More Subjects
Assignment Title
Student’s name
Professor’s name
Subject Code
University
Table of Contents
TOC \o "1-3" Case: Sekhar v United States PAGEREF _Toc20178654 \h 2
Parties PAGEREF _Toc20178655 \h 2
Facts PAGEREF _Toc20178656 \h 2
History PAGEREF _Toc20178657 \h 2
Petitioner’s Theory PAGEREF _Toc20178658 \h 3
Respondent’s Theory PAGEREF _Toc20178659 \h 3
Issues PAGEREF _Toc20178660 \h 3
Holdings PAGEREF _Toc20178661 \h 3
Reasoning PAGEREF _Toc20178662 \h 3
Result PAGEREF _Toc20178663 \h 3
Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc20178664 \h 4
Reference PAGEREF _Toc20178665 \h 5
Case: Sekhar v United States
Parties
Petitioner: Giridhar C. Sekhar
Respondent: United States
Facts
The General Counsel of Office of the State advised against investing the pension funds in a venture of FA Technology, which would have earned millions in service fees otherwise. Soon after the advice, the Counsel received an anonymous email suggesting him to advice for the investment whilst threatening him for disclosing his extramarital affair to his wife, and others. The email also suggested him to do this within the next 36 hours. The Counsel, on the advice of the law enforcement, asked for more time, which was granted. Meanwhile, the IP address of the email was traced back to the home computer of Sekhar, FA Technology’s managing partner. He admitted to sending the emails.
History
Serial No.
Action(s)
Date
01
Filing of petition for writ of certiorari
19-09-2012
02
Waiting for response to the petition
16-10-2012
03
Filing of response by the respondent (U.S.)
20-11-2012
04
Filing of reply to the petitioner (Sekhar)
28-11-2012
05
Distributing for January 4 conference
05-12-2012
06
Distributing for January 11 conference
07-01-2013
07
Granting of the petition
11-01-2013
08
Setting for arguments
11-02-2013
09
Filing of joint appendix
25-02-2013
10
Filing of brief by the petitioner (Sekhar)
25-02-2013
11
Circulating
01-03-2013
12
Filing of the brief amici curiae
04-03-2013
13
Filing of the brief amici curiae
27-03-2013
14
Filing of the reply of the petitioner (Sekhar)
15-04-2013
15
Making of arguments for the respondent and the petitioner
23-04-2013
16
Reversing the judgment
26-06-2013
17
Issuing the judgment
29-07-2013
Petitioner’s Theory
The petitioner argued that Hobbs Act prohibits obtaining ‘property’ using threat, and The General Counsel’s advice is not a property.
Respondent’s Theory
The respondent argued that it has the right to make professional decisions without ant external pressures, and that this right is an intangible personal property.
Issues
If the recommendation, through professional, made by the respondent is an intangible property when the respondent is a salaried employee of the governmental agency, and if such property can be subject of an extortion attempt under Hobbs Act.
Holdings
No. The court decided that the recommendation, through professional, made by the respondent is not an intangible property when the respondent is a salaried employee of the governmental agency, and such property cannot be subject of an extortion attempt under Hobbs Act.
Reasoning
The key question was that if the advice of the General Counsel constituted property. The court gave the reasoning that the respondent does not possess the right of the respondent to make a professional recommendation is not transferable. For this reason, this right lacks the prerequisite characteristic of an extorted property.
However, Justice Samuel gave his opinion that the internal advices of the General Counsel are not considered in the context of a property. Therefore, the right of transferring such properties become irrelevant in this scenario. The occurrence in the judgment was joined by Justice Sonia and Justice Anthony.
Hence, the court decided that such property where the recommendation is made by a salaried employee of a governmental agency is not subject of an extortion attempt under Hobbs Act.
Result
The decision of the previous court was reversed. It was decided that advice of the General Counsel does not characterize as a property, and thus, cannot be transferred. Also, it is not subject to such extortion.
Evaluation
In my opinion, the court must have decided that such recommendations of the General Counsel constitute an intangible intellectual property, which is subject to extortion under the Act.
Reference
Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. (2013)
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024