Opinion ID: 371169
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellants Rogers and Hennig.

Text: 34 The record contains ample evidence that Rogers and Hennig participated in a scheme to mislead inventors. From the time he joined the company in December 1971, Rogers played a key role both in advertising and training salesmen. As the chief of contract sales, he was in charge of all advertising. He was responsible for the approval or preparation of numerous advertisements which misrepresented the company's achievements and capabilities. 35 He played a crucial role in the preparation of the pamphlet which reproduced the article and photo of Fortado receiving a purported advance royalty check. He approved and had ultimate responsibility for the first brochure which depicted the Union Bank Building and contained other misrepresentations. 36 Rogers took over Product Placement in October 1972. In this position, he signed the complaint on behalf of NAA in its 1973 suit for rescission. He informed DMI customers that NAA had no legal obligation to them when he knew DMI and NAA were really the same company. Rogers participated in sales seminars, trained salesmen and sent memoranda to salesmen stating that the company had successfully placed inventors' products when in fact it had not done so. The evidence was more than sufficient to sustain his conviction. 37 Although Hennig was with the company only from the spring of 1972 to December 1973, his participation in the scheme is well documented. He replaced Rogers as chief of contract sales in October 1972 and was responsible for training and supervising salesmen and training regional sales managers. 38 Like Rogers, Hennig represented to DMI customers that NAA was a separate company not legally bound to them. He sent memoranda in 1973 to salesmen stating falsely that inventors' products had been placed, and encouraged the salesmen to use these memoranda. He also approved a sales pitch representing that inventors risked only $150 for a 45-day preliminary evaluation. These evaluations were conducted in ten minutes, and no product was ever rejected after the evaluations. 39 Hennig approved and prepared other advertising, including a promotional film containing misrepresentations similar to those in the earlier advertisements prepared under Rogers' direction. It was shown to inventors at the San Diego sales office and to at least one other sales office. 40 Reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find it sufficient to demonstrate that Hennig acted at least with reckless indifference as to whether these representations were true or false, United States v. Love, supra. Moreover, we find that the representations were, at best, deceitful statements of half-truths. Lustiger v. United States, supra. We affirm his conviction. 41