Steiger v. United States, 8804-8806.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 8804-8806.,8804-8806.
• Citation: 373 F.2d 133
• Parties: Arthur Rue STEIGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Marie Nola STEIGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Donald ROMONTIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

373 F.2d 133 (1967)

Arthur Rue STEIGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Marie Nola STEIGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Donald ROMONTIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 8804-8806.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

February 3, 1967.

Melvin J. Spencer, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants Steiger.

John B. Ogden, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant Romontio.

John W. Raley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., was on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and CHILSON, District Judge.

ORIE L. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

An indictment containing 13 counts was returned against Arthur Rue Steiger, Marie Nola Steiger, and Donald Romontio,¹ doing business as Superior Products, Inc. They were convicted and sentenced on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, each of which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341, the Mail Fraud Act, and on Count 13, defined in 18 U.S.C.A. § 371, which charged a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. Each of Counts 1 to 4, inclusive, and 6 to 12, inclusive, charged that the defendants devised a scheme and artifice to defraud for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and premises. Each of such numbered counts further alleged that the scheme so devised was substantially as follows:

That to induce persons named in the indictment and other persons to the grand jury unknown to purchase household appliances at prices approximately twice the price at which they could be purchased at other retail "outlets," and to induce such named and unnamed persons to execute retail installment contracts and promissory notes for the purchase price of such appliances, they would represent to each of such named and unnamed persons that he would be participating in an advertising promotion, and that by supplying Superior Products, Inc., with a list of names of persons who might be interested in enrolling in such advertising promotion, he would receive from Superior Products, Inc., for each of such persons whose names he supplied, who purchased one of such appliances, $17.50, and for each of them who purchased two of such appliances, $35, and for each of them interviewed, but who did not make a purchase, $5; and that he would also receive for each of the persons whose names were furnished in turn to Superior Products, Inc., by a purchaser whose name he had furnished to it, who purchased a single appliance, $17.50, and two appliances, $35, and thereby he would receive back what he paid for an appliance or appliances and also additional moneys over a three-year period;

That the defendants would cause to be mailed to prospective purchasers introductory letters signed by prior purchasers, informing the prospective purchasers of a "fabulous profit-sharing program" through an advertising and promotion plan, which would be explained to each of the prospective purchasers by a friend, pursuant to an appointment arranged for that purpose, in order to obtain the consent of such prospective purchasers to be interviewed by the defendants or their authorized sales representatives; and

That the defendants would secure salesmen and train them to present a sales "pitch," which pitch would contain false statements, half truths, and innuendoes, designed to mislead.

Each of such numbered counts further alleged: That the defendants, by means of sales literature, oral representations, and letters, represented to prospective purchasers, well knowing that said representations were false and fraudulent:

"(1) That the sales representative of Superior Products, Inc. was not a salesman but was in the advertising business;

"(2) That Superior Products, Inc. was a multimillion dollar corporation that had been in business 10 years "(3) That the household appliances were available only through the referral program and could not be purchased in any store;

"(4) That Superior Products, Inc. was not interested in `taking peoples\' money,\' but in `creating extra income for people\';

"(5) That a substantial percentage of those names submitted would ultimately become purchasers;

"(6) That because of the operation of the referral plan described herein the cost of the appliance purchased would be recouped through referral commissions paid by Superior Products, Inc., and further, that the purchasers would receive additional income over a three year period."

Count 1 further charged that for the purpose of executing such scheme the defendants caused to be delivered according to the directions thereon by the Postal Establishment of the United States a letter addressed to Mr. and Mrs. C. Cherry, 1601 North East 24th St., City.

Counts 2 to 4, inclusive, and 7 to 12, inclusive, each charged a separate and distinct use of the mails for the purpose of executing such scheme.

Each of the...