Christian v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 64-573. |
| Citation | 235 F. Supp. 382 |
| Parties | James Carlton CHRISTIAN, Martha Corolla Christian, Beatrice Brenner, Barbara Fields, Jose Herrera, Marjorie Herrera, Edgar Meli, Helen Meli, Frances Ruane, and Bernice Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States of America, Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America, William S. Kenney, Richard E. Demars, O. T. McCusker, Truman S. Youngblood, W. C. Cantrell, William P. Bushmiare, James K. Smith, and Thomas Mennitt, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
J. Edward Worton, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., for the Southern Dist. of Florida, Miami, Fla., for the Government.
The Plaintiffs seek a three-Judge Court to enjoin the Defendants from testifying or producing evidence in a case now pending in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, filed by the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, entitled the State of Florida against these Plaintiffs (Defendants in that cause) upon a five-count Information alleging violations of the lottery laws of Florida.
The Complaint herein attempts to allege a concerted scheme, device or subterfuge of the Plaintiffs to indirectly prosecute or enforce in the State Criminal Court, Title 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4401 and 4411, which the Plaintiffs say is an abuse of delegated authority, as contained in Section 5 of Executive Order 6166, dated June 10, 1933, and a denial of due process and equal protection of the laws.
It appears from the Complaint that the Plaintiff, JAMES CARLTON CHRISTIAN, was engaged in the business of accepting wagers within the meaning of Title 26, §§ 4401 and 4411, and, while the holder of a validly issued wagering tax stamp and having declared and paid the excise tax upon the gross amount of wagers accepted by him, was arrested and property belonging to him and certain other of the Plaintiffs was allegedly unlawfully seized, resulting in a libel proceeding being instituted for the forfeiture thereof.
All of the other Plaintiffs are said to have been clerical employees of CHRISTIAN, and except for Plaintiff, MARTHA COROLLA CHRISTIAN, were also arrested by Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service upon Complaints charging violations of Title 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 7262, 4411, 4412 and 4901 (a).
Subsequently all of the Complaints were dismissed by the United States Commissioner at the request of the Department of Justice because of insufficient evidence for successful prosecution of a criminal case. The libel proceedings are all still pending.
It is further alleged that the Defendants made affidavits in the State Criminal Court concerning their activities, culminating in the arrests and seizures of property of the Plaintiffs, which resulted in the execution by the State Attorney of the Information aforesaid, and thereupon Plaintiffs were arrested and are being held to answer in the State Criminal Court for the violations charged in the Information; that the only witnesses against the Plaintiffs in the State Court proceedings will be the Defendants acting as the agents, servants or employees of the United States.
What the Complaint says — and all that it says — is that certain employees of the United States have made available to the State prosecuting authorities, affidavits which the latter have determined to be a sufficient basis for the prosecution of the Plaintiffs herein by way of Information in the State Criminal Court.
This decision was made (as alleged in the Complaint) by the State Attorney, not by the Defendants, and the prayer that the Defendants should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Commuters Association v. Levitt
...U.S. 713, 715, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); Duncombe v. State of New York, 267 F.Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y.1967); Christian v. United States, 235 F.Supp. 382 (S.D.Fla.1964)), and whether the complaint presents a substantial constitutional question.4 See Green v. Board of Elections of City ......
-
Bussie v. Long, Civ. A. No. 3345.
...Texaco, Inc., 240 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.Penn., 1965); Morrison v. State of California, 238 F.Supp. 22 (S.D.Cal., 1964); Christian v. United States, 235 F.Supp. 382 (S.D.Fla., 1964). It would be nothing more than an exercise in futility, to say nothing of a waste of judicial time, for this Court ......