Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RODGER HARRIS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 170 

DATE: JULY 7, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: RECOMMENDED DECISION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Rodger Harris, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 170 

Recommended Decision 

Preliminary Statement 

This is an administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. Chapter 1, 1964 ed., as amended, Supp. IV, 1969), hereinafter referred to 

as the "Act", instituted by a complaint filed on March 12, 1970, by the 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. The complaint alleges that the respondent, 

the manager of a commodity brokerage company which was a registered commission 

merchant under the Act and a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the 

New York Mercantile Exchange, violated Section 4 b of the Act by reason of the 

activities set forth therein. 

Copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice were served on respondent 

by certified mail on March 16, 1970. Respondent was notified in writing that, 

in accordance with the applicable Regulations, an answer should be filed within 

20 days following receipt of the complaint, and that failure to file an answer 

denying the specific allegations in the complaint and requesting an oral hearing 

would constitute admission of such allegations and waiver of an oral hearing. 

Respondent did not file an answer within the 20-day period and the 

tentatively scheduled hearing was cancelled. On April 30, 1970, after a 

telephone conversation with this Referee, respondent filed a letter requesting a 

copy of the complaint and a rescheduling of the hearing. In response to this 

request for an additional opportunity to enter a defense in the matter, the 

Referee, by Order dated May 1, 1970, caused the complaint to he reserved on 

respondent and rescheduled the matter for oral hearing. Respondent was again 

notified in writing by the Hearing Clerk that, in accordance with the Rules of 

Practice enclosed, failure to file an answer within 20 days following receipt of 

the second copy of the complaint would constitute waiver of an oral hearing by 

respondent and admission of the allegations in the complaint. Notwithstanding 

this second notice, respondent again failed to file an answer or make any other 

communication. Subsequently, the second scheduled hearing was cancelled by the 

Referee's Order dated June 4, 1970. 

Complainant filed suggested findings of fact, conclusions and order on June 

11, 1970, which were served on respondent. In addition, complainant recommended 

that the Referee proceed in accordance with Section 0.9(c) of the Rules of 

Practice (17 CFR 0.9(c)) which provides as follows: 

"(c) Procedure upon admission of facts. The admission, in the answer or by 

failure to file an answer, of all the material allegations of fact contained in 

the complaint shall constitute a waiver of hearing. Upon such admission of 

facts, the referee, without further investigation or hearing, shall prepare his 
Page 2 

report, in which he shall adopt as his proposed findings of fact the material 

facts alleged in the complaint." 

Respondent has still failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading in 

this matter. Accordingly, this Recommended Decision is entered pursuant to 

Section 0.9(c) of the Rules of Practice and the Proposed Findings of Fact are 

the material allegations set forth in the complaint. 

Proposed Findings of Fact 

1. The respondent, Rodger Harris, an individual whose business address is 110 

North Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, was at all times material herein 

employed as the manager of the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of The Siegel 

Trading Co., Inc., a commodity brokerage firm. The said firm was, at all times 

material herein, a registered futures commission merchant under the Commodity 

Exchange Act, and a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York 

Mercantile Exchange, both duly designated contract markets under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

2. At all times material herein, Mrs. Wilodyne Hopper maintained a commodity 

futures account at The Siegel Trading Co., Inc., 

and at all such times the respondent personally handled the trading in such 

account. 

3. The futures transactions, referred to in this complaint, relate to the 

purchase and sale of Maine-grown Irish potato futures contracts on the New York 

Mercantile Exchange, each of which contracts calls for the delivery of 50,000 

pounds of such potatoes. Such contracts could have been used for (a) hedging 

transactions in interstate commerce in potatoes or the products or by-products 

thereof, (b) determining the price basis of transactions in interstate commerce 

in potatoes, and (c) delivering potatoes sold, shipped or received in interstate 

commerce for the fulfillment of such futures contracts. 

4. Acting without the knowledge or consent of Mrs. Wilodyne Hooper, the 

respondent: (1) on April 23 and 25, 1968, placed in her account at The Siegel 

Trading Co., Inc., a total of four May 1968 potato futures contracts, which 

established a new long position in such futures for such account; and (2) on May 

1, 1968, liquidated such long position at prices which resulted in a net loss of 

approximately $ 1,500.00 to Mrs. Wilodyne Hooper's account. 

Proposed Conclusions 

The failure of respondent to file an answer in this matter constitutes a 

waiver of an oral hearing and an admission of the material allegations of fact 

in the complaint. 

By reason of the Findings of Fact set forth above, respondent attempted to 

cheat and defraud and did cheat and defraud a person in or in connection with 

the making of contracts of sale of commodities for future delivery on or subject 

to the rules of a contract market in wilful violation of Section 4 b of the Act. 

See, e.g., In re Khalil Haddad, 22 Agric. Dec. 137 (22 A.D. 137) (1963). In 

view of the serious, flagrant and deliberate nature of these violations, it is 

concluded that the respondent should be prohibited from trading on all contract 

markets for a period of 60 days, ordered to cease and desist from these 

violations, and that all contract markets should be directed to refuse all 

trading privileges to respondent for 60 days as recommended by complainant. 

Proposed Order 

(a) The respondent, Rodger Harris, shall cease and desist from placing, or 

causing to be placed, in any customer's account any futures transaction, without 

the prior knowledge and consent of such customer. 
Page 3 

(b) The respondent, Rodger Harris, is prohibited from trading on or subject 

to the rules of any contract market for a period of 60 days, and all contract 

markets shall refuse all trading privileges to him during this period, such 

prohibition and refusal to apply to all trading done and all positions held by 

him, directly or indirectly. 

The cease and desist provisions of this order, set forth in paragraph (a) 

above, shall become effective upon the date of service of this order upon the 

respondent. The period of the denial of trading privileges to the respondent, 

specified in paragraph (b) above, shall become effective on the thirtieth day 

after the date of entry of this order. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties and 

on each contract market. 

Note: This is the Hearing Examiner's Report or Recommended Decision. It is 

not a final order. The final order will be issued by the Judicial Officer after 

the parties have had opportunity to file exceptions, as provided by the Rules of 

Practice. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

John G. Liebert 

Referee 

July 7, 1970 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 4