Plaintiffs v. Privateers: Litigation and Foreign Affairs in the Federal Courts, 1816–1822

On January 24, 1817, Don Juan Stoughton, the Spanish consul in Boston, wrote to his colleague in Baltimore, Don Pablo Chacon, to thank him for his recent efforts in supplying Stoughton with information about the Mangore, a private armed vessel recently arrived in the Chesapeake. Stoughton believed that the privateer was responsible for the capture of a Spanish-owned merchant ship that had recently turned up in Massachusetts. Stoughton had recently filed suit in federal district court to recover the vessel and its cargo on behalf of the rightful owners, but to do so he had to establish that, in the course of its recent expedition, the Mangore had violated federal law prescribing American neutrality. In addition to providing intelligence in this matter, Chacon had secured local counsel to represent Stoughton at depositions of privateer crew members being taken in Baltimore.

Download Full-text

Evidence of Perjury and a New Petition

Black Panther in Exile ◽

10.5744/florida/9780813066394.003.0013 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 208-222

Author(s):

Paul J. Magnarella

Keyword(s):

Kansas City ◽

Federal District ◽

District Court ◽

Federal District Court ◽

Do So

Attorney Paul Magnarella filed another petition with the Federal District Court asserting that during O’Neal’s 1970 trial, Jean Young, a key witness for the prosecution, had falsely claimed to have forgotten that she had received numerous payments from the FBI for information. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agent James Moore lied on the witness stand when he said he had not heard of Jean Young receiving FBI payments for information. FBI records established that Jean M. Young had gone by at least seven different surnames, had been arrested three times by Kansas City, Missouri, police, had received a total of fourteen payments from the FBI for information, and had provided information to the FBI on Pete O’Neal. ATF agent Moore testified that he did not know of Young’s paid informant status, even though he later would write that both Young and an FBI agent had told him before the 1970 trial that Young was a paid informant. Magnarella argued that the prosecution was required to reveal to the judge, jury, and defense any evidence that reflects negatively on its witnesses. Failure to do so should result in a new trial.

Download Full-text

Into Federal District Court

Workers against the City ◽

10.5622/illinois/9780252043468.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 110-143

Author(s):

Donald W. Rogers

Keyword(s):

Civil Liberties ◽

Federal District ◽

Federal Courts ◽

District Court ◽

Jersey City ◽

Federal District Court ◽

Police Powers ◽

Municipal Police ◽

New Vision ◽

American Civil Liberties Union

This chapter recounts the federal district court injunction proceeding instituted by the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to stop Jersey City from denying leafletting rights and public-speaking permits. Revealing the hearing’s nastiness, the chapter shows that the trial had legal significance beyond exposing Mayor Hague’s misdeeds, as it tested whether Jersey City’s claim of traditional municipal police powers against alleged CIO communists or the ACLU’s new vision of nationally protected speech and assembly rights for workers would prevail, and indeed, whether federal courts would accept jurisdiction. With law in flux, the chapter concludes, the district court broke new ground by assuming jurisdiction, rejecting Jersey City’s old legal vision, embracing new ACLU views, and enjoining Jersey City as requested.

Download Full-text