Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I need some assistance with these assignment. berman vs department of interior Thank you in advance for the help!
I need some assistance with these assignment. berman vs department of interior Thank you in advance for the help! The United States, subsequently, filed a civil suit in United States District Court for District of Columbia, where it asserted that Berman and POGO violated the 19 U.S.C & 18 U.S.C. § 209 that prevents private parties and government for making compensations and people or employees from receiving compensation while in government service. In 2008, the jury found out that Berman and POGO violated the law. Nevertheless, Berman and POGO appealed seeking for review by the Court of Appeal in the United States for District of Columbia Circuit (Ralph, 2002).
However, the government opposed the move by saying that the two parties violated 18 U.S.C. § 209 that prevents any person from giving or receiving supplementation of salary or contribution as compensation for services during an employee of the officer at the executive branch. Furthermore, Berman was charged with Unjust Enrichment (UE) and Breach of Fiduciary Duty (BFD). District Court granted the motion by the government for summary judgment for violating 18 U.S.C. § 209(a).
The court reversed and remanded the matter to District Court for more proceedings to come up with a resolution of the disputed facts of the existence of an intentional direct link between the official responsibilities of Berman and payments made by POGO. On remand, District Court accepted the argument by the government of 18 U.S.C. § 209(a) being a strict legal statute and termed the parties’ intent as irrelevant. The court kept the briefing schedule for the case pending with the disposition in the United State vs. POGO, 616 F.3d 544. The Court of Appeal, in the decision for District of Columbia Circuit, remanded and vacated in part for a new trial. This concluded the intent of the required elements of the violation of 209 of the failure of the jury instruction from District Court in instructing on the intent element (Cooper, 2006).
According to Berman, the United States vs. POGO controlled the disposition of the case. On the other hand, according to the United States, the United States vs. POGO does not take part in the disposition of the case.
