dr. Arnold H. Zuclter judgment in un- an or to function critical 1973) : evi- in evaluation biased manner emotionally Mr. is involved with The writer Indeed, produced trial. dence Dioguardi, manner. an intensive appear her unsoundness that would Dioguar- is concerned witli Mr. The writer overwhelming she was that so mind was di’s and fate. welfare subject auditory hallucina- and visual helpful sup- The writer wishes to portive. tions, in her own a belief delusions and omnipotence. powers possesses believes she writer type psycho- nature of The exact impelled clairvoyance and feels to act afflicted, fur- is can be sis which upon her revelations. investigated. an inves- . . . Such ther experiences guilt about Mr. The writer psychiatric tigation entail clinical would Dioguardi’s is con- incarceration. She importance, particular and, of interviews (wrongdo- behavior vinced ing, his “bad” about psychological testing. . . . “a man like Heller- association with (letter ) C. Karlan 2. Dr. Samuel “good” man”) “sees” the in him. Her but 1973) : March responses appropriate are somewhat pa- letter this It is clear from this cultural, educational, of her context imaginations having what tient is religious background. To alleviate see and what she can do she can Dioguar- guilt feelings and “save” Mr. visual hallucina- form of these are “repent”, di, urges his him mend she auditory apparently hallucina- tions and ways, . . maintain faith. . from this letter is also clear tions. suggests fol- the data believe she was while that she these visions lowing impressions, psychodiagnostic which jury. on the require (psychiatric confirmation clinical opinion my the letter It is therefore writer). evaluation of the patient this underwent is evidence that psychotic beliefs, cultural-religious 1. Above the episode while she was on fantasy preoccupa- (pathological autistic letter, jury and while she wrote this tion) . are indicated. . . trends schizophrenic suggestive mechanism significant. Paranoid trends are real- and that she was not in contact with ity. (letter )3. Dr. Robert W. Damino 15, 1973) [M]y psychiatric impression March : is that of paranoid, autistically preoccupied highly Ge- The contents of the letter written (sio) (probably psychotic) individual, she mena Rush indicate that is sub- has who relationships stantially reality adequate fairly disturbed con- external maintained having functioning, . . she visual . de- but who trols and compensating strong hallucinations . . . [and] emotions due to making produced with woman was identification her role the trial. Brough (letter 7.) the accused. . . . of Feb- Dr. Donald M. 1973) ruary the time she she [A]t served : utterly incapable thinking consciously logically written letter was [T]his evidence, utterly incapable part good every as to the of Mrs. intention on the properly evaluating helpful (sic) evidence. in an effort to be Rush ) (letter Jerry Dioguardi. However, 4. Dr. C. Atkins March Mr. 1973) showing : writer was here evidence of My impression judging hallucinated, prove from this letter delusional and would great difficulty suffering Miss Rush have hdd to be from a Paranoid Condition. exercising judgment during Taking fashion, sound the trial far less literal al- religious greatest degree lowing in her in- mentioned letter. Her of latitude *8 terpreting wrote, convictions can could be classified as what she so that grandiosity picturesque, ideas and furthermore thеre idio- taken as a somewhat auditory syncratic expression ideas, evidence of her influ- and visual hallucin- (sic) description by religious educational, ations in her cultural and herself. enced ) (letter important factors, 5. Dr. John J. 15, find Vetter March still would 1973) grounds believing : the letter shows for in this situation in that she was involved is clear cut [T]here evidence of mental very way. unreal and unusual disorder. . The think- abnormal ing processes, impairment my likely judgment, opinion that she In it is most hallucinatory experience is, suffering fact, and delusional be- in from a Paranoid Con- directly hallucinatory expe- involving hand, lief the case in dition which she has incapacity, by thinking. would indicate an reason of riences and delusional juror issues, my questions applicable her, trial and the to or about con- anyone veyed opposite impression. and the had forbidden to Like- court during wise, to her. the three weeks of trial seek interview nights days and three and of delibera- On the basis of Miss Rush’s letter and tions, anything I did not notice unusu- opinions psychiatrists, of the Dio anything al her. Nor un- guardi pursuant moved to and Ostrеr concerning brought my usual her 33, F.R.Crim.P., for Rule a new trial or attorneys attention either or alternative, evidentiary in an for jurors. hearing competency of Miss Rush juror. They juror un as a asserted that an on the voir Examination of showing ineompeteney then em- controverted dire had disclosed that she was ployed by Hospital out, in violation been made of 28 U. Fifth Avenue Flower assisting 1865(b)(4) patient S.C. and constitu as a attendant § rights.10 employed tional nurses and had so for years. four In to the court’s answer Judge Edelstein, hearing after oral ar- any questions question as to or whether guments receiving briefs, and denied the applied her, comments she stated motion further for a new trial for employed by Navy in 1944 she investigation juror’s competency Department in Cleveland assistant April 12, 1973, on and later filed a thor- cleaning department. in the foreman ough opinion July 18, considered hospital employ- Prior to her current F.Supp. 1973. 361 954. He stated: ment she was a silk finisher a clean- Moreover, nothing there ing shop in the Bronx. juror during demeanor of the voir dire, or trial deliberations to indicate II. anything competent that she was but jury. dire, to serve on the voir On Competency Rush Juror A— jurors group questions were asked only is well settled an effort to elicit from them their juror’s incompetence feelings of a prejudice clear evidence of bias or rendering the' and to deliber prevent understand issues them from verdict, requires service impartial ate at the time of his fair and [footnote setting And colloquy me, a verdict. In aside direct omitted] likely strong it is directly evidence that re- answered incompetence stating sponsively, suffered from such that she understood during justify my in questions spec- comments, service will incompetence ifying quiry particular applied into whether such one which juror’s Nothing responses to her. did In our view the her fact exist. reasoning letter, essentially demeanor un indicated that her and the horseback processes opinions psychiatrists abilities mental were de- of the informed considerably ability Indeed, regarding letter, ficient. to recall fall plan may court as the other district any person qualified provide, shall deem Whatever the court consider petit juries grand serve proper steps regard to take in oth- . unless he . aspect case, my hope er it would be (4) incapable, reason of mental psychiatric further examination would satisfactory physical infirmity, to render gently encouraged her, and that service. willing cooperate. she would be provides guidelines, however, no Act part procedures 10. 28 where § U.S.C. which is are to be followed what Jury discovery possible is, trial, Selection and Act of after Service P.L. there 90-274, 53, provides juror disqualification. grounds Stat. relevant part as follows: also ABA Standards see fn. below. See *9 (b) making Relating by Jury, II, V, In Trial Parts such determination juror 1968). qualified Commentary (Approved Draft [whether serve] court, chief of the district or such
79
any
inquiry.
act,
“objective
justifying
further
evidence of some
fact”
of
short
interna]
Furthermore,
appellants
impropriety.12
have not of
Even in the
supports
hearing
single authority
incompetence
of
case
recent
cited a
grant
record.
it must
their motion on this
will be had to
of
establish
entirely
during
Judge
jury
in
correct
have
Edelstein was
existed
service.
denying the motion.
strong
against
post-
policy
any
The
juror’s
inquiry
of
verdict
into a
state
inquire
into
Reluctance to
regarding
by
mind was stated
this court
any
and into
mind of
state of
analogous
States
situation
United
during
jurors
their delib
conduct
(2d
928,
Crosby,
F.2d
950
Cir.
v.
294
The
reasons.11
rests on sound
erations
1961),
Mittelman
cert. denied
nom.
sub
recog
against
inquiry
rule
whatever
States,
984, 82
v. United
368 U.S.
S.Ct.
only
there is
exceptions
nizes
where
(1962):
599,
jurors
wholly
incompe-
not be sub-
themselves
conclusive evidence of
jected
harassment;
tency,
unwilling
courts
courts have been
to sub-
ought
large
ject
juror
hearing
not be burdened with
his mental
mostly
allegations
applications
merely
numbers of
with-
condition
merit;
temp-
opinions
losing party.
out real
chances and
of
In
Peterman
tampering ought
Motorcycle Co.,
in-
tations for
not be
v. Indian
February 8th —1973
*14
Why persecute your wife? Your
Dioguardi,
Dear Mr.
your guilty
mistake
then take it out
Under the
you put
situation and
cir-
such
her.
ordeal
her
hope
through
cumstance I
that I have made
I wonder how she survive
right
appear
I
decision.
talk to
it. One word
before
friends
girl.
Bertha and her husband Olive
me brave.
is
She
a brave
She
this,
agree
you.
about
you.
Olive
stop loving
that write to
you
I
love
She never
against
Bertha, however,
single
it.
not a
moment.
her to
Tell
Nevertheless,
you.
please
I felt I
had write
be careful.
I can
From what
see
I
suggest
cannot omit what
I have seen.
she is still in business.
it
I
is
good
you
IWhen saw the
within
and
not wise at this time.
I
she is
believe
your
being
trying;
how hard
wife was
I
watch.
prayed
appear
about it. One word
be-
good lawyer you
That
awas
had.
I
repent.
you repent
fore me
If
and
entain
send him
as
some custom
good
run a clean business it
is the
eyes open.
my
soon as
you
you,
you
within
that will save
gain
you
praying
will
Tell
I
for him.
what
am
have lost. Before
something
I
explain
continue I must
Dioguardi,
Mr.
I
a fa-
want to ask
you.
eyes
I have
ears that I
you please.
vor of
things
happen.
can see
before it
I can
you
upon
you
me
I want
to look
as
they
tell
about other and what
are
you
upon
thinking
doing.
I look
a man
wrong
woman and
If I am
man and black woman.
white
this it is the first time.
agree with me.
Olive
you.
I would like to
I
visit
would
out,
eyes
open.
my
fully
to do
Let’s
color
OK.
like
so when
leave
you
I would
like
talk to
about what
you
only
will
have to
I was told
appear
They
before me.
are
given.
time
So
serve one third of the
partly open.
I don’t know at
you
Soon
this is not the
relax
end.
present
they
open.
when
Unfor-
will be free.
tunate,
put upon
a curse was
them
I
information
call the Federal
When
ago.
years
people
some
yesterday
have some
center and the record room
working
They
yоu.
Everything
all seem to
is
know
them.
all
Benson, 31
(1972);
deep
United States v.
you.
seated
Its
in for
it
have
(D.Cal.1887).
Such wom
personal matter.
F.
like a
them
within
“incapable,
rea
clearly be
Sincerely,
an would
infirmity,
.
.
.
of mental
son
Genena
satisfactory
service
render
has
juror
she
claims
Thus,
1865(b)(4).
under 28
...”
U.S.C. §
see
“eyes
can
and ears
Jorgensen
Machinery
v. York Ice &
Cf.
happen.”
can “tell”
things
She
before
Cir.),
(2d
Corp.,
cert.
160 F.2d
thinking and
people “are
what other
69, 92 L.
denied,
S.Ct.
U.S.
partly
“only
doing.”
eyes
now
are
Her
Moreover,
incapaci
Ed. 349
put
open”
curse
because “a
juror
ground
ty
one
even
on such
writing
ago.”
years
is
She
them some
regardless
poison
verdict
appear
“[sjomething
this letter because
remaining 11.
competence
Although
do.”
I must
me that
before
Gladden,
366, U.S.
Parker v.
Dioguardi’s
in the court-
never
wife was
(1966)
(per
L.Ed.2d 420
knows that
somehow
room,
curiam);
Rattenni, 480
States v.
United
girl”
“is
Dioguardi
“is a brave
Mrs.
1973).
F.2d
business,”
watched.
but
is
still
“eyes open”
juror’s
she
As
as the
soon
question,
course,
The ultimate
lawyer
Dioguardi’s
some
send
intends to
“incapa-
juror Rush
in fact
whether
she “saw
And when
satisfactory
customers.
rendering
ble” of
serv-
how hard
good
within”
precise legal
ice,
before us
but the
issue
trying,”
“re-
the word
presented
“was
enough
wife
to the
is whether
pent”
her.
holding
before
appeared
require
a hear-
district
capacity
to serve.
to determine
staggering
implica
in its
The letter is
ju-
court had before
The district
training
special
is needed
No
tions.
repu-
and the views of seven
ror’s letter
appreciate
be
seems to
ren-
psychiatrists,
whom
all of
table
clairvoyant
can see
lieve she
expert opinions
ap
writer
not,
dered
things
may not,
or could
*15
from
mental
suffered
severe
the letter
others,
people
parent
what
such as
According to
of these
some
illness.1
happens.
it
before
think or an event
diagnosis
precise
of her
doctors,
actually
juror
did
if
Rush
believe
And
require
problem
evalua-
would
clinical
clairvoyant
way,
is
she
this
was
tests,
but
tion
interviews
really
spell
why
necessary
out
she
agreed
phychiatrists
on
all of the
guilt
fairly try the
or inno
could not
disabling
seriously
existence
any
man?
It seems obvious
cence
opinion
thought
which in
might
disorder
their
juror
“clairvoyant”
me
impaired
func-
her mental
guilt
would have
honestly
de
“see” a defendant’s
ability
tioning during
the trial and
spite the lack of evidence
she
because
intelligently.
judge
These
the case
can
mind. Or
see
the defendant’s
expert
on
uncontradieted
might
views stand
conversely,
for the
rea
same
she
majority
True,
record before
us.
innocence,
son divine a defendant’s
“essentially
opinion
to them as
guilt.
refers
overwhelming proof
the face of
uninformed.”
regard
horseback
person
A
who was known to
her
order,
judge’s
view of the
oral
clairvoyant
district
certainly not
self as
would
juror,2
no one
to contact
place.
was
be allowed on a
in the first
adjectives
simply
justified.
are
these
Silverman,
United
v.
449 F.2d
States
psychiatrists
denied,
made clear
1341,
(2d
1971),
Several of the
1344
Cir.
cert.
more
like to know
943,
918,
405 U.S.
92
30 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
juror
open
psychiatrists
court
stated in
2. The
1. The
of the seven
credentials
by anybody
detail,
varying
but,
or
contacted
Rush is not
to be
on this
were set forth
any possi-
anybody
by
record,
appear
qualified
give
communicated with
an
all
be
clear,
indirectly.
way, directly
Is
opinion.
expert
or
ble
gentlemen?
86
heartily
pre-
Indeed,
juror. Obviously,
I
law.
endorse
since
the directive
attempting
of the mental
the evidence
this record
vented
counsel from
defense
is,
juror
incompetence
Rush
I have
interview, and
both defense
Moreover,
indicated,
government
quite
apparently inter-
“substantial.”
counsel
triggered solely
preted
inhibiting any
inquiry
inves-
here
order as
allegations
opinions
tigation
by
apart
“the
of a los
juror,
from
even
talking
party,”
by the unsolicited letter
but
to her.
juror
only
herself,
sent
which was
effect of the uncontra
combined
days
it
after
and is
13
verdict
apparently
dicted
intend
record and
incapacity.3
persuasive
self
evidence
scope
judge’s
requires
ed
order
by
cited
the ma
None
the decisions
hearing. The un
remand for a further
jority
objective
involved such
unusual
psy
bizarre,
is
solicited letter
seven
supra,
example,
In Peterman,
fact.
given
opinion chiatrists have
by
ju
was no
there
communication
juror
seri
of it that the
basis
ror,
symptom
an ovеrt
itself
ously mentally
during the
I do
ill
trial.
contrary,
of mental
On
disorder.
we,
court,
not
disregard
can
see how the district
suggestion
juror
there was “no
that the
Certainly
de
these facts.
insane,”
216 F.2d at
whereas
jurors,
fendant
is
to 12
entitled
sane
supports
here
record
uncontradicted
Gladden, supra,
Parker
366,
U.S.
v.
385
opposite
Furthermore,
conclusion.
420;
17 L.Ed.2d
Unit
S.Ct.
many
alleged
taint,
cases
Rattenni,
ed
supra,
States
F.2d at
v.
hearings
actually held
or ordered
incompetent,
if
one
we upon
See,
g.,
e.
v.
remand.
Remmer
power
supervisory
should
our
exercise
States,
United
347 U.S.
74 S.Ct.
just
hearing
order
new trial
as 450,
(1954);
United States
L.Ed.
we would if one turned out to
blind
(5th
1973)
Hand,
v.
3. There hint is no the let- record those genuine. explored. actually course, ter solicited or not competence need inquiry over, I probe discussions. entail already such alternative mentioned have enlarging
possibilities record appellants’ witness- cross-examination experts. government testimony by es by in- develop evidence Counsel background vestigating juror’s voluntary undergo
persuading her need I see no
mental examination. in- every
explore avenue conceivable merely make
vestigation, wish to but any gen- counseling point I am not policy pro- wise with the eral break
tecting sanctity jury room jurors. privacy of individual strongly reasons, I believe For these refusing erred in district court compe- inquiry into the make further Therefore, dis- Rush. tence order from the affirmance of the
sent hearing.4 denying new without a trial CORPORATION, Plaintiff-
SHEL-AL Appellant,
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE Security Exchange COMPANY and Bank, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-1965. Appeals,
United States Court
Fifth Circuit.
March 1974. April May 8,1974.
Rehearing Denied *17 agree majority’s disposition points by appellants. I4. of the other raised notes were reflected The circular stated that $3 share. Soldano, January In Heller- of 1970 Michael Hellerman took Soldano to guilty Dioguardi’s pleaded man, who and testified “to office make sure it was began government, steps to drive for the up record.” price stock, of Belmont first According Hellerman, it was at this nearly a share then to $5 $50 $6 brought early time in March that he Os- manip- At a share. time two stock although scheme, trer the two ulators, Anthony Soldano Fred only recently acquainted. Ostrer Goodman, Hellerman, in concert with agreed buy 14,000 to commit himself to substantially acquiring commenced all of shares Belmont at a share $15 28,720 publicly known tradeable ($210,000 total), understanding with shares Belmont. Goodman and Sol- split profits he future purchases ostensibly dano executed their through Hellerman, that Hellerman would open using market, brokers guarantee against loss, him and that a through quoted prices who for Belmont purchase money loan of the ranged would be ar- Quotation pink Bureau’s National “lay so that he have to would not sheets for over-the-counter securities. quarter” $210,000. out a Pur- purchases appearance These created the chase or in orders Ostrer’s name public of an active market in the stock. behalf were to made various Exchange New York Stock firms. March, early By Goodman price placed Soldano caused the market then orders in his own quoted pink 14,000 Belmont as sheets name and in his sister’s