Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GEORGE SIROTA AND SONS, GEORGE SIROTA, NORMAN L. SIROTA, BENJAMIN SIROTA, 

HARRY A. ASPINWALL, AND DYKE CULLUM 

CITATION: 12 Agric. Dec. 466 

DOCKET NUMBER: 54 

DATE: MAY 19, 1953 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DENIAL OF PETITION TO REOPEN 

(No. 3503) 

In re GEORGE SIROTA AND SONS, GEORGE SIROTA, NORMAN L. SIROTA, BENJAMIN SIROTA, 

HARRY A. ASPINWALL, AND DYKE CULLUM. CEA Docket No. 54. Decided May 19, 1953. 

Denial of Petition for Reopening of Proceedings

The petition by one of respondents to reopen the proceedings for the purpose 

of offering in evidence additional exhibits because they were misplaced at the 

beginning of the hearing and the remaining documents were written after the 

hearing, and also because these documents will substantiate the testimony of 

respondent who filed the petition, is denied, since the misplacing of the 

documents is not a sufficient reason to reopen the record now necessitating a 

remand to the referee for consideration of the additional material and, 

furthermore, most of the documents seem to relate to the charges against 

respondents other than the petitioner. 

Mr. Benj. M. Holstein for Commodity Exchange Authority. Mr. Donald Marks of 

Baer, Marks, Friedman, Berliner & Klein, of New York, New York, for respondents 

Sirota and Sons et als. Mr. Thomas A. Sully, of New York, New York, for 

respondent Harry A. Aspinwall. Mr. Roy St. Lewis, of Washington, D. C., for 

respondent Dyke Cullum. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

DENIAL OF PETITION TO REOPEN

Subsequent to a lengthy hearing and the issuance of a referee's report in 

this disciplinary proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 

1), respondent Dyke Cullum filed a "Petition For Reopening For the Purpose of 

Offering in Evidence Additional Exhibits." 

The petition seeks to have introduced in evidence exhibits consisting of 

letters, most of the letters being from respondent Dyke Cullum to the Sirota 

respondents and a telegram from Cullum to the Sirotas. The petition recites 

that most of the documents sought to be introduced were misplaced at the 

beginning of the hearing and that the remaining documents were written after the 

hearing. The petition recites also that these documents will substantiate the 

testimony of respondent Cullum at the hearing. The 

petition to reopen was opposed by the complainant and by the other respondents. 

Section 0.21 (2) of the rules of practice requires that petitions to reopen 

shall show that the evidence sought to be put in by reopening is not merely 

cumulative and shall set forth a good reason why the evidence was not adduced at 

the hearing. 
Page 2 

The petition fails on both counts. The petition states only that the 

documents will substantiate Cullum's testimony. The misplacing of the documents 

at the beginning of a lengthy hearing, held at intervals, is not a sufficient 

reason to reopen the record now necessitating a remand to the referee for 

consideration of the additional material. 

Furthermore, most of the documents seem to relate to the charges against the 

respondents other than Cullum. In this proceeding, Cullum is not the 

complainant but a respondent. 

The petition to reopen is denied. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 3