His lawyers just may be busy for quite some time after the Circuit Courts decision is overturned.
Thanks for the post and ping, xzins.
To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.
Posted on 04/23/2009 9:20:20 AM PDT by xzins
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- A Justice Department attorney said U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., should be immune from a defamation lawsuit filed by a former Marine from western Pennsylvania.
Murtha
Essentially, Murtha's attorney said the lawsuit filed in September by Justin Sharratt, of Canonsburg, should be dismissed for the same reasons that a federal appeals court struck down a similar suit by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, of Meriden, Conn., last week.
The court ruled that Murtha couldn't be sued because he was acting within the scope of his employment when he accused Wuterich's squad of killing innocent civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha, Iraq in 2005.
Sharratt has been cleared of wrongdoing. Wuterich remains charged by a military court but says he's innocent.
Sharratt said Murtha's comments on TV news shows go beyond his duties as a congressman.
Murtha is not safe from charges of treason for slurring our troops with falsehoods in wartime to sink American troop and civilian morale on the war effort AND to embolden and justify the actions of the enemy.
Word out of the Obama Justice Department is what it sounds like. (Oxymoron)
You know who’ll be fighting for his pal in corruption.
Nice try, but no cigar. Murtha is a ‘Rat, Murtha is a protected ‘Rat, Murtha is a former Marine (he’s not now, because he has dishonored and stained every Marine with his despicable behavior.
Murtha will get a pass like all ‘Rat traitors do.
Balderdash. TV News is owned by the DNC. Therefore he was engaging in Party activity with his press office.
I am guessing this is a criminal suit based on Murtha being represented by the justice department. I say bring a civil suit, Take money out of his pocket. Twist his arm until he cries.
Just because he’s a former marine does not excuse his current activities.
John Kerry served and was also a traitor who lied to Congress about mythical war crimes observed and participated in. He admits now there were no war crimes.
And Benedict Arnold was a hero to our side before he became a traitor.
Traitors one and all.
Treason is and slander is not grounds for a suit? Since when?
I’ll add that Timothy McVeigh was also former military. He was a skunk too.
But he only engaged in violent sedition, not treason as we were not engaged in war with a declared enemy and if McVeigh had any foreign communications or allegiances, it’s been covered up.
That can only lead to insurrection.
Representatives and Senators have immunity from civil suits for things they say on the floor of the House or Senate. Murtha made these statements in another place, and the mere fact that he was a Congressman does not immunize him. He was expressing his personal opinion, and the only reason anyone listened to the fat, bitter old traitor was that he was a Congressman.
If they insist that Murtha was speaking to “his duties as a congressman”, then his duties as a congressman included the trials of these Marines.
That means he publicly convicted these men and made incredibly prejudicial statements about these men before their trials were complete.
If he was speaking to his duties as a congressman, then he engaged in unlawful influencing of their trials, and there’s no way they can ever be convicted without it appearing they might have been railroaded.
If he was speaking to his duties as a congressman, then these trials are indelibly tainted, and they should be thrown out on that basis.
>Murtha couldn’t be sued because he was acting within the scope of his employment
Murtha is not employed, otherwise he could be fired. As is, he must be impeached or commit a non-protected-crime.
Shouldn’t this theory exempt the bush administration officials from prosecution for the interrogation techniques?
>Murtha is not safe from charges of treason for slurring our troops with falsehoods in wartime to sink American troop and civilian morale on the war effort AND to embolden and justify the actions of the enemy.
BINGO! — Also note that we can still kill people for treason, and wouldn’t it be a good precedent to hang this guy for his treason?
Justice Dept Confirms: Different Set Of Laws For Connected DemoCriminals.
Good points.
However, any supposed immunity does NOT cover treason.
here we have a corrupt inbred political environment and a case of "a nobody vs big fat powerful congressman" .....what do you think will happen ?
and why didn't this lawyer try a civil suit in some inner city "gold mine" . sheesh , fire the lawyer too !
His lawyers just may be busy for quite some time after the Circuit Courts decision is overturned.
Thanks for the post and ping, xzins.
To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.
WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS IT BECOMES NECESSARY...
Yep, this is an Obama Justice Dept lawyer saying that Murtha should be immune. It might as well be Murtha’s personal lawyer.
See post #12
The real danger in this environment, as the Obama lawyers take over, is that they’ll railroad these men even more than the Bush Justice Department did. After all, Murtha is their guy.
In a civil suit, Murtha has no entitlement to a defense at public expense. Speaking to the press is not a legislative function and thus not protected.
Amen to that, Justa!
Correct...It seems the Obama justice dept is already more outspoken in coming out and saying this. I don’t recall a justice dept lawyer saying this about Wuterich’s case but maybe I missed it.
If treason is [partially] defined as providing aid or comfort to the enemy (it is) , and the judge just aided him (and he did) then the judge is also a traitor.
Oh, how many people we could (and should) hang along that line of reasoning. :D
Then the marine should go after the administration. He definitely cannot get a fair trial.
If there is justice, Murtha will be held to account.
Sen. Proxmire was successfully sued for defamation for a newsletter he sent to constituents. The only difference in the cases is that Murtha apparently did not mention any specific names. In my view, that is the real problem.
If the statute of limitations is two years in PA for this type of action, it makes no difference if the it is a state or federal claim (statute of limitations for civil actions are determined by state law unless federal law makes an exception for a federal claim). For defamation cases, the state statute of limitations applies, even in federal court; Sharratt's case will be dismissed because it was not filed in a timely matter. END OF STORY.
Hmmmmmm. I don’t understand why this was filed in the first place if it was beyond the statute of limitations.
The “kneeling, begging for mercy picture” was a flat out lie by Time’s propagandist insurgents, and Murtha ran with it (or made it up himself.)
That is one item of many that he used to inflame the passions of the military chain and the civilian compatriots of these Marines, SUCH THAT it is entirely reasonable to question any conviction that ever comes their way as the result of congressional railroading.
Justin didn't file his suit until after his case was dismissed. The dismissal put the lie to Murtha and the date of the dismissal could be seen as the date of the injury, not when Murtha actually spoke the words. The dismissal was July '07 IIRC, and Justin's suit was filed in Sept. '08.
An interesting point. Not knowing statutory time limitation periods for PA, I suspect the is also a provision to toll statute of limitation periods for cases like this. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that is is more than a few months after the tolled period ends.
As an example. If a normal case has a statute of limitations period of two years, but the criminal case took longer than two years after the defamation occurred, a party would be granted some period after the conclusion of the case to file a civil action. I seriously doubt that period of time did not lapse prior to Sharratt filing his lawsuit, but you'd have to check the PA statutes/rules on that.
Additionally, Justin's lawsuit isn't just a defamation case. The original suit as filed contains 6 seperate charges against Murtha, and the statute of limitations may not apply to all or any of them. The amended filing may have more, I don't know. Here's a link to the original filing....
http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/LCplSharratt/Complaint_Sharratt_vs_Murtha_25SEPT08.pdf
Thanks, smooth.
Thank you all. I don’t understand the legalese but am watching your posts.
I just recieved the following via e-mail from a source very close to the case here in SW PA...
Could you please post this on FR to clarify that Justin had 2 years from the time he got out of the Marine Corps to file the lawsuit against Murtha. This is per Noah, who would know the two-year statute of limitations law for PA better than anyone. I just wanted to verify that since I noticed people on there are saying he didn't file it in a timely manner.
So Murtha's attorney Werner is just blowing smoke and the newspapers are falling for it. I'm shocked, I tell ya, just shocked!
Great news, Smooth.
Thanks for letting us know this and I suppose we’re all just as shocked as you about the smoke signals. LOL!
That’s good news, if true.
I think he still has the problem of Murtha never mentioning him by name in public.
Take it to the bank, my source is impeccable.
I think he still has the problem of Murtha never mentioning him by name in public.
No he doesn't. Murtha was blanketly passing judgement and condemning a specific squad of Marines, of which Justin was a member. The name of every Marine in the squad was known publicly, it wasn't necessary for Murtha to name each one individually, his words condemned them all.
Murtha is a slime ball and I truly hope that Sharratt has a cause of action against him and can prevail. I have read every USSC case related to defamation and I think the fact that Murtha never mentioned anyone by name is a problem. Murtha stating that a Marine squad committed murder does not identify Sharratt individually.
If this case goes forward, I can assure you that this fact will be a defense he presents.
As far as Murtha's defense, I'm sure his attorneys will attempt any stunt they can conjure up. LOL! Let 'em, it will just show him for the fool he is.
But I come from a different mindset.
I don't see it as a problem.
Murtha is a prime, if not thee prime example of why we should have term limits. Especially if there is no limit to the way he terms things.
Either that or he is the reason for birth control.
“We’re surrounded...”
good, now we can kill ‘em all.
Two years after he left the Marine Corps vs. when the statements were made......Interesting. Thanks, again, smooth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.