Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Prom
l.. a-=l~l~Y-a....d~v.....~....s....e-=d~a....s-f!!'"O-iPiP'o""w-s-:I
... p":"'h....o....n"""lir-c....
t-:--e"="l.e....
I I
r b7C
i---------- ~--""'!!"'"'lIlIlIIIIIIIIO!ra---
lis a check guaranty company headguarte~r-e
L....-_ _"'P"'!"" ...tcl-.1"...:n..-....
-......II1 l,;Uft.l:'U (~H ..:r 'K, I 1
Detroit.
COMPU CHECK does business in Texas and other states.
~~~p~~~ fr
October 1992, CONNIE "CHIP" ARMSTRONG bought ou?t
I . •
'For' information, ARMSTRONG's father, CONNIE C.
ARMSTRONG, has previously been convicted in the Northern District
of Texas of money laundering in an IRS stinq and served time~
. Approximately 1 1/2 years ago, articles appeared in The Dallas
Morning News and The Wall street Journal concerning a San
Francisco company called HAMILTON-TAFT HT ~ CHIP ARMSTRONG
purchased this company from /77). Y ::P.,,(f7rHl7? -;s:o J'JJ IJJ oC/:bfJ
_ _ _ _~ who was convicted in a THRIFTCON case and is serving
time. ARMSTRONG went from being a fireman in Plano to having 1::7C:
millions of dollars and living a high profile, extravagant
lifestyle. The newspaper articles concerned HT which handled
millions of dollars of payroll _ta~~s for a number of large
companies including NIEMAN MARCUS and affiliated stores.
Basically, HT was incurring extravagant expenses and making loans
from the large amounts of monies passing through HT. Writer
recalls the scheme whereby HT delayed making payroll tax payments
to the IRS by several months, eventually falling further and
further behind on the payments. The loss was in the millions~
The San Francisco Division investigated this case and there were
leads to the Tyler RA. ARMSTRONG had a ranch near Tyler.
2-196-0
WGEjdr
(2)
i
196-0
I
the same scheme
~allegeS that CHIP ARMSTRONG is perpetrating
wIth COMPU CHECK. So after takin over COMPU
· esident
1.S honest
and should be contacted by e accor 1ng 0
ARMSTRONG also fired All the directors with the~e~x~c~e~p~~~o~n~o·flb-
__~
l
Iexpenses.
whomL Ibelieves bought into this scheme.
~lleged that COMPO CHECK is running up extravagant
Like BT, ARMSTRONG is using this month's checks to pay
last month's expenditures, and therefore he believes COMPU CHECK
is falling further and further behind. He believes that
merchants in a number of states will eventually suffer 1":"J'7c
significant losses as a result of these activities. The company bID
has accounts with a number of auto chain stores. ARMSTRONG was
able to obtain about 60% of the stock pi CQ::~
from an investment company in Denver. L b e l i e v e s this
IHECK with a loan
..
2
fD-302a (R~v 11-15-83)
196A-SF-93255
b7C
~onlmuahon of FD-302 of ~- - - - ......1...- • On _-----=.-----.;____
2/ B / 9 3 J Page _ 2 _
196A-SP-93255
196A-SF-93255
- 1 -
Investigation on 2/8/93
SA WILLARD L. HATCHER, JR./WLH IJvt1+
b7C by ~ )tt:1-1---,~ Dilledlcmted 2/10/93
TIus document contains neither recommendntlons nor conclusions oCthe FBI It IS the property oflhe FBI !lnd IS loaned 10 your agl:ncy.
It Ilnd lIs contents are not to be dlstnbuted outside your ngency
FD-36 (Rev 11-17-88)
FBI
Date 2/22/93
Approved: !.ff&
_Kw II./ ql----- Transmitted
(Number) (Time)
Per
---~----
F"1'L .E: 0
1
FEB 1 91993
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,"\ '
,.. :t··'jR'"
·· u II,' 1"'--,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA fl;D.r;7·l/i=,;;::;."D:~rfi:·~:j·~~r~··..C.~E,i::-;
3 . • -;IN [JJSn~!CJ r~.'~ .•:/~1
oJ, I. ' : :.. :FQPMJ
.t.
l •
4 IN RE ) No. C-92-2996-CAL
)
5 HAMILTON TAFT & COMPANY, et al., )
6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ))
AND CONSOLIDATED CASES )
7
---------~---------)
)
8 FREDERICK S. WYLE/ Trustee in ) Chapter 11
9 Bankruptcy of HAMILTON TAFT & ) No. 91-3-1077 LK
COMPANY, ) Adv. ProeM No.
) 92-3-0057 LK
10 Plaintiff/ )
)
11 v. )
)
12 S & S CREDIT COMPANY, INC., )
)
13 Defendant.
:>0 )
....,j -i...:....
14
d' '"""iol fA CUlL DuCj{~ ~. \1;'7-2
.:c 1..L..
-=':J
15 ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
II')
:u 16
-0::
~ Plaintiff and appellant Frederick s. Wyle/ as trustee
~<
L. 17 in bankruptcy of Hamilton Taft & Company, appeals from a
18 jUdgment of the Bankruptcy Court. That judgment was entered
19 on June 22/ 1992. The jUdgment dismissed the complaint and
20
directed that jUdgment be entered for defendant. The court's
21
reasons were set forth in its findings of facts and
22
conclusions of law, filed on June 17, 1992.
23
This appeal was briefed, argued, and submitted to the
24
court for decision. The court has reviewed the record in the
25
bankruptcy court, the briefs and arguments.of counsel, and the
26
27
28
000150
.J
1
I
15 Begier controls the facts and the result here. The payroll
18 7501(a) of Title 26 of the United states Code and were not the
26
Order of Affirmance
27 No. C-92-2996-CAL -2-
I
28 000151
~ I
I
!
..
IPI!II filii
iWI 1IIiII~
II I•
I
11 11I
..
11IIIII
!lIiII1iP.!:
~
~ l 1
result. The payments were as a matter of law funds held
2
trust for the Internal Revenue Service and were not the
3
property of the debtor Hamilton Taft & company.
4
The jUdgment of the Bankruptcy court is therefo
5
affirmed.
6
Dated: February \J' I 1993.
7
8 C-~ Ct..: J~,:
CHARLES A. LEGGE au
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·25
.26
Order of Affirmance
. 27 No. C-92-2996-CAL -3-
1
28 000152
To SAC, DALLAS (196-0) Date 3/16/93
From 1::-)']::.:
SA 1"""' _
~ r-----------r
c: (reiterated the
in forma t ion pray l.ded ....t;;;,;O=--S=S:.:A..u...... .....Ili;l~...:=..:~::;.;::.-=-~
of the
his
professional opinion He suggested
that any investigati ct finding
process commence with ·a telephone call t0L--...,..__~~~........~
I lalso stated that he prefers to remaln detached from this b7D
matter unless and/or until his assistance is needed.
2-196-0
PRW/pw
/10 /1-- ,-'7;F- 12J$-~
~~--
I
; I
FD-lb a".. v 1ss)
JI- 17 I
FBI
Date 4 / 19 / 9 3
TO DETROIT
I
":T~a-:f~t~,-c-u-r-r-e-n-t~l-y-e-m-p-l~o-y-e-e-o"f'l"""'-~c-o-rn-p--'"U"""--Check
i
~.~~~ ~~~ __ ~I former presldent of
Hamilton Taft;
FBW (A); Mail Fraudj SecuritIes Fraud
b7C OO:SF
PKM/dbc
2- Detrolt (ene-I) ~ ~
~ SAN FranCISCO (196A-SF-93255)
(Numher) (TUlle)
Hamllton Taft was a service company located in San
Francisco whose business was the payment of tax obligations
due various taxlng authorlties. It provided its tax payment
services for many of the Fortune 500 companies in the Unlted
states. It had been in bUSlness performing this serVlce Slnce
roughly 1980. Historically, the company had derived its lncome
from a nominal service fee it charged its clients and from the
use of the cllent funds for a short perlod of time usually
no more than one to three days. Durlng this short period of
time, Hamllton ~aft would invest the cllent funds in very
short ter'm, very secure and very liquld instruments_
succinctly stated, Hamllton Taft made lts money on the IIfloat U
or the perlod of time it actually was in receipt of client
funds and the time those funds had to be paid to the var10US
tax1ng author1tles.
2
Further rev~ew lndicates that Armstrong IS In the process of
convert~ng possIble acquired assets to hIS own use, through
the issuance of fraudulent debentures.
~ San Franclsco belIeves that the SecurIties Exchange
CommIssion may be investigatIng the recent acquisition of
Comp-U-Check by Armstrong.
The Hamilton Taft case has been the subject of
wIdespread medIa coverage inclUdIng a front page story In the
western edItIon of the Wall street Journal. Comp-U-Check has
also been the subJect of media coverage locally In Detrolt
inclUdIng an article In a lndustry news magazine called liThe
Collection Agency Report". The publIsher of this report, al--.. .
I I has contacted the San Francisco dIvision re~arding
~A~r-m-s-t~r-o-n~g and his recent acquiSItIon of Comp-U-Check. J J
himself IS a former Comp-U-Check employee who published a
b7C March 1993 artIcle concernIng Armstrong and comp-U-Check.
San FranCISCO suggests that Detroit have any case
agent assigned thIS matter contact San Francisco case agent J
I I
~prior to contacting lagain regarding
thlS matter. Addltlonal lnformat~on is avaIlable thru Lexis
Nexl.s and "Craln's Detrolt Business ll
3*
/. Feldman Waldman & Kline
A PROfeSSIONAL CORPORATION
Attorneys at Law
BY HAND DELIVERY
IFederal I
Special Agent
Bureau of Investigation
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear 1 _
We are delivering to you the original of a Sony mini-
casette tape that we found in the records of Hamilton Taft. The
tape was in an envelope with the handwritten notation "GC&MN which
was attached to typewritten notes with the heading "Notes Tuesday,
February 13, 1990". A copy of the typewritten notes is enclosed.
The typewritten notes with the envelope containing the tape were
in a three-ring binder, labelled NDresdner Enterprises, Inc. Notes
1990". It is my understanding from our conversation today that
you will make a copy of the tape for our files on a regular size
cassette.
We are also delivering to you copies of the following
documents, all of which were located in files of Hamilton Taft:
Attorneys at Law
I~~~~_. . . .I Ll'/C
May 10, 1993
Page 2
L)'/ C
PSM/gm
Enclosures
cc:
FELDMAN, WALDMAN & KLINE
A Professional Corporation
2 PATRICIA S.;MAR
L. J. CHRIS MARTINIAK
3 2700 Russ' Building
235 Montgomery street
4 San Francisco, CA 94104-3160
Telephone: (415) 981-1300
5
Attorneys for Frederick S. Wyle,
6 Trustee
10
11 In re ) Chapter 11
) Substantively Consolidated
12 ) or Jointly Administered
)
13 HAMILTON TAFT & COMPANY, ) No. 91-3-1077 TC
KNIGHTSBRIDGE COMPANIES, INC. ) No. 91-3-2448 TC
14 THE REMINGTON COMPANIES, INC. ) No. 91-3-2449 TC
DRESDNER PETROLEUM, INC.
) No. 91-3-2450 TC
15 DRESDNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
) No. 91-3-2451 TC
)
16 Debtors. )
---------~-------)
17
18
22
23
24
25
26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3 SECTION
-i-
IV. LITIGATION AGAINST ARMSTRONG •••.••...•.•.••••••.•••.. 1S
21
VII. ...
CONCLUSION ......••....•...•.•.•..•••••.••...•••.•••- •• 31 . . - -
22
APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF CASH RECEIPTS AND
23 DISBURSEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1993
24
25
26
-ii-
:r. OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
14
IX. LEGAL AND FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ESTATES
15
A. Appeals by Hamilton Taft. as Debtor
16
On January 25, 1993, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
17 Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the appeals by Hamilton Taft,
as Debtor, from the order appointing a trustee entered on March 26,
18 1991, the order approving the appointment of Frederick s. Wyle as
trustee entered on March 26, 1991, the order for relief entered on
19 May '31, 1991, and the order authorizing the trustee to shut down
Hamilton Taft's business entered on June 21, 1991.
20
The District Court had dismissed the appeals as m9~t
21 in February, 1992. In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit
upheld the District Court's determination that the appeals were
22 moot because the Debtor had failed to obtain a stay, thereby
permitting a substantial ~hange of circumstances to occur that
23 rendered it inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal.
19 1. Seventh of Sonterra
26
26
11 6. PIP-Plaza Realty
26
23 c. Criminal Investigation
26
17
VI. FUTURE PLANS AND PROSPECTS FOR DISTRIBUTIONS TO CREDITORS
18
A. Consolidated Case
19
with most of the assets sold and much of the estate's
20 litigation complete or near completion, the focus of the estate's --
attention in the next year will be on the two major lawsuits that
21 will largely determine the amount of distributions to creditors in
the Hamilton Taft bankruptcy. These suits are the fidelity bond
22 litigation against Underwriters of Lloyds and the action against
Peat-Ma-rwick for aiding and abetting and conspiracy with Armstrong.
23 since there are over $100 million in creditors' claims asserted
against the consolidated estate, only the fidelity bond and Peat
24 Marwick suits have a reasonable potential for yielding recoveries
for the estate of a size that would significantly affect the
25 percentage distribution to creditors. If the litigation efforts
against the Underwriters of Lloyds and Peat Harwick are successful,
26
25
26 / / /
26 / / /
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
APPENDIX A
I '''tea
Hemming Morse S.. Office
160 Bavut Rood
Founh RoM
Cerrifieti Public Accountants San Mateo, CA 94402
Mnd Consu~nts T~ 1~151 574-1900
Fax: 14151 378-4090
ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
1kw,w-{
San Mateo, CalIfornia
May 4, 1993
II A-Ol
Consoli dated
Hamilton Taft & Company. Knightsbridge Companies. Inc.
Remington Companies, Inc. and Dresdner Enterprises. Inc.
and
Contents
Consolidated Companies
Schedule A-1 Statemant of Cash Receipts and Disbursements
For The Cumulative Post-Petition Periods Ended March 31. 1993
A-02
Hamilton Taft & Company. Knightsbridge Companies, Inc.
Remington Companies. Inc. and Dresdner Enterprises. Inc.
Consolidated Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements
For the Cumulative Post-Petition periods ended March 31. 1993
(See Accompanying Notes and Accountanes Compilation Report)
Dish ursements:
Employee costs: Ranch (Since 8/01/91) 37,136 109,221 146,357
Employee costs: Other 445,270 258,805 258,716 972,791
SubtotaJ: Employ" costs 482~406 268,805 367,937 1,119,148
Other operating costs (See :>etaIled Schedule) 474,122 15,329 810,967 1,300,418
Professional Fees: Trustee and Trustee's Professionals
TrustaG'a Attorney; & Accountant 628,814 2,328,669 2,957,483
Trustee'. Appraisers and Consultants 20,811 9,070 28,061 57,942
Trustee's fees 104,088 263,373 367,461
ProfG"ional Fags: Creditor's CommrttQQ 14,536 139,429 153,965
Professional Fees: Debtor-in-Possession 13,516 67.753 81~
Professional Fees: Petitioning Creditors 566.858 566,858 .
Ranch operating costs 16,114 105,729 121,843
Settlement Bank One furniture lease 188,945 188,945
Trustee's administrative costs 6.401 5,014 11.415
Trustee's bond 600 14.950 15,550
U.S. Trustee fees 4,500 2,100 19,050 2S,6S0
Disbursements for operations 1,940,737 309,420 4,717,790 6,967/347
Net loans to Petroleum See Note 3 60,000.. 60,000
Total disbursements 1,940,737 369,420 4,717,790 7,027,947
-
Excess of Receipts (Disbursements) (1,236,173) 429,445 1,545,004 738$6
Schedule A-1
A-D3
Hamilton Taft & Company, Knightsbridge Companies. Inc.
Remington Companies, rnc. and Dresdner Enterprises. Inc.
Consolidated Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements
For the Cumulative Post-Petition periods ended March 31, 1993
(See Accompanying Notes and Accountant's Camp ilation Report)
Schedule A-1
A-04
"
Disbursements:
EmpJoyGla costs: Ranch (Sinca 8j01J91) 37,136 109,221 146.357
Employee costs: Other
Employees 445,270 195,523 258,716 899,509
Subtotal: Employee costs 482,406 195,523 367/iJ37 1.045,866
Other operating costs (SeQ Detailed Schedule) 474.122 (60,145) 810,967 1.224,945
Professional Fees: Trustee and Trustee's Professiorlals
Trustee's Attorneys & Accountant 628,814 2,328.669 4957,483
Trustee's Appraisers and Consultants 20,811 9,070 28,061 57,942
Trustee's fees 104,088 263;sl3 367.461
Professional Fees: Creditor's Committee 14.536 139.429 153,965
Professional Fees: Debtor-in-Possession 13,416 67,753 81,169
Professional Fees: Petitioning Creditors 566,858 566,858
Ranch operating costs 16,114 105,729 121,843
Settlement Bank Onca fumltuf'Q kla$.Q 188,945 188,945
Trustee's administrative costs 6,401 5,014 11,415
Trustee's bond 600 14,950 15,550
U.S. Trustee faGS 4,500 2,100 19.050 25,650
Disbursements for operations 1,940,737 160,565 4,717.790 6,819,092
Repayment of loan from Petroleum See Note 3 10,500 10,500
Loan to Petroleum See Note 3 60,000 -50,000 -.- -
Total disbursements 1,940,737 231,065 4,717,790 6,889,592 ._-
Schedule A-2
A-OS
" .
"
Schedule A-2
A-06
" ,
Disbursements:
Consurta.nt Foos 17,342 17,342
Employee costs 259,421 134.331
Insurance 38,632 36,632
Interest paid to affiliate 78 78
Office expenses 767 746
Professional Fees:
Trustee's Attorneys & Accountant 17,185 17,185
Attorney for Debtor-in-Possassion 5,888 ~.888
Property taxes 63,224 63.224
Purchase of field equipment 6.633 6,633
Rent 14.B87 8,220
R oyafties paid 19,204 19,204
Telephone 6.995 597
Travel and entertainment 182 182
Trustee's bond 300 300
U.S. Trustee fees 9,250 8,500
Subtotal: Disbursements 459.987 321,061
Transfers To Affiliates:
loan to Remington See Note 3 10,500
Repayment of loan from Knightsbridge See Note 3 70.500
Total disbursements 540,987 391,561
Excess receipts (disbursements) 355,082 332,387
Beginning cash balance 25,023 47,718
Ending cash balance $380,105 $380.105
Schedule B-1
A-DB
• \ I
Cash Accounts:
General Operating Pacific Bank
Account #1150-852204 $7,077
Cash Equivalents:
Money Market Pacific Bank
Account #1150-852152 373,027
Schedule B-2
A-09
f ••• I I
"
The term -Texas Debtors· as used in these statements of cash receipts and
disbursements means Knightsbridge, Remington and Enterprise. Petroleum's
statement of cash receipts and disbursements is presented separately.
Several of the affiliated companies have fued for protection under Chapter 11 of· -
the United States Bankruptcy Code. On March 20, 1991, an involuntary petition
was filed in San Francisco for Hamilton Taft and on March 26, 1991, Frederick S.
Wyle was appointed ~ trustee in bankruptcy.
A-IO
, '.' I,
'/
The accompanying statements of cash receipts and disbursement include both the
Post-Petition periods and the periods of Trustee administration for each debtor.
For Hamilton Taft, the Post-Petition period and the period of Trustee
administration date from 1darch 20, 1991 (even thoLlgh the trustee was not
appointed unti11darch 26, 1991). The Post-Petition period for the Texas Debtors
dates from April 19, 1991 for Knightsbridge and April 29, 1991 for Remington
and Enterprises. The period of Trustee administIation for the Texas Debtors dates
from July 22, 1991, the date of the appointment of the interim trustee.
The costs of production reflect the payments for the various field services required
for well operations. Prior to November 1991, the management and accounting for
the oil and gas production was perfonned by Dresdner Petroleum t s staff located in
its Dallas, Texas office. At the end of October, 1991, this office was closed and
A-II
HAMILTON TAFT & CO:MPANY, KNIGHTSBRIDGE CO:MPANIES, JNe.. ,
RElVIINGTON COMPANIES,INC.. and DRESDNER ENTERPRISES, INC..
(A Group of AIriliated Companies Substantively Coru;olidated In Bankruptcy)
and
DRESDNER PETROLEUM, INC.
Notes to Statements of Cash Receipts and Disbursements
,f;; For the periods ended March 31, 1993
the staff tenninated. The management and accounting functions for the oil and gas
production was transferred to an independent management company, which
received a monthly fee of approximately $15,750. Prior to November, 1991,
a.dministrat.ive expenses of Dresdner Petroleum's office were not.included in the
costs of pioduction; since November, 1991 the monthly fee paid to the independent
management ~mpany has been included in the cost of production.
During December 1992, all of the oil and gas property owned by Dresdner
Petroleum was sold under a sale agreement approved by the Bankruptcy Court for
total proceeds of $409,000. The remainder of the receipts under "Sale of oil &
gas properties" was for earlier sales of excess equipment.
Also during August 1991, the Trustee loaned $60,000 from Knightsbridge
Companies to Dresdner Petroleum. Dresdner Petroleum repaid this loan during
January 1993 with a repayment of $70,500, which was an overpayment of
$10,500. This overpayment was an error and will be returned to Dresdner
Petroleum in May 1993.
A-12
FC-3~2 (1I.ev. 3-10-82)
--!--
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
f)
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the properly DC tbe FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
FD-36 (Rev 8-29-85)
FBI
Date 6/16/93
BT
UNCLAS
CITE: //3790//
PASS: SSA 1----~I(WCC-5)•
f" :: I'Im
suRCHED~
SE1UAL17:@~--
INDEXED - rI
'P ~ Vv'-( 1,"li\o.....C "UIL&D
INTERVIEWS.
TAKE PLACE BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO CASE AGENT AND SSAI iOF
553-7608.
BT
FD~302 (REV. 3-10-%2)
- 1 -
I
ARMSTRONG, JR. he had worked
I Before h~ was hired by CONNIE (CHIP
11.- __
b-;C
b'!e
~ ~ b7C
67 2 5793
This documenl conlnins neimer recommendations nar concluBi[,,,~ u . . .t': FDl. It iB the property of the FnI Ilnd is IOBned to your aIlcncy;
it Dnd ils conteotsate not 10 be; distributed out~ide your llgency.
'0-3020 (Re.... 1t-15~83)
196A-SF-93255
b7C
Continuation of FD-302 of ---l1-a- Lb"7 0' , On _~6---=--/-2-5--.:./-9-3-_'Page _ _2~_
I ~or Dresdner
Enterorises. advised ARMSTRONG to set up an investment committee
b7C
;0-302a (Rev. 11-15-83)
196A-SF-93255
Continuation of FO-302 of
_~~~!!"'!!'IIIIIIII!!!!!"!!!!!!!~ Lb7C • On ~_6--=.1_2_5--.,;1;....9_3
_ _• Page _ _3_ _
1:-:7D
I Iworked on
arr~naina these deals from August through September of 1990.
h7e
196A-SF-93255
196A-SF-93255
to him.
b7C
- 1 -
Dale of lranscrJphoo
Thu document conlatns neither recommendallOD! nor conclulloDJ of the FBI It u the property of tbe FBI and b loaned to your aseney,
II Rnd lh ,.nn.,.nt~ lin- TIn! in h .. ""tt~I)o"lI .. rt n A.. "''''~ .
FD-~02il (Rev 11-J5-&3)
196A-SF-93255
O e ~eved
X, telephone 214-265-0586, I
and I
~
,~~ I
l
Ithere1is
' He ~s
to be 11.V1ng at that address Wl.th his girlfriend,
::J His former wife, name unrecal1ed, is married
1)7(:
~ ,ran to
insurance businessman 1n Dallas, Texas telephone
____~-- __~I The ranch that he owned in East Texas was allegedly
confiscated by the bankruptcy trustee.
He is
security
196A-SF-93255
I~~ noted that CUC has not paid any of its vendors
(Clients or'cue) since March, 1993.
ARMSTRONG also lied in a deposition that he provided on
october 15, 1992 in the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT in the
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- Oakland Division, Case Number
91-3-1077-LK. That deposition was given in a bankruptcy matter
entitled HAMILTON TAFT & COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED CASES vs CONNIE
C. ARMSTRONG, JR, ET AL. ARMSTRONG's comments beginning around
page 75 concerning his involvement with CCEP were false and
misleading. Besides being President, ARMSTRONG was the driving
force behind CCEP, is heavily involved in CCEP, and basically
uses CCEP as a source of his personal operating capital. In
his/her opinion, ARMSTRONG is using the funds from CCEP to keep
them out of sight of the bankruptcy court.
FD-3020 (Rev 11-15-83)
196A-SF-93255
I
case. He reels tnatl
lin that
May have a conf11ct of interest.
ARMSTRONG told him/her that iii lis instrumental in getting
ARMSTRONG indicted, the trustee would gain some percentage of
money from a fiduciary bond that LLOYDS OF LONDON holds on
ARMSTRONG in connection with ARMSTRONG's former employment with
HTC. In addition, it is believed that] ~nd his attorneys
have siphoned off millions of dollars ~n fees from the HTC.
196A-SF-93255
0 or
ecame a partner by obtaining 49% ownership in AVA while
retained 51% ownership.
u 1 time for CUC.
In October, 1992,
196A-SF-93255
loan from CUC to pay for ARMSTRONG's expenses such as $15,000 to L,'/C
the law firm of EPPRIGHT & GOLOMBECK; ~lOO,OOO to the law firm of
BURDICK, CARROLL, $51,500 tol ~ Ifor a note payable, and
approximately $21,000 reimbursement 0 ARMSTRONG for out of
pocket expenses. He/she does not know for what purpose the money
from the TRUST COMPANY OF AMERICA was to be used.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/07/1 993-07-29-president-nominates-eight.
View I-leader
District of Columbia Superior Court since 1988. Prior to his appointment to that position, he served for 12
years as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. His responsibilities at the
Justice Department included the investigation and trial of complex political corruption cases, the
preparation of federal Courts of Appeals briefs and appellate advocacy, and supervision of other
government corruption investigations. Holder holds his B.A. and J.D. degrees fronl Columbia University.
Michael Joseph Yamaguchi has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Northern California since 1980,
serving for four years in the Civil and Tax Division and more recently in the Criminal Division. He has
also worked during that time as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, and has
been active in the American Bar Association. A Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves, Yamaguchi has also
worked as a Visiting Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School in Sacramento, and was tormerly an
accountant with the:firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. He earned his B.A. from UCLA, J.D. frOITI the
University of San Francisco, and LL.M. from New York University.
(more)
U.S. Attorneys
page two
Randall Rathbun is a partner in Depew, Gillen & Rabun, a Wichita firm specializing in environmental
litigation. Before joining that firm in 1980, he was with the criminal and civil litigation firm of Curfman,
Brainerd, Harris, Bell, Weigand & Depew. He was previously on the Board of Editors of the Kansas Trial
Lawyers Association Journal, and has spoken widely on topics relating to environmental law. Rathbun is a
graduate of Kansas State University and Washburn University School of Law.
Thomas J. Monaghan, is a partner in Monaghan, Tiedman & Lynch, an Omaha frrm with which he has
been associated since 1978. He was formerly with the firm of Young & White. Monaghan also served
foml1985-91 on the adjunct faculty of the College of St. Mary, and has spoken at numerous Nebraska
10f2 5/7/20092:59 PM
FD-36 (Rev 11-11-88)
FBI
Date 7/30/93
IDallas, Texas on / / .
San Francisco will be advised of any further
developments.
FBI
Date 8/2/93
I'
DALLAS
AT DALLAS, TEXAS
2
FBI
TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION:
o Teletype o Immediate o TOP SECRET
o Facsimile D Inority o SECRET
!KJ AIRTEL D Routine o CONFIDENTIAL
o UNCLAS EFT 0
o UNCLAS
Date 8/4/93
TO DALLAS, SAC
2 - DALLAS
(1) - SAN FRANCISCO
WLH/wlh
1. " '
(1 96B-D.L- 66524) ( p)
Complete and submIt withIn 30 days of expiration of each and every period
of authorizalJOn granted for non telephonic consensual monitoring by eIther the- SAC, DOJ or
FBIHQ-CID (whether an InHial or a subsequent authorizatIon), and for each extenSion
or renewal thereof.
FtSf-
from- - - - - - _............ ;-;:-;--=--~-----:':---~~--------
(Name of Contributor)
(Address of Contributor)
~ M'~J J.~~d~,h~~~,~~~~/~~~~~~
(Name of Special Agent)
To Be Returned 0 Yes ~. No
Receipt Given 0 Yes prNo
Grand Jury Material ~ Dis'seminate Only Pursuant to Rule 6 (e)
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
DYes !1No
Title: j1 . A ./
LONII/t' e C!1t;'r' /<!/'At>rfi;VV5 / V;:j
C 7,4-L)
.
\~
,'"
"
b7C
)
,JU • .
!
I
.
• c- '• ..- 2 a •• a 44 .£ a ;u..
.. .....
,
b'7C
~, tis 4 1 /&
13/5 ~- IC[g/ ~vP~~
f:~ 3~ Q JJvI iLJ-.~ 4J~
/Jo+- y- CA- etA- - pd-.
rYko-- q d- - jJo-n.eJ C/A- ekoYP1
.J b7C
b7C
V~l{ cLL- Aht& /I/~
~~ I~?) I~C( ~tt- ~
~. cc ulD ~ b7C
~ ~ ~hO/7j9 ~ dd--~~
~ /~ ~ iPfr'1 ~
;J~ k p,uiLL :z/~~t~)
till -P- 1 . L I ri~ c.{.!--
.1jJJ /1I7.A.v'1~
'!;'"" /~
I
J
I' 1<;u
qj If) 1 6 T
b'7C
~~ .. -. ...
~ ..•.
L-f)@ ~ fld - ~ ~,) 4
k~ -~~q w~t!
~-fICA
)
~VVV'~-- ~
- .. -
~) ~5M~ -~~J
A') vJ tY1J~ F;tJ
6) AJ V'-V~ - ~ Mivlp:.J-
~ /Ill!!
~-/~ Ol-J:~~
I
/7.MM"M/~J..I /I Ill! Il
11/;1;; ~ - · W.e- ~/V t;- .- ~1
(Jv~ ~~I 1; ffrl
PM ~j ~~ CJ'yI.
ffY1 /~.
• "Vr~
,n . Il~
r O'"""v-~ '--' "
If( ~_....
- 'v .. rL.IVi II b7C
M-~ ~~td~@
/lJeTtv~~ -1' ~
.7~wu-~Lr
1'iMw ~ ~~ k.. ~
~JA ~P/IlJW~07jOdV
b7C
. , ..
- C1~J-
. ~ u-r- it ~j rrg~1-
pdJ::;-J."l1 ~-tri/- n~ ~.
~~l
---- .. _- ----------
-~-_ ...... _~-'" - ...
-
.. ~ •
..&,'1 I •
b'7C
IV a1-- 01ArMJ- ~/
~L------------I
~Jf~J~/
7thI I~ ~, !k~
pm s/-
~- .. . - . I ~ I~~ .
b7C
FD-302 (Rev, 3-10-82)
- 1-
I
the interviewing agents at the San Francisco Federal Bureau of
Im~
Investigation (FBI) office. I Iwas accompanied by two
attorneys representing KPMG Peat Marwick:~I ~
I I both members of the MCCUTCHEN AND DOYLE, BROWN,
ENERSEN law firm in San Francisco. I Iwas advised of the
interviewin~ agents' identity and of the purpose of the
interview. [ I gave the following information:
I I explained his professional background. He is
currently employed as an Au · eat Marwick in
San Francisco California.
~ ~rnd later gained a Bachelor of Science degree in tl'/C
Accounting. In 1981 he joined KPMG Peat Marwick's office in
London,- England. He worked as a chartered accountant for three
years in England. In 1985 he transferred to the San Francisco
office of KPMG Peat Marwick. In 1987 he returned to London. In
or around February of 1989 he moved back to San Francisco
permanently. He sat for the Certified Public Accountant exam in
May of 1992 and he passed all parts, but he has not yet attained
his certification.
I Isaid he first became involved with the Hamilton
Taft Company audit in or around March of 1989. He attended a
meeting with the Comptroller of Hamilton Taft and Company, I----~
I Where he met Hamilton Taft's new President, I
I
I ! The purpose of the meeting was for KPMG P~e-a-t~~M~a-r-w~~-c~k~
to get an understanding of Hamilton Taft's operations. I~~~~~
understanding of Hamilton Taft's business is that Hamilton Taft
collected payroll taxes for contracted clients and remitted these
taxes to the appropriate federal and state agencies. I I
recalls reviewing an old Hamilton Taft financial statement
prepared by the Arthur Anderson pUblic accounting firm.
KPMG Peat Marwick retained an engagement letter from
CONNIE C. ARMSTRONG, JR. (CHIP ARMSTRONG) for
Hamilton Taft's March 31, 1989 balance sheet.
Che audit of
pnderstood
J,.
Invellligationon at File #
This document containll neither rccomrnendationn nor conl;lusionB of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it nnd its conlenUl nrc not to be distributed outside your agency,
FD-302a (Rev. 1H5 83)6
196A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
Conunuation of FD-302 of
__
J-----_.............. b7:=
........_ - - - - - - - - - ,
On 10/4/93
-------
,Page 2
----
that ARMSTRONG was the sole owner of Hamilton Taft. This audit
was to establish the financial condit~on of Hamilton Taft at the
time of ARMSTRONG's purchase. I
I said he understood that
Dallas, Texas KPMG Peat Marwick partner, I ~as the one
who obtained ARMSTRONG as a client, in other words, he was the
b'7C
engagement partner whose job was to give final review of KPMG
Peat Harwick accounting services. I I as the engagement
partner, normally would be the only person allowed to contact the
client directly. It was! 'understanding that and I I
KPMG Peat Marwick provided several services to ARMSTRONG and his
companies. These services may have included technical advice,
compilations as well as audited financial statements. He
recalled that KPMG Peat Marwick in San Francisco assisted in i,
Hamilton Taft filing of delinquent 1988 tax returns. Also he 'f,,'
,', I
i lr:i"
·_~6A-SF-93255 (Sub C) f' .JJ:J/
V
I:"
"/"/] I)V>I,
/~)i f
/ "\,/1'1
.I~t,
000085
.1~ .- .~
( /1)..301l (Re'V. 11·15~83)
~96A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
000086
FD-302a (Rev. 1l~15~B3)
196A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
_ .._._.. _ - - - - -
FD-302a (Rev. ll-15-B3)
196A-SF-93255 (Sub" C)
only if it were one of the items in the KPMG Peat Marwick audit
disclosure checklist used by KPMG Peat Marwick auditors. The
client had a lot of input as to what footnotes were included in
financial statements and all footnotes had to be approved by the
engagement partner who wasl I in this case. He explained
that the March 31, 1989 audit and the June 30, 1989 rlXlew §rOU1d
have been reviewed by two KPMG Peat Marwick partners, and
I I
I Istated he was not aware of the particular due
diligence review that I Iconducted referencing the $18.9
million note receivable from Dresdner Enteryrises. He heard that
Dresdner had appraisals of the collateral. ~said i ~
have been unusual if the engagement partner, in th1S case
was directly involved in any field work of appraising asse s.
The engagement partners main job would be to review the work of
others and to handle interaction between the client and KPMG Peat
Marwick in order to coordinate the facilitation services.
--------- ------------------
FD-302a (Rev. 1HS-83)
196A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
Continuation ofFD-J02 of
b7C _ _ _ _ , On _ _1_0_/_4_/_9_3__• Page _ _7_ _
196A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
Continuation of FD-302 of
J Lb7C _ _ _ _ _ , On _ _1_0.....;.1_4....;1_9_3_ _• Page _ _8_ _
196A-SF-93255 (Sub C)
I I
said that KPMG Peat Marwick resigned from the
Hamilton Taft account in or around January of 1991 because
Hamilton Taft was never able to provide KPMG Peat Marwick
sufficient audit evidence of the ultimate disposition for the
voided and unpresented checks asked for in the December of 1989
balance sheet audit. The resi nation was ersonally delivered by
I land himself to President of Hamilton
Taft, in San Francisco. dld not voice any surprise by
KPMG Peat Marwick's resignation and he did not offer any
objections.
"UDIT ISSUES:
BUDGET ISSUES:
~ could get in touch with that otfice.
As you know, the budget forms for 1990 went out two weeks ago
and due back at the end of ne~t week4 If everyone is on time
(Which is unlikely for HTC) , we should have a good analysis
ot next year by the first week in November.
PROMISSORY UOTE:
_· _· · _ ~'~~-~·_-"--~-----------------r
· Exhibit 2
All past due principal and interest shall bear interest until
paid at the maximum lawful rate of interest in accordance with the
laws of the state of Texas and the United states. A J ii
If default is made in the payment of any installment of ~~ -
principal or interest under this promissory Note, then Holder may, ~~~~\
at its option, declare the entire unpaid principal balance of and rt i'\ fl.l
accrued and unpaid interest on this Promissory Note to be 1 ~, I IJU,
immediately due and payable without notice or demand, foreclose all
liens and security interests securing the payment of this
Promissory Note, or any part thereof, and offset against this
Promissory Note any sum or sums owed by the Holder to Maker, atll~------
at the option of the Holder. . I
~~ ------~ __
The undersigned and all other parties now or hereafter liable
for the payment hereof, whether as endorser, guarantor, surety or
otherwise, severalty waive notice of demand, notice of
acceleration, notice of presentment, demand, presentment, notice
of dishonor, dil igence in collecting I grace and protest, and
consent to all extensions that from time to time may be granted by
the Holder hereof and to all partial payments hereon, whether
before or after demand.
BY:~C~
Its: t! ,$0.
That the attached copy of the Promissory Note, dated April 10,
1989, by Dresdner Enterprises, Inc., as Maker, and Hamilton
Taft & Company, as Holder, is a true and correct copy of the
original.
-----------,~s~@"'II""llt..,e~t
1.~'7 C
...allE"'r""'y--Jl
I W. P. No.
bAT~
'~.,
/-;' ·r 7 ;:
L- ,
'.
~
..z..".,..)c, r
~J
------.J
-_
,'~~x-
I..J'
/
. . r· ..__.. ~~)
)
!~/ .
/ I
I
L-
====h •
~:j!
~___
"'f:' --v
I
- - ..... , ~
'i
J1n, j..q ,lQE8
/I rTf/!. /lc 4V6177d,v e~
;!J1At jJHNM# Q
~
-
J )JJA-A'Pff~'1 A- )
~~l r4
I
( r _
-
r'I.
/ __.)f?t~v
-t<=:.11110 1 dd::) i>~ ,.
/( II / r~ r: #:>'T
• L
,
I -:102-
r .... ~
~JS.~~.'
-
)
•t,··, .', jol';-
. .,. .~ tilt,' ,'), .
"f,'.
· ... 1
I
/
.' ..
Ht -r: //
..... ~j
L,....--
- --
H "
, uti .. t\Crl.•• ,Ot4AL 'aft ...... a ...... H . . . . . _.11:1:1
L
J>,--::~,'::::=------~ '~---""
-Exhibit 3 I
/1-0-£/2 .,
AI~ z.s-nt~"rOr '\
I
(
/1
/1 ~'O'1qM/
'1"',-.---" ,/,,/// - LJ ffo~ £:S
--r f) '\
j)lJ6cl2 [5
c. ::f£
J
P -.....
lJ
, U!SIIJA,)) I 17;~dTr(yl
,
( Dt:cc
-L --I--../U Ct (
J - /
L -?dk -yo- -/~7~
,v
/ '
.
.
C-t< HCQ>JLIS/ TIOH<
-,1 ::.
~
I.1 00,/4'
~
H~-r:- /
L J
-.
,
- t-
-
- -jJ.P_1 ~,<., -- - ~(
.72A;t,IS
-
;:::::be
.6' - - ~
.)
_._--.'
............. - f
.- on.- }
-
/kNIT
LCH,r /t,e./lfsr;erwv
3La/
I ~/15j I
/oo~
.. - J.
~
~ ~
"
\i'YA
I ,-r-,.,1\_- '7 - • --r'~ \
I
loa~
r --....I
"'
\- /J, 0 \
~
l4
~: -
/ CHIP
AtR~
?~
II"Ob~O_
1 r I
~I
~ ;'
rrrT
----tweP~L ----------------~---
--
',{
.' ·"sroc.,c
1I~ -----:.. _
-__-----.-,-- -_.-_-_ill~_=_ /f(t;__:'1Mt"~E ~ AtR~t:£"I'fELf.J~~ _ -----_.. _------_.,----------
Ill- .
f~
CAM 'l!-o 1H15Z: ~tla~r:-C!~p;·
fv4HE~'
---------+ili---'----~/
S5
__UL \~
_ _._S roc. c.
,
C. Tlcx5
rJI'£JUT 15/(Tn O~
( (
0-
~c. I ~
,0 s
/5
/tJo
RF.·;- -.
- - - - - - _.•.. _ - - - -
'6'-
~
-,>' -
ST7:JCtC-
-
A-s.s /6NI1U"r::- L)~
::.'3~9- 81
? ~
--" -'-.
~I -.
~I"rr""IM
J+crooll
BMrc.£n-- (I "1)
,
/'~~ t
If}A-r~#dMA- - - ' ; > &.Lh.£. 1'"1"": It.'" ( / 6 } . - - -:-"-> CR.
, , C' IJCt;'t://f; r,,&fS
A~~!" ~"
I
j'/:J.7/1.5 ~ /
I :>" c "
~1d7
ofOfri-<Jr1/kH/ ~
~
)rt.551&U1H'£~
!Jr.p41r
-
l ~ \.J l ~ 1O">i.
- .,-:>
....,
)
--,
, ' .
:~~~\
. ~
- ,
,
.'1f5'{~ _~.- .~_ ..;.: :-~.~ -
_---;..,m__~ ~ -\fl'
_
--- ,._,.,,,------- - - - - - - - - - -
'D-302& (Rev. 11-ls-l3)
196A-SF-93255 SUB C
b '/ c:
=0-759 (Rev 5-31-91)
r0 DIrector. FBI ( )
Attn CID I ~CONON.LC CHllvlES Section
SAC, DALLA S
~
CHi ,RM3TRONG: for *fS:iii(jW
t:> b7C of Consensual Momtonng Equipment (NonteJephomc)
01-1PU-CHECK, a
Form must be submItted wlthm 5 worktng days of the date
FBW authonzatlon was granted
on· nA ToT.AS
1. Reason for Proposed Use (Check) 2 Type of EqUIpment (Check)
~Corroborate 0 Protect o Protect lit Transmltterl o Mlcrophone/ II Concealed
TestImony Consentmg Government Receiver AmplifIer Recorder
Party Property
o Other (SpeCify) o Other (SpeCify)
3 Consentmg Party (Check/oe) 4 Interceotee(s) (Include Title 1f Public OffICIal)
D Nonconfldentlal Party Lb:2 _ I 1 t')
') I c
-)
o Confidential Source (Name)
and Ol:her as':::;Ol".l..ates
:i1 Cooperative Witness b7D
5. Duration of proposed use (90 days) 6 Installation of EqUIpment (Check) 7 LocatIon where equIpment
o Concealed on Person D In VehIcle Will be utIlized (CIty and Slate)
Dale Authonzed .10/28/93 o In Motel Room rg Other (Specify)
EXpiration Date 1/25/94 Dallas, 'llexas
in Off~ce
8
i The follOWing reqUIrements have been fulfllied
a Consenting party has agreed to testify
b ConsentIng party has executed consent form
9 Government attorney In JudICial district where interception
WIll take place foresees no entrapment and concurs In the use of
thIS technique being appropriate
C Recordmg/transmlttmg deVIce Will only be activated ~ Yes o No Date 10/27/93
I I b7E Identtty of Gov't Atty AUSA 'r:CRRY HfiR '£
18 Sec(s) 1343
-
USC
JudiCial District Northern D~sirl.ct: of 'l'exCls
1u \/lOlatlon(5) Tltle(s)
)'7 D E
an
:
lnvesLlgatlon In San FranClSCO DiV1Sl.On where he busted out a company
I~A~m~1"P"1sI'\'lII/'I"I'R!"f'O~N'I'7'G....~J..~s!"'-!E~1'fl1:'i"'e~sIll1l"lA'Q.b!'laj'l"l!e~c"l"L....,O
.. """y......- -
called HLU-1J..LIJ.\ON TAFT. \.ARMSTRONG may also be skJ.nunJ..ng a loan ob-callleq from
an J.nves"cment company orJ.gl.nally made for the benefl t.. of COHPU-CH:CC.L<.)
N/A
COpy 1
FD-301 (Rev. 3-10-82)
- 1-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
b7D
This document contain, neither recommend.tions Dor conclusloD5 01 the PBI. It is the property of tbe FBI Ind is loaned to your agency;
il and its content!! are not to be distributed outside your .aeney.
I, ~
--.L-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
'-"
Daledlclated 11/15/93
ThiS document contain' neither recommendatIons nor conclusIons of the FBI illS the (lfoperly of the FBI Bnd 15 loaned to your agency,
It and Its contents are not to be dlstnbuted outside your agency
J~759 (~ev 5-31-91)
00: DALLAS Form must be submitted wIthin 5 workIng days of the date
authorizatIon was granted
, The following requirements have been fulftlled 9 Government attorney In JudIcial dlstnct where interception
aa ConsenlJng party has agreed to testify will take place foresees no entrapment and concurs In the use of
if b Consenting party has executed consent form. this technique being appropriate \
~ureau(~anllve Desk!
COPY1~~_
r,-s21- O:~ev <&-12-89) (Nontelephontc Cr Momtoflnl Uuge Report)
AIRTEL
Federal Bureau of Investigation
From~ALLAS (196B-DL-66524) (P) (WCC5) Dale 3/3/94
To DIRECTOR, FBI
Attn ELSUR Index.
~·w
Subject
o
CONNIE C.. ARMSTRONG I JR .. i
J
I
ET ALi
LCOMPU-CHECK - Vict~j
FBW;
00: DALLAS
~1 Bureau
I~- Dallas (2 - 196B-DL-66524)
(1 - 196B-D~66524 SUb A)
AFW/rlh
(5)
· D· 7tj~ (Rev 5-31-91)
-
5. Duration of proposed use 90 days 6. Installation of EqUIpment (Check) 7 Location where equIpment
tt' It 12' jZr ~ Concealed on Person 0 In Vehicle Will be utilized (CIty and State)
Date Authonzed 12/11/93 o In Motel Room oOther (Specify)
EXpiration Date 3/10/93 Dallas, Texas
B The follOWing requIrements have been fulfilled 9 Government attorney In JudiCIal district where InterceptIon
'81 a Consenting party has agreed to testify Will take place foresees no entrapment and concurs In the use of
f2g b Consenting party has executed consent form thiS techmque being appropnate
SCI BeCP((hoQ/trapsmlt1!PQ deY'ce Will on'l be activated ~Yes o No Date 12/2./93
b7E Identity of Gov't Arty AtJSA LINDA GROVES .r.
12 SynopsIs of Case (Attach additional page If necessary) Coopera-cing Wi tness has adv~sed -chat
=) i~1SJ].IR01JG
b7C
cu e a
Signature ~
LJreau (SubstantIve Desk\
o 17 To be executed at FBIHQ (LCD)
(Complete only If DOJ notification IS necessary)
DIRECTOR, FBI
Attn ELSUR Index
X
Emergency Authority Re Dallas FD-759 to FBIHQ dated 12/3/93
captioned as above.
_ _ _ Routme Authority Re to FBIHQ
dated and Bu to - - - - - - -
dated captIOned as above
Complete and submIt withIn 30 days of expuatlOn of each and every perIod
of authOrIZatIOn granted for nontelephonic consensual monitoring by either the SAC, DOlor
FBIHQ-CID (whether an inItial or a subsequent authorIzatIon), and for each extenSlOn
or renewal thereof
)-lp'l/L/
~jBureau
. ~- Dallas (2 - 196B-DL-66524)
(1 - 196B-DL-66524 Sub A)
MSM/rlh
(5)