Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RODGER HARRIS 

CITATION: 29 Agric. Dec. 1330 

DOCKET NUMBER: 170 

DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER 

(No. 13,541) 

In re RODGER HARRIS. CEA Docket No. 170. Decided December 15, 1970. 

Cheating or defrauding -- Denial of trading privileges -- Default

Respondent, who defaulted in the filing of an answer to the complaint in this 

proceeding charging him with cheating or defrauding a customer by placing potato 

future transactions in the customer's account without the customer's knowledge 

and consent, is prohibited from trading on all the contract markets for a period 

of 60 days and all contract markets shall refuse all trading privileges to him 

during such period. 

Earl L. Saunders for Commodity Exchange Authority. 

John G. Liebert, Referee. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

DECISION AND ORDER

In this administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

Chapter 1, 1964 ed., as amended, Supp. IV, 1969), respondent failed to file an 

answer to the complaint and did not file exceptions to the referee's (hearing 

examiner's) recommended decision and proposed order. 

In view of the foregoing and upon consideration of the entire record, the 

recommended decision and order of the hearing examiner are adopted as the final 

decision and order herein except for the cease and desist provisions since the 

statutory authority therefor was not effective at the time of the violations. 

The period of the denial of trading privileges to the respondent shall become 

effective on the 30th day after the date of entry of this order. A copy of this 

Decision and Order shall be served on the parties and on each contract market. 

REFEREE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

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 
Page 2 

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 be re-served 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 

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 Hooper 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 
Page 3 

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. 

(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. 

LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2008 
Page 4