14 Apr
18

Court rules Murtha “immune” from Haditha defamation lawsuit

By:

This makes me ill….. scum. Pure scum.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed suit against Murtha, claiming that the veteran lawmaker damaged his reputation when he told the press that Wuterich’s squad in 2005 killed civilians in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq.

Wuterich argued that Murtha made false and defamatory statements to the press about Wuterich’s and his comrades’ role in the civilian deaths.

Murtha, a former Marine, used his congressional immunity as his defense, arguing that he made those statements to the press in his official capacity as a member of Congress. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ruled that Wuterich can’t sue Murtha.

Read in entirety… all six paragraphs… at link above.

FacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Congress, Haditha Marines, Military. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
| 27 views

18 Responses to Court rules Murtha “immune” from Haditha defamation lawsuit

  1. Hard Right says: 1

    What BS!!!

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 14, 2009 at 9:18 pm
  2. JohnMcClane says: 2

    From the decision:
    http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/april/document.pdf

    The law is clear that limited
    discovery is permitted in a Westfall Act case only when a
    plaintiff “allege[s] sufficient facts that, taken as true, would
    establish that the defendant[’s] actions exceeded the scope of
    [his] employment.” Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210, 1215 (D.C.
    Cir. 2003). Because Wuterich has failed to meet even this
    minimal pleading burden, we vacate the District Court’s order
    denying certification pending discovery and remand the case
    with instructions to the District Court to substitute the United
    States as the defendant in place of Congressman Murtha.
    Because the United States has not waived its sovereign
    immunity for Wuterich’s tort claims, the District Court will be
    required to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction.

    also:

    The analysis of Wuterich’s allegations is controlled by this
    court’s decision in Council on American Islamic Relations v.
    Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In that case, the
    Council on American-Islamic Relations sued Congressman Cass
    Ballenger for defamation and slander after Congressman
    Ballenger remarked that the organization was the “fund-raising
    arm for Hezbollah” during a conversation with a reporter about
    his separation from his wife. Id. at 662. The Government
    certified that Congressman Ballenger was acting within the
    scope of his employment.

    and this:

    Consequently, where a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient
    facts to rebut the certification, the United States must be
    substituted as the defendant because the federal employee is
    absolutely immune from suit.     The parties agree that if the
    certification is not successfully rebutted in this case, Wuterich’s
    action must be dismissed because his claims fall within the
    FTCA’s exception for claims “arising out of . . . libel [or]
    slander.”

    and this:

    Also instructive on this point is the court’s recent Westfall
    Act decision in Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    In Wilson, the court upheld the District Court’s ruling that
    defendant Bush Administration officials had acted within the
    scope of their employment when they disclosed to the media the
    previously covert agent status of Valerie Plame Wilson, whose
    husband Joseph C. Wilson IV had been an outspoken critic of
    the administration’s approach to intelligence issues. Case: 07-5379 Document: 01215614973 Page: 17

    And:

    Congressman Murtha’s alleged attempts to discredit
    Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s management of the war in Iraq,
    no less than the comments of the Bush Administration officials
    in the Wilson case, were directly tied to his congressional
    political agenda and thus cannot support a claim that the
    Congressman acted outside the scope of his employment.

    lastly:

    Another example is seen in the en banc court’s decision in
    In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In re Cheney
    involved suits filed by two nonprofit organizations against the
    Vice President and other government officials, alleging that the
    National Energy Policy Development Group was subject to the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act’s (“FACA”) disclosure
    requirements. Id. at 725-27. The District Court had largely
    rejected the Government’s motion to dismiss pending discovery
    that this court described as “overly broad” and “unbounded in
    scope.” Id. at 727 (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at 386, 388). The
    en banc court granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the case
    dismissed, because the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for
    relief under FACA. Id. at 728-31. Importantly, In re Cheney
    unequivocally rejected the plaintiffs’ pleas for discovery in order
    to find facts that would lend credence to their complaint.

    So, the Murtha case was dismissed on the same grounds as the dismissal of the complaint against the Bush admin with respect to the Plame/Wilson affair, the energy lawsuit against VP Cheney, and the Council on American Islamic Relations charges of slander for being described as the “fund-raising
    arm for Hezbollah”.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 14, 2009 at 10:08 pm
  3. JohnMcClane says: 3

    Quotes from the decision:
    http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/april/document.pdf

    “When a federal
    employee is sued for wrongful or negligent conduct, the Act
    empowers the Attorney General to certify that the employee
    ‘was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the
    time of the incident out of which the claim arose.’

    On May 7, 2007, the Attorney General’s designee invoked
    the Westfall Act and certified that “United States Congressman
    John Murtha was acting within the scope of his employment as
    an employee of the United States at the time of the alleged
    incidents.” Westfall Certification (May 7, 2007), reprinted in
    Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 138. Upon filing the certification, the
    United States and Congressman Murtha moved to substitute the
    United States as the defendant

    The analysis of Wuterich’s allegations is controlled by this
    court’s decision in Council on American Islamic Relations v.
    Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In that case, the
    Council on American-Islamic Relations sued Congressman Cass
    Ballenger for defamation and slander after Congressman
    Ballenger remarked that the organization was the “fund-raising
    arm for Hezbollah” during a conversation with a reporter about
    his separation from his wife. Id. at 662. The Government
    certified that Congressman Ballenger was acting within the
    scope of his employment.

    Indeed, where comments made in the course of a conversation
    on as private a matter as marital status are within the scope of a
    congressman’s official duties, it is hard to fathom how
    Congressman Murtha’s discussion of grave public policy
    concerns relating to the war in Iraq could ever fall outside the
    scope of his employment. See Williams v. United States, 71
    F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that a congressman’s
    allegedly defamatory remarks during an interview about an
    appropriations bill were within the scope of his employment and
    noting that “[b]esides participating in debates and voting on the
    Congressional floor, a primary obligation of a Member of
    Congress in a representative democracy is to serve and respond
    to his or her constituents”).

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 14, 2009 at 10:25 pm
  4. Tom Jones says: 4

    Murtha’s such an asshole.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 14, 2009 at 11:31 pm
  5. sigmundringeck says: 5

    Try again when he is no longer in congress.
    And also when the dems are no longer in control.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 12:03 am
  6. Craig Mc says: 6

    We have similar laws in Australia, but protected comments must be made on the floor of parliament itself. If a politician went on the steps out front and said it to the press it’s no longer protected, but then we have stricter (many say too strict) libel laws than the USA.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 12:19 am
  7. FedUp says: 7

    Murtha is the poster child POS!!! We had a good contender for his seat, but the dems pulled some of their tricks and William Russelllost the seat. I hope that the people in Johnstown wake up for the next elections and show Murtha just what they think of him!

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 5:09 am
  8. Steve Rowland says: 8

    Guess we confer ‘diplomatic’ immunity on so-called congressmen as soon as they leave the protection of the Capitol.

    Murtha hates the war in Iraq and has done all he can to subvert it.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 6:07 am
  9. Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says: 9

    Punitive and general articles that may cover murtha. He is retired, isn’t he? And retirees are subject to the UCMJ. Convening Authority would be the Commandant of The Marine Corps.

    917. ARTICLE 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
    Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
    934. ARTICLE 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
    Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

    Let’s see a left wing dirtbag lawyer in this world.
    Speaking as a member of the congress in his legislative duties, indeed.
    I need to dig out the Manual For Courts Martial of The United States.
    Any others out there think the same?

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 6:52 am
  10. Steve Rowland says: 10

    Glenn:

    I’m was not a member of the armed services (deaf) but what you outline sounds like a start.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 7:31 am
  11. Jarhead68 says: 11

    Well, perhaps a punch in the face will do Murtha some good. Not that I’m trying to incite anyone, you know. Far be it from me to promote violence against a traitor.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 8:13 am
  12. JohnMcClane says: 12

    Let’s see a left wing dirtbag lawyer in this world.
    Speaking as a member of the congress in his legislative duties, indeed.
    I need to dig out the Manual For Courts Martial of The United States.

    Yes, but I bet Congress has written the rules such that Congress trumps military.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 8:38 am
  13. Patvann says: 13

    There are very few “former Marines” in the world. At least the article got that right.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 9:24 am
  14. eaglewingz08 says: 14

    This complaint may have made the Marines feel better but it was doomed from the start. There are very few slander/libel complaints against Congresscritters that would make it past the speech and debate clause of the US Constitution. Since most of us are constitutionalists here, while we find the acts of Murtha to be deplorable and reprehensible, the decision is proper and correct based upon the law and the constitution. As for waiting for Murtha to leave office, that wouldn’t solve the problem (even assuming he had left office within the Statute of Limitations period which probably has expired by now) because the acts were done while he was a Representative and his status at the time of the occurrence not the time of the litigation is the only relevant factor for immunity.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 9:33 am
  15. MataHarley says: 15

    Thanks for the excerpts, JohnMcClane. Caught the breaking news last night, but had no heart to start digging in the later hours of the eve for the specifics of the decision.

    Their grounds and use of precedents from the Bush admin/Plame, Cheney/energy and CAIR/arm of Hezbollah make me wonder about the arguments used by Wuterich’s attorney. In each of the cited cases, I can see a link to the realm of employment.

    Murtha, however, flat out usurped the judicial system and pronounced the Haditha soldiers guilty without a trial. I fail to see how that is related to Congressional employment in anyway. But then, all depends upon what Wuterich’s attorney used as the argument.

    I should very much like to see discipline via the UCMJ, followed rapidly by Murtha being booted unceremoniously out of office in the next election. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 9:37 am
  16. Richard Romano says: 16

    This is unbelievable — there are two sets of laws, one for us, one for the pols.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm
  17. JohnMcClane says: 17

    MataHarley:

    Murtha, however, flat out usurped the judicial system and pronounced the Haditha soldiers guilty without a trial.

    I remember something like that from the Nixon era, either having to do with William Calley or Charles Manson. I think Nixon said Manson was guilty and Manson held the paper with the bold headline up in front of the jury.

    RichardRomano

    This is unbelievable — there are two sets of laws, one for us, one for the pols.

    Actually, it is believable.
    Go back to the Bible. There are many stories of the rulers who believed they were better than the common man.

    And to use a line from the kid’s movie Aladdin:
    Have you heard of the golden rule- he who has the gold, rules.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 7:10 pm
  18. Hard Right says: 18

    The question is whether or not it was truly part of his congressional duties. So far the legal system has said yes.
    Hopefully there will be other challenges as it sure didn’t seem to be part of his “duty”.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    April 15, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>