Document mq7N086w9BvBqON8nvO4Jq2rJ

Iffil DAVID 8 . MfiCREA EDWARD F MCCREA M ?C rea & M ^Crea ATTORNEYS AT LAW I I S SOUTH WALNUT ii'U F K I p.o.eoit i)u BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA 47402-1310 TELEPH O N E 012 3 3S4U-W1 TCLEC:<>HIVrt K I2 j j e * n : u > / R O B E R T F . McC REA I I 3 107*1 ELLEN A. I LOTO MKMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Charles McCrea and Paul Merrell David S. McCrea February 24,1992 Appellees1Petition for Rehearing 1. The Defendants do not know if they committed fraud, did not commit fraud, or should have committed fraud. It will be interesting to see which hat the Defendants wear in prosecuting their affirm ative defense* We need to force the Defendants to go forward with their affirm ative defense that Nevada Power should have discovered the fraud more than three years before the action was filed. 2. We need a transcript of the oral argument referenced in footnote 1, page 2, of Appellees1Brief. 3. The opinion in this case Is powerful. It makes common sense. Plaintiffs cannot file a fraud claim until they have "evidence" of fraud. To file a fraud claim without evidence of fraud invites Rule 11 Sanctions. 4. In oral argument one of the judges on the panel addressed the following factuol/lcgal proposition to Bruce Featherstone: "The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should have found what Defendants hid." In the opinion the judges determined that this is a jury question* To file a case of fraud without evidence of fraud would risk sanctions. To wait until you get evidence of fraud and be dismissed on a statute of limitations argument makes a mockery of justice, to paraphrase Chief Justice Swiggert, 7th Circuit, in Braswell v> Fiintkote Mines. 5. Defendants cannot seriously contend that a Plaintiff can file an action on fraud without evidence of fraud. Defendants do not know if they are b e tte r off adm itting fraud, denying fraud or taking a position somewhere in between in the case a t bar. The Appellees do not adress their misciting Sparks V. M ctalcraft- j n r a arc* ^ T Q & n T W S N 3 3 H O N V H 3 H 3 3 M E E :3 I K H - f r K - S B .\ M ?C ra & MCrea Page Two Charles McCrea and Paul Merrell February 24, 1992 [ would like to have all Rule 11 letters sent to us organized, including our responses. It was an infernal outrage for the Defendants to send such a letter* I also would like the le tte rs addressed to us asking for costs with the suggestion th a t our action was frivolous. As Paul Merrell said - We need to send a le tte r to the author of the Rule 11 accusation informing this attorney that "some damn fool signed his name to the le tte r we received." CONCLUSION This opinion based on simple logic (we did not find what the Defendants were hiding) Is clearly one of the ten most significant opinions in the history of American jurisprudence as it relates to to rt law* i n n o ieC* 7 Y n n T w qw nnu hmw uqN nnu fee:fit RECEIVE TRANSACTION REPORT FEB-24-92 MON 13:28 # DATE S. T. 01 FEB-24 13:26 NAME 812 336 5307 TIME PGS r 24' 2 NOTE OK DP