Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

32 Citing briefs

  1. Thermo-Ply, Inc. v. Ohio Willow Wood Company et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION in limine regarding Preclude Trial Testimony of Wayne Daly

    Filed February 3, 2014

    There is no justification for granting Thermo-Plyโ€™s Motion in Limine. III. Conclusion Neither OWW nor its counsel have compensated or offered to compensate Mr. Daly, a lay witness in this case, in a way that runs afoul of either 18 U.S.C. ยง 201(c) or Rule 4-3.4(b) of the Florida Rules of Professional Responsibility. Thermo-Plyโ€™s Motion in Limine is wrong on the facts and is wrong on the law and OWW respectfully requests that it be denied.

  2. USA v. Skelos et al

    MOTION to Stay Motion to continue bail and stay financial penalties pending appeal. Document

    Filed July 12, 2016

    For each of the three schemes alleged by the government, at least one of the โ€œofficial actsโ€ that Dean Skelos purportedly traded for payments to his son involved merely setting up meetings, talking to other officials, or meeting with lobbyistsโ€”i.e., precisely the types of conduct that the Supreme Court held insufficient to establish official action. The government highlighted the evidence of 5 As discussed, the McDonnell district court instead quoted the narrower language of ยง 201(a)(3)โ€”although that did not save its instructions. See McDonnell, 2016 WL 3461561, at *19.

  3. Breitling et al v. LNV Corporation et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 6, 2016

    See Proposed Amended Complaint at pp. 21, 25, 32. These conclusory allegations, which are based on pure speculation, are insufficient to state a bribery claim under 18 U.S.C. ยง 201. "While bribery does not invoke the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs must satisfy the more liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) to adequately plead bribery as a predicate act.

  4. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 1422 MOTION for Sanctions Terminating Action Based on Chevron's Repeated Efforts to Corrupt Witness Testimony. REDACTED VERSION. Document

    Filed September 30, 2013

    Federal law allows witnesses to receive payment related to expenses and lost time. While the Federal Anti-Gratuity Statute prohibits payments โ€œfor or because of the testimony under oath . . . ,โ€ 18 U.S.C. ยง 201(c)(2), it expressly exempts โ€œpayment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence in- curred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceed- ing . . . .โ€ 18 U.S.C. ยง 201(d). And federal courts, including the Southern District, โ€œare general- ly in agreement that a witness may properly receive payment related to the witnessโ€™ expenses and reimbursement for time lost associated with the litigation.โ€

  5. Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed January 5, 2017

    See ECF 1, ยถ 135 (โ€œDefendants bribed employees of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA GISS)โ€). ๏‚ท Plaintiff fails to state a claim for bribery of California Attorney General Harris, Representative Grijalva, or U.S. Attorney General Lynch under 18 U.S.C. ยง 201 because Plaintiffโ€™s claims have no factual support and are merely his own manufactured conclusions. ECF 1, ยถยถ 140-142; 137-139; 142.

  6. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    MOTION for Sanctions Terminating Action Based on Chevron's Repeated Efforts to Corrupt Witness Testimony. Document

    Filed September 12, 2013

    Under the Anti-Gratuity Statute and the New York Rules, witnesses may only be paid โ€œreasonableโ€ compensation for expenses associated with traveling to and time spent testifying. 18 USC ยง 201(d) (witness may only be paid โ€œreasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurredโ€ Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1422 Filed 09/12/13 Page 25 of 43       19 and โ€œreasonable value of time lost in attendance at any โ€ฆ proceedingโ€); NY Rule 3.4 (lawyer may only pay โ€œreasonable compensationโ€ for โ€œloss of time in attending, testifying, preparing to testify or otherwise assisting counsel, and reasonable related expensesโ€).

  7. Boller v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

    Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed June 29, 2017

    Plaintiff also does not allege that her prescribing physicians were agents of Defendants, nor can she plausibly do so. Finally, Plaintiff does not allege any violation of the federal bribery statute found at 18 U.S.C. ยง 201. See Tex. Civ. Prac.

  8. Drummond Company Inc et al v. Collingsworth et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss 14 & 15

    Filed October 30, 2015

    16 A person commits bribery if he โ€œdirectly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court.โ€ 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 201(b)(3). Case 2:15-cv-00506-RDP Document 29 Filed 10/30/15 Page 42 of 83 30 Filing a lawsuit may be as โ€œAmerican as apple pieโ€ (see Doc.

  9. Ross et al v. Balderas et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed November 30, 2016

    See18 U.S.C. ยง 201(a)(1) (defining โ€œpublic officialโ€ to be members of Congress, Delegates, andResident Commissioners). Thus, as with all of the predicate acts Plaintiffs allege arisingunder federal law, this one fails as a matter of law on its face.

  10. Orr v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed September 6, 2016

    at 380. The Fifth Circuit later reiterated this con lusion in Lashley v. 10 The presumption may also be rebutted where a medication is sold after FDA ordered it removed from the market, the injury arises from off-label promotion or prescription, or the manufacturer has violated the anti-bribery provision in 18 U.S.C. ยง 201 in obtaining approval for a medicationโ€™s warnings or instructions. Tex. Civ. Prac.