United States v. Adams, Cr. No. 8281.
Decision Date | 23 October 1953 |
Docket Number | Cr. No. 8281. |
Citation | 115 F. Supp. 731 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ADAMS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
P. W. Lanier, U. S. Atty., of Fargo, N. D., J. P. Stevens, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Minot, N. D., for plaintiff.
Roy A. Ilvedson and Kenneth G. Pringle (of Ilvedson, Pringle & Herigstad), and Halvor L. Halvorson, Jr., of Minot, N. D., and Charles L. Foster, of Bismarck, N. D., for defendant.
The indictment herein charges the defendant in three counts with a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 281. The pertinent part of that section is as follows:
"Whoever, being a Member of or Delegate to Congress, or a Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or the head of a department, or other officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, directly or indirectly receives or agrees to receive, any compensation for any services rendered or to be rendered, either by himself or another, in relation to any proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested, before any department, agency, court martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
In substance, Count 1 of the indictment, which is illustrative of Counts 2 and 3, charges: That during all of the time mentioned therein there was pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota a proceeding entitled United States v. 11,993.32 acres of land in Mountrail and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota (U. S. v. 679.19 Acres of Land, More or Less in McLean County, N. D., 113 F.Supp. 590); in which the United States was directly interested as party plaintiff and which proceeding was brought under the laws of the United States of America pertaining to eminent domain, in which certain parties named therein had appeared and claimed ownership to certain lands involved in the proceeding and had demanded compensation for the taking of such lands to be determined by trial by a jury.
That during all of the time mentioned in the count the defendant, Felix Adams, was an employee of the United States employed by the Soil Conservation Service, and that he did, between August 15, 1952, and October 14, 1952, within the District of North Dakota, directly agree to receive compensation for services to be rendered by him for the claimants in said action in that he agreed to appraise the lands of the claimants as a soil expert and to testify as an expert witness on behalf of said claimants as to the value of their respective lands upon the trial of said proceeding to be had in the United States District Court of North Dakota, upon which trial there would be at issue the amount of compensation the United States would be required to pay for the lands taken, and that for such appraisal service he and an associate of his were to receive a fixed compensation.
The defendant, through his counsel, has now moved that the indictment be dismissed upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held and counsel on both sides presented orally their views with reference to the problem confronting the Court.
It is the position of the Government that, even though the indictment only refers to the proceeding as pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota, that the subject matter or controversy upon which the suits were based was also pending before the Department of the Army, more specifically the Corps of Engineers for the Garrison District, and that therefore the defendant, in accepting compensation, was guilty of a violation of the criminal statute quoted above.
Taking judicial notice of its own records, this Court refers to the three cases noted in the indictment, and more specifically to its opinion in United States v. 679.19 Acres of Land, etc., found in D.C., 113 F.Supp. 590, 593:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Myers, s. 904
...the offense is some appearance before, or at least contact with, a federal department by the accused official. In United States v. Adams, 115 F.Supp. 731, 735 (D.N.D. 1953), appeal dismissed, 209 F.2d 954 (8th Cir. 1954), a District Court dismissed an indictment based on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 281 ......
-
United States v. Johnson
...v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 365, 26 S.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057; United States v. Waldin, E.D.Pa., 122 F.Supp. 903; United States v. Adams, D.N.D., 115 F.Supp. 731; United States v. Quinn, E.D.N.Y., 111 F.Supp. It is not necessary to decide on the pending motions to what extent a Member of......
-
United States v. Johnson
...a pending court proceeding would not bar a prosecution under section 281. The purpose of section 281 is stated in United States v. Adams, 115 F.Supp. 731, 734-735 (D.N.D.1953): "It section 281 was aimed at preventing Congressmen, officers and employees of the United States Government from u......
-
Robert v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
... ... 728 ... HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO ... Civ. No. 3577 ... United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Opelousas Division ... October ... ...