Court Opinion

ID: 9446388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:53:14.260531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.995158
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with Judge Danaher that this forfeiture is judicially reviewable, I share his “abiding conclusion” that the action was based upon the Smith Act conviction and join in the holding that the Administrator’s “ruling here transcended his authority.” It follows from this that the forfeiture is null and void and should be so declared. Therefore I dissent from so much of Judge Danaher’s opinion as retains the forfeiture in full force and effect pending a determination by the Administrator as to whether or not there may exist proper evidence, not thus far relied upon, to justify a for-*170feature. If such evidence should be found at some future time, appellant’s compensation payments may then be ordered forfeited. But unless and until that happens, he is entitled to prompt payment of all moneys due him.