United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989-11-15
18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; two-count mail fraud re-indictment (false denial of a murder conviction on a school bus operator's permit application and job application); defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to allege a scheme to obtain "money or property" under McNally; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Known (good-law flag): the wage holding rests on a deprivation / no-financial-injury requirement that the law file's own property rules (Kousisis: no net-economic-loss requirement; fraudulent-inducement variant) appear to reject; the block still counts as a not-satisfied instance and is flagged only by a CAVEAT gloss. Conversely the right-to-control blocks anticipate Ciminelli. Nothing in the structured notation dates or flags either.
One element (`property`) is decided ten times over: the indictment lists ten property interests of two victims. They are grouped into five blocks by theory; `party` here names the alleged VICTIM, not a defendant, and the typed qualifier cannot say so.
The court splits `property` into two questions - is the interest property at all, and was the victim deprived of it (or of an important right appurtenant) - and decides some interests on one and some on the other. No sub-ids (property.interest / property.deprivation) are declared; the split lives in gloss.
Basis [pleaded] with not-satisfied covers "indictment insufficient on its face"; the fact lines are the indictment's enumerated allegations and the court's own characterisations of them, not findings. The cuts-against lines in the control blocks are partly the court's reasoning about the allegations rather than real-world facts.
This is a re-indictment after an earlier dismissal on the same ground (Granberry I); the relation between the two indictments, and the defendant's unreached argument that the Missouri disqualification statute is unconstitutional, have no slot.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 7
| Case | Scheme or artifice to defraud | Traditional money or property as an object | Material deception | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | Statutory mailing or carrier act | Mailing for execution of the scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits |
Elements 7–7 of 7
| Case | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim |
|---|---|
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mailing for execution of the scheme | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Statutory mailing or carrier act | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsTwo mailings alleged (district mailed the application to the Department of Revenue; the Department mailed the permit back); not contested. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Material deception | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: State of Missouri (alleged victim); theory: control over allocation of processing resources; money cost of processing the fraudulent application; subject: party=State of Missouri (alleged victim); theory=control over allocation of processing resources; money cost of processing the fraudulent application Two rulings merged: (a) no deprivation of control over resource allocation because the processing machinery was already in place; (b) the processing cost itself was not sought by the defendant and has no measurable value. | regulatory-cost/routine-cost-of-processing-one-application | (2) Money of the State of Missouri in the form of expenses and costs of processing a fraudulent school bus operator permit application,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [4584:4719] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.In the case at bar, the state had allocated resources for the purpose of processing bus operator’s permits long before defendant submitted his application.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [22486:22641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Defendant certainly did not “obtain”, nor does the government suggest that defendant sought to “obtain”, the state’s processing expenses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [24930:25067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The government fails, however, to suggest an amount representing the expenses incurred by the state or even that the cost incurred by a government agency in processing a single application of this sort is susceptible of calculation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [25290:25522] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Processing this single permit did not deprive the state of its control over the allocation of resources.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [22833:22937] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.This Court cannot conclude that the effort exerted by the Missouri Department of Revenue in processing a single application for a bus operator’s permit in the regular course of business has any measurable value for the purposes of qualifying as “property” meriting the protection of the mail fraud statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [25590:25896] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: State of Missouri (alleged victim); theory: state's control over distribution of bus operator's permits; the permit paper itself; subject: party=State of Missouri (alleged victim); theory=state's control over distribution of bus operator's permits; the permit paper itself The state's interest in a license is regulatory, not proprietary (a license has value only to the licensee); the physical permit paper is de minimis. | government-license/unissued-permit-in-hands-of-state | (3) Property of the State of Missouri being the exclusive control of distribution of school bus operator permits,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [4720:4833] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.On August 27, 1988, the Department of Revenue mailed defendant’s bus operator’s permit to the Normandy School District.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [2476:2595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.If the state has no proprietary interest in bus operator’s permits, then it can have no property right in controlling their distribution.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20980:21117] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The state, however, enjoys no property interest in licenses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20527:20587] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Likewise, the government’s claim that the state enjoyed any appreciable property interest in the piece of paper upon which defendant’s license was printed is patently absurd.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [25897:26071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory: intangible right to control how its money is spent; subject: party=Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory=intangible right to control how its money is spent Money is property, but the indictment's intangible theory alleged loss of control over money already budgeted for bus drivers, not loss of money; the court likens it to the rejected good-government theory and contrasts a bank deciding to whom it lends. | control-over-who-receives-budgeted-wages | (3) Property of the Normandy School District being the exclusive control of how its money is spent,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [3766:3865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The school district certainly must have allocated a certain amount of money for the purpose of paying bus drivers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [23210:23324] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The district does not, in fact, object to how its money was spent. They wanted a bus driver, and that is precisely what they got. The district objects to who they got.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [23562:23729] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.This Court concludes that to find that the school district enjoyed a cognizable property right in controlling what type of person it paid wages would stand McNally on its head. The district enjoys no such property right.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [24352:24572] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory: tangible money: wages paid to the defendant; subject: party=Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory=tangible money: wages paid to the defendant Wages are money, but the court requires a "deprivation": the district got the bus-driving services it paid for, so obtaining wages by a false application is held not to be a property fraud. The court also rejects the argument (Thomas, Cooper) that the "obtaining money or property by false pretenses" clause dispenses with deprivation. This equivalent-value reasoning is in tension with the law file's fraudulent-inducement variant and its Kousisis not-required note. CAVEAT: dated authority. This 1989 district-court holding rests on a deprivation / no-financial-injury requirement that the law file's own property rules (Kousisis: no net-economic-loss requirement; fraudulent-inducement variant: equivalent value in return is not dispositive) appear to reject. Read it as a historical instance, not as a current statement of the property element. | bargained-for-payment/wages-for-services-actually-performed | (1) Money from the Normandy School District in the form of wages paid,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [3554:3624] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.It is irrefutable that the school district suffered no financial injury. The school district paid wages for the services of a bus driver; defendant provided these services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [26316:26488] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The government does not suggest that defendant did not perform the service of driving a bus for Normandy School District in return for the wages he received.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [29584:29741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Nor does the government suggest that defendant was so poorly qualified to perform the service of driving school buses that the district somehow received less than it paid for.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [29742:29917] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.To summarize, this Court concludes that McNally and Carpenter stand for the proposition that a deprivation of property or an important right appurtenant thereto is required under the mail fraud statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [28757:28959] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.If the property itself is not lost, however, there must at least be some deprivation of an important right that accompanies the property, whereby the property holder’s use and enjoyment of the property is diminished.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [29226:29442] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.In the case at bar, the government makes no allegation that suggests that the school district was “deprived” of the wages paid to defendant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [29443:29583] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Hence, this Court concludes that the indictment alleges no property deprivation under McNally and Carpenter and that it, therefore, fails to allege a violation of the mail fraud statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [30242:30428] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory: intangible right to control: who is hired, job distribution, tort liability, type of persons contracted with; subject: party=Normandy School District (alleged victim); theory=intangible right to control: who is hired, job distribution, tort liability, type of persons contracted with Bare control over hiring decisions, job distribution and liability exposure is not "property" under McNally/Carpenter: control must attach to something traditionally recognized as property. | employer-control-over-whom-it-hires | (4) Property of the Normandy School District being the exclusive control of who it hires to drive its children to and from school,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [3866:3996] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The school district then hired defendant as a school bus driver, which the government claims would not have been the case had the school district known of defendant’s prior murder conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [2596:2787] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.Rather, they express only a desire for control over their general affairs; indeed, they seem to express a desire for control alone.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19338:19469] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.This involves inquiring not only whether the asserted interest enjoys some ascertainable value, but also whether it is capable of being marketed, and whether the interest is a commodity that is generally exchanged for value in the open market.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [18407:18650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.As the Court notes above, however, the interest in control must be focused upon some corresponding property right. Nothing in Carpenter suggests that control is in and of itself a property interest.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19470:19668] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3.The Court finds that the remaining intangible interests alleged in the indictment are “too ethereal” to warrant the protection of the mail fraud statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_725.jsonl#/f-supp/725/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20284:20437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 411855fcf12856c1d3a470b80a0ed9a653d8444a2dab2312389ba3c8e32475d3. |
| United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe lie on the application is taken as alleged; the court decides only that its object was not property. It adds, as a policy observation, that a single false statement on a mailed application should not be a federal mail fraud. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |