was accomplished by force, threats, or use of fear. In other words, the wrongful use of otherwise valid official power may convert dutiful actions into extortion. So, if a public official threatens to take or withhold official action for the wrongful purpose of inducing a victim to part with property, such a threat would constitute extortion, even though the official was already duty bound to take or withhold the action in question. 7 . Certainly these otherwise admissible expressions of a witness’s state of mind on hearing Dozier’s demands did not become inadmissible merely because they embraced an ultimate issue in the trial. See Fed.R.Evid. 704. 8 . See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 416 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 1448, 55 L.Ed.2d 494 (1978) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d
holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act holding that the court had hobbs act jurisdiction to review transportation department rules addressing certain safety requirements because the agencys power to issue those requirements derived in part from its transferred authority and because actions taken pursuant to that transferred authority were subject to hobbs act review holding municipal police department to be an enterprise within meaning of hobbs act holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983