- 51 -
(ii) Petitioners’ Claim That a Theft From the
Partners is a Theft From the Partnerships
Petitioners contend that even if the Court finds that Jay
Hoyt’s Federal conviction does not establish theft on the
partnership level, at a minimum, the conviction establishes a
theft from the partners. Based on this contention and their
assertion that the partners are synonymous with the partnerships,
petitioners conclude that the partnerships sustained a theft.
To reach this conclusion, petitioners argue that: (1) Under
State law, a partnership is its partners; (2) since the
partnerships are aggregates of all the partners, and all the
partners were defrauded, then the partnerships were defrauded;
(3) stealing from partners by using the partnerships as the
vehicle for fraud is indistinguishable from stealing from the
partnerships; and (4) stealing from the partnerships is a theft
from the partners because the partners jointly own the
partnership assets. Petitioners have failed to cite any
authority supporting these arguments.
Petitioners state that the partnership law of Oregon,
Nevada, and California arguably applies to the partnerships at
issue. However, only California and Nevada law applies, because
eight of the sheep partnerships were formed under and governed by
California law, with the remaining sheep partnership formed under
and governed by Nevada law.
In particular, RCR #1, RCR #2, RCR #3, and RCR #4 were
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011