R. Milo Gilbert v. United States

A complaint, charging forgery ( 18 U.S.C. § 495 ) of a certain check (United States Treasury check number 11,260,-576, dated June 2, 1958, in the amount of $848.11) was filed before a United States Commissioner on January 2, 1959. On the same day a warrant for the arrest of the appellant was issued, 1 requiring ap *588 pellant to answer the complaint relating to the forgery of the one check described above.

Appellant was an accountant specializing in preparing income tax returns for clients and in advising his clients concerning their form, the inclusions, and the deductions. There is little doubt, from an examination of the record, that appellant was pursuing a steady plan of falsifying his clients’ returns by adding income tax deductions not incurred or claimed by them to their returns after they had signed them, requesting a refund from the government in the clients’ names, and pocketing the same, allegedly by forging a client’s name, i. e., cashing the government checks by endorsing the checks as trustee for the payees, which he was not, either in fact or law. For the purpose of this part of this opinion, we find there was more than sufficient evidence to support appellant's…

On Petition for Rehearing

Appellant urges on petition for rehearing that the conviction of appellant on counts 21 and 22 — forgery—should be reversed on the ground the opinion of this court was in error in stating that there was no proof in writing that appéllant was authorized to endorse and collect the checks, and appellant cites Exhibit M — the power of attorney — as proof this court was wrong.

It would have been better for this court to have added the words “adequate and convincing” before the word “proof” (at page 592). We now amend our opinion of March 30, 1961, by such amendment. The sentence then reads:

Exhibit M, on its face, authorizes “R. Milo Gilbert” to endorse and negotiate refund checks for income taxes. It nowhere purports to authorize “R. Mile Gilbert, Trustee” to so, or in any way, act.

Because the person named in a power of attorney as attorney in fact had some or all the obligations toward his principal of acting as a Trustee is required to act, does not make him a trustee in fact or law. Appellant had no authority, written or oral, to sign checks or otherwise act, as Trustee. He purported to so act, but could not do so by reason of any specific provision…

291 F.2d 586 62-2 USTC P 9576 R. Milo GILBERT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 17034. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. March 30, 1961, Rehearing Denied May 19, 1961. Albert A. Dorn and Wirin, Rissman, Okrand & Posner, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Minoru Inadomi and Robert E. Hinerfeld, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES, HAMLEY and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges. BARNES, Circuit Judge. 1 A complaint, charging forgery (18 U.S.C. 495) of a certain check (United States Treasury check number 11,260,576, dated June 2, 1958, in the amount of $848.11) was filed before a United States Commissioner on January 2, 1959. On the same day a warrant for the arrest of the appellant was issued, 1 requiring appellant to answer the complaint relating to the forgery of the one check described above. 2 Appellant was an accountant specializing in preparing income tax returns for clients and in advising his clients concerning their form, the inclusions, and the deductions. There is little doubt, from an examination of the record, that appellant was pursuant a steady plan of falsifying…