Source: https://oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/All%20Advisories%20by%20Year?OpenView&RestrictToCategory=1985
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:10:13+00:00

Document:
For 18 U.S.C. § 209, it is important to determine if the defense fund was meant to be "compensation for services as an employee of the United States." Determination must be based on totality of the circumstances. Persons involved in setting up fund must be mindful of 5 U.S.C. Part 7351 and the standards of conduct. [Note: In light of Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990), the analysis regarding the application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to legal defense funds was revised in OGE Informal Advisory Letter 93 x 21].
OGE also pointed out that the husband's interests were voided by the Department on the basis of a specific statutory prohibition against employees holding such interests. There was also no unfair treatment, because others with prohibited interests were not required to divest if they had the interest prior to employment.
The organization could host a separate banquet honoring the recipients of the awards because as 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organization, it could under 5 U.S.C. § 4111, offer such an honor to each employee. Each employee's agency wound need to determine under 5 C.F.R. Part 410.705 if its employees could attend.
OGE determined given Nominee's continuing ties to the corp., package resembled a leave of absence rather than a normal severance agreement, and the pay seemed to be supplementing his government salary during the leave, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209.
Given the nature of the duties the spouse performed, OGE determined she had a financial interest in the contract and thus the employee was prohibited from acting on the contract unless issued a waiver.
OGE addresses issue of whether certain positions in an agency are of equal classification to those held by Senior Executive Service (SES) employees and should be required to public financial disclosure forms.
Even though certain functions of CAB were integrated into the existing structure of the DOT, 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)'s restrictive language refers explicitly to representations to the agency where the former employer served, and there was no portion of the DOT that could be considered the CAB for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c).
Agency wished to allow employees giving speeches to receive gifts from host private entities. OGE said no exception could be applied that would allow receipt of those gifts, under 18 U.S.C. § 209 or under 5 C.F.R. §§ 735.202 and 735.203.
Employee could prepare and sign tax returns, but could not represent the taxpayers to the IRS in any subsequent audit. If the tax preparation was done through a business, the employee would be prohibited from sharing any fees generated by his associates in representing clients before the government. The agency could restrict activities.
The 4th paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 205 provides an exception allowing employees to represent other employees in certain internal proceedings. However, this would not reach the entitlement portion of a proceeding that is often part of a veteran's appeal.
OGE advised that agency versions of 5 C.F.R. §§ 735.203 and 735.206 applied to two agents contracting with a magazine, giving the magazine exclusive production rights to the story of their investigation into racketeering. OGE stated that the agency could consider adverse action if the agents violated the standards of conduct.

References: § 209
 v. 
 § 209
 § 501
 § 4111
 § 209
 § 207
 § 207
 § 209
 § 205