6. What the docket and the corresponding pleadings establish is that, in effect, on October 25, 2006, the SEC sought and obtained an order stopping all trading in Conversion stock and freezing the bank accounts of the corporation. The only way for Harris, Stanley and Horton to obtain assets which were rightfully theirs was to contest the SEC charges, and submit to expedited discovery. Within five days, on October 30, 2006, Defendant Harris, despite refusing all earlier requests from the SEC to answer questions was forced to submit to a deposition which lasted two days. The deposition was conducted at SEC offices and Defendant Harris was without the benefit of counsel. It is this deposition that Defendant seeks to have suppressed. In the deposition Defendant Harris is never advised of his right to have counsel present or of the likelihood that the answers he provided would be used to prosecute him for criminal offenses.
7. Following the deposition, Harris was subsequently indicted in this Court. The present indictment charges Harris and his co-defendants with violating the same acts as did the SEC complaint filed in this Court in October, 2006: SEC v. Conversion Solutions Holding Corporation and Rufus Paul Harris, 1:06-Cr-2568-CC. To wit: 18 USC 1349, conspiracy to commit securities fraud; making false statements in connection with the purchase and sale of registered securities, 18 USC 1348; wire fraud, 18 USC 1343; and false certification of a financial statement, 18 USC 1350(c)(1), all matters that were raised and addressed in the Defendant’s deposition.
8. The affidavit of SEC lead counsel Debra Hampton is important for what it does not say:
a) No SEC attorney, despite three attorneys from the SEC being present, advised Defendant Harris that the answers he provided in the deposition could be used against him in a criminal matter and that he had the right to invoke the 5th Amendment.
b) That no attorney from the SEC advised defendant he had the right to have counsel present.
c) That if he had hired counsel, counsel could have advised him of the right to attempt to enjoin the proceedings.
d) That the nature of the proceedings against Defendant Harris in October 2006 was purely civil in nature.
e) That the SEC was not cooperating or working hand in hand with the United States Attorney’s office.
Doc 93 PDF file
viewer.zoho.com |
