Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19640624_0040110.C07.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 00:56:24
Document Index: 759490983

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1014', '§ 1014', '§ 2', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9']

| United States v. Ruehrup
United States v. Ruehrup
Defendant Elmer Ruehrup is appealing from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed thereunder for making false statements for the purpose of influencing an agency of the Farm Credit Administration, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014*fn1
Defendant urges that since the alleged false statements and reports were submitted to the St. Louis Bank of Cooperatives in St. Louis, Missouri, venue was solely in the Eastern District of Missouri and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for acquittal.
Defendant contends that the offense proscribed in 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014, fn. 1 supra, is the delivery or communication of the false statement, and this occurred only in St. Louis. He relies on U.S. Const. art. III, § 2*fn2, U.S.Const. amend. VI*fn3 and Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 81 S. Ct. 358, 5 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1961).
In Travis, "petitioner was charged * * * with the making and filing of false non-Communist affidavits required by § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act." Id. 364 U.S. at 632, 81 S. Ct. at 359. Petitioner executed and mailed the alleged false writings in Colorado and they were filed with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. Petitioner was indicted and convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and held that venue lay only in the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court stated in Travis that: "Section 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, with which we are concerned, did not require union officers to file non-Communist affidavits. If it had, the whole process of filing, including the use of the mails, might logically be construed to constitute the offense. But this statutory design is different. It requires that the Board shall make no investigation nor issue any complaint in the matters described in § 9(h) 'unless there is on file with the Board' a non-Communist affidavit of each union officer. The filings are conditions precedent to a union's use of the Board's procedures. * * * The words of the Act - 'unless there is on file with the Board' - suggest to us that the filing must be completed before there is a 'matter within the jurisdiction' of the Board within the meaning of the false statement statute. When § 9(h) provides the criminal penalty, it makes the penal provisions applicable 'to such affidavits,' viz., to those 'on file with the Board.'" Id. 364 U.S. at 635, 636, 81 S. Ct. at 361, 362.
We agree with the Tenth Circuit that Travis is not controlling and is limited to the statute there involved. Imperial Meat Company v. United ...