Steve Palmer [00:00:00]:

Steve Palmer here, Lawyer Talk Podcast, where you can check us out at lawyertalkpodcast.com. Taking on a Q&A session here or maybe a comment and answer session. But either way, Lawyer Talk Q&A, where we, people send us questions, and you could send yours too, too, by the way, at lawyertalkpodcast.com, or you can leave a comment like we're gonna handle today or deal with today. And I'll try to cover that topic here or, or give you the best answer I can sometimes. Sometimes, I'll bring in another expert who might help us. We've got, some of that coming here in the near future, so stay tuned. Anyway, I'm gonna jump right at it. We I did an episode a while back, and as I even said in the episode, I I'm not here to make a political statement about anything, but I talked about the the constitutional crisis.

Steve Palmer [00:00:42]:

And what I did is I sort of covered what happens when, with the judicial review process, when somebody challenged the constitutionality of a law, and it sort of goes up the appellate ladder. And that's what's happening with a lot of things these days. And it's it's not new. It just happens to be in the news because, involves some of the presidential, executive orders. Anyway, the Grinch unedited five three nine seven writes in response to that episode, with bribery now legal via executive order, what incentive is there for any judge on any level to act in an an impartial capacity when determining if something is unconstitutional or illegal when there is a possibility of financial incentive to sway their opinion? So look, I I again, without diving into the politics of this, I I I'm not aware of any rule or any law or any executive order that would permit bribery of anyone, let alone a a judge on federal or state or local level. But, you know, there is a there is a Supreme Court case that I get some questions about. It came out, I think in 2023. '3.

Steve Palmer [00:01:45]:

Maybe it was actually decided on in 2024. It was called Snyder versus United States. And I wanna talk about that a little bit because this is one of these things that I harp about, in in my various app in my various series here on lawyer talk. And it's about, legal definitions and understanding the way lawyers think because we don't think like most people. You know, we we they you go to law school and you come out lawyer, and and maybe you learn if if you're not careful, you learn you lose some personhood. But I'm gonna talk lawyer, and I'm gonna translate because it's important. What Snyder seems to say on the face of it is that somebody who was awarded a contract for some to supply the government with something. In this case, I think it was trucking or maybe some dump trucks or or or semi trucks, is allowed to bribe a public official who because, you know, when you oversimplify things and you don't really dig into the nuance, that's what it looks like.

Steve Palmer [00:02:45]:

But that's not what that's not what's going on here. And really, what the Supreme Court addressed is a bigger issue, and I'm gonna break it down a little bit. What they're saying is that that act in that case with these facts was not a bribe. Now you would think, well, that's ridiculous if if a, a trucking company paid a government official to get that contract, that sure as heck sounds like a bribe. Yeah. It sure as heck does. But, under the statutory scheme in federal under The United States code, which ironically, is, I I believe, 18 USC section six six six. Stew on that for a minute.

Steve Palmer [00:03:25]:

But ironically, that prohibits bribery. And what the Supreme Court does here, it breaks this down. There are two types of of payments going back and forth that we're worried about. One is a payment that goes to, an official before in order to influence that officials act. So if I pay a judge, for instance, to get a ruling in my favor, bribe. And then we have something called gratuities. And I and before I go there, the I and before I go there, the Supreme Court sort of says, look, you know, bribes are obvious. We all know what that is.

Steve Palmer [00:04:03]:

Gratuities are a little bit nuanced, and I'll explain why. Gratuities are is a an act of gratitude after something has been awarded. So in this case, for instance, the trucking company, the owner of the trucking company made a payment, I think, of about $15, back to the mayor who gave him the contract after he had gotten the contract. And, of course, then he goes in to say, well, that's those are consulting fees where they make up some other or they came up with some other, non unlawful purpose for it. So what the court does here is it it basically or what the federal government did here is they charged this guy. They charged the mayor and probably both of them with bribery. And, you know, you're thinking, well, it sure sounds like bribery, but it's not because it was a payment after, not before. And it this this case breaks down to a definition of how the statute, how the law define bribery.

Steve Palmer [00:04:59]:

But the court is also very clear here. And it's clear saying, look, we're not gonna we we're reading this law. We're We're reading this statute, and we're telling you folks, the facts here don't fit the statute. It's not meant for this. And they went into some statutory history with it, and I'm not gonna bore you with those details. But the only issue here was whether conduct fit the statute, and it didn't. So what happened is the federal government chose the wrong law to prosecute. And they maybe did that for a good reason because the bribery statute, for instance, I think, has a fifteen year max.

Steve Palmer [00:05:29]:

And there's a there's a there is another statute for that prohibits these gratuities in certain situations, and that doesn't have a long of a prison sentence. Now interestingly, I think the ultimate sentence this guy got was, like, a year and nine months, which would have been within both. Right? So, it would have even met the lower threshold if they they were to charge this guy with something other than bribery. But, again, the US Supreme Court says, look, we're not saying that what this guy did was lawful. We're only saying that it didn't violate section six six six. I I promised I would talk about gratuities and and why that's nuance because I wanna just throw some stuff out there for people to think about. For instance, I'm an attorney, and let's say I go to court day in and day out, and I deal with the same folks over at court, the guys in the security, the bailiffs, maybe even some secretaries or, prosecutors, or whatever it is. And once a year around Christmas time, I'm a festive fella.

Steve Palmer [00:06:26]:

So I decide I'm gonna bring everybody a, a poinsettia and and put some nice red poinsettias on everybody's desk at Christmas time or maybe bring them candy, or even Christmas cookies that I made myself. I'm I would say I'd only I do that every year. I do it as a thank you, as a gratuity, for working and everybody's pleasant demeanor throughout the year. And maybe even I may I punctuate a point if somebody's not really nice to work with. I don't give them the cookies. I wouldn't do that. But but the point is I'm not doing it directly in response to something somebody has done with me done for me as a single act, but maybe just a a year of gratitude, a year of thank you. Is that an unlawful gratuity? That's why that's more nuanced.

Steve Palmer [00:07:11]:

Now I will tell you. Ohio, for instance, has some pretty strict ethics laws. And I say laws. They might be rules, but they're enforced as laws. I can't do that. I can't do stuff like that. I can't give Ohio State tickets to a probation officer or a prosecutor. Around here, there's Muirfield tickets, Jack Nicholas's tournament every year.

Steve Palmer [00:07:30]:

I can't give tickets to a public official, and I don't. I have to, I can sell tickets at face value in an arms like transaction, but these rules are very, very strict, and they're strictly enforced. I have heard tell of folks in congress, US congress. I'm not gonna mention names, but I've had friends who have golfed with a couple folks in congress. And the the the representatives or the, public officials rather wouldn't they won't even let you buy them a Coke at at the turn. You know, you can't get a hot dog and a Coke at the turn. Everybody has to buy their own. So that is a and you would say, well, that's stupid.

Steve Palmer [00:08:06]:

The law should you know, we should be able to buy each other beers. It's my round. It's your round. Nobody does any of that. Everything now has to be reported, and it's followed to a t. Otherwise, you run into these kinds of laws. So look, I'm not aware of any executive order, any law, any, rule, anything at all that permits bribery, particularly under the section six six six. But there are, under the section six six six.

Steve Palmer [00:08:29]:

But there are, there are lots of things that you can't do. There are lots of things that you can do, and it's more nuanced. So, anyway, I I probably didn't answer the question here, and I I don't wanna get into a debate. But I thought it was a a nice opportunity to explore, the Snyder decision because it seems to suggest that bribery is legal, but it's not. Alright. Look. Lawyer Talk Q&A. I I rambled on a little longer than normal.

Steve Palmer [00:08:52]:

But if you got your if you got your own quest you want me to cover, just shoot it to us lawyertalkpodcast.com or leave it in the socials or the comments or wherever you want.