United States v. Hansen Law Essay Research Paper Term Paper

United States vs George Vernon Hansen
Name
Institution Affiliation
United States Vs George Vernon Hansen
Case Facts
Hansen the defendant in this case was a representative of the second Congressional District of Idaho during the periods 1965-1969 and 1975-1984. He was charged with providing false statement about a loan acquired by one of his companies among three other allegations. He violated 18 U.S.C $ 1001 that involved declaration of wrong statements about matters in the authority of a business in the US. In the accusations, Hansen failed to reveal his EIGA forms about a 59000 dollar loan granted to his wife in 1978 via silver trade with Nelson Bunker, a 84475 dollar profit from his silver products, an extra loan of 61,000 dollars given in 1980 and a 135,000 dollars received from other creditors in 1981. Hansen contested against the application of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and argued it did not include the EIGA forms. The court denied these claims because the United States v. Hansen evidently indicated the defendant presented deceitful statements (Sadler, 2019). Further, the court refused to grant the petitioner new trials and was jailed for one year. A fine of 10,000 dollars for all the four accusations was added which totaled to 40,000 dollars. The court followed all the legal considerations before reaching an agreement to deny him his requests for a new trial or relief.
In March 12, 1992, Idaho District Court accused the petitioner of deceiving the bank 45 times and Judge Edward Lodge sentenced him to three years in jail. On 15 May of 1995, the Supreme Court ruled against the United States v. Bramblett and changed the 18 U.S.C.$ 1001 to limited. Hansen then claimed the 40,000 dollars paid as fine plus the interests it accrued. The petitioner also made a demand for his sentence to be credited to the recent accusations on bank deceits of 1992.
Parties in the Case and their Position
The case involved George Vernon Hansen as the defendant and the department of justice under Electronic Intergovernmental Agreement (EIGA) System. EIGA required every congress member to disclose true reports of their financial acquisitions annually. George had presented misleading reports about the properties he owned and thus had violated the EIGA terms. For this reason, the government of the United States filed a case against him. The petitioner applies for relief via the state habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. $ 2255. Hansen’s relief is particularly on being refunded 40,000 dollars and the accumulated interest there-in. George also demanded the 1984 convictions credited into the current jail sentence he is serving in 1992. Contrary to his wish, the court claims the law only permits a convict to challenge the sentence in which he was held in custody at the time of habeas thus the relief could not be handled.
The Procedural History and Appeals of the Case
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled contrary to the United States v. Bramblett that brought Hansen’s falsely declared statements in court. The court had applied Section 1001 that made it applicable for deceiving statements presented in all the three branches of government (Navin & Sherman, 2016). This changed the 18 U.S.C. $1001 to limit thus permitted the defendant ...