Feds (Lawyers) Say Murtha Immune From Pa. Haditha Suit, Too (Haditha)

WTAE-TV ^ | 23 Apr 09

[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.

[xzins]

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.

[SeaHawkFan]

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.

[jazusamo]

Amen to that, Justa!

[mkjessup]

Just because he [Murtha]’s a former marine does not excuse his current activities.

Oh I quite agree. My referring to Yellow Stain Murtha as a 'former' Marine was actually a slap at him, based on the common Marine value of 'Once a Marine, Always a Marine'.

Any good Murtha might have done while wearing the uniform was negated with his treasonous behavior.

[jazusamo]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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

[Always Independent]

Then the marine should go after the administration. He definitely cannot get a fair trial.

[Girlene]

Justin Sharratt's lawyer, Noah Geary, filed a revision on April 15 to the suit against Murtha, Ex-Marine from Pa. revises Murtha defamation suit

U.S. Rep. John Murtha shouldn't be immune from a defamation lawsuit for saying Marines killed Iraqi women and children "in cold blood," because the lawmaker's comments came outside the scope of his official duties, a former Marine's attorney said.

The attorney, Noah Geary, on Wednesday filed an amended federal defamation lawsuit on behalf of Justin Sharratt, 24, a former lance corporal from Canonsburg. The new complaint, which adds 13 paragraphs to a lawsuit originally filed in September, was prompted by the dismissal of a similar suit against Murtha by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich..................

........................ Geary's new complaint explains precisely why he believes Murtha's comments went beyond his official duties as a Congressman.

Among other things, Geary claims Murtha had no official business commenting on an ongoing Pentagon investigation. "It is wholly foreign to employment as a member of the legislative branch to make conclusory statements of fact about an ongoing criminal investigation conducted by the executive branch," Geary said.

Geary noted that Murtha claimed his Haditha information came from Pentagon higher-ups, who denied that.

[RedRover]

The report in Time mentioned below was absolutely false, just like the rest of Murtha's statements at the time. There never was a photo of an Iraqi kneeling, begging for mercy.

If there is justice, Murtha will be held to account.

[SeaHawkFan]

Someone needs to get in touch with his lawyer and tell him there is a difference between an “official duty” and a “legislative function”. Murtha has immunity only for legislative functions; and speaking to the press is not one of them.

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.

[Girlene]

More info from Philly.com Feds say Murtha immune from Pa. Haditha suit, too

........."Murtha's attorney, Paul Werner, said the suit filed in September by Justin Sharratt should be dismissed for reasons similar to those cited by an appeals court panel that struck down a defamation suit by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, of Meriden, Conn."...........

..........."Werner argued in a 22-page motion docketed Thursday that Murtha is still shielded from being sued unless his remarks were "plainly incompetent or ... knowingly violate the law.""..................

....................."In the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Murtha's attorney argues the TV news comments were directly related to Murtha's actions as a Congressman.

The motion notes that Murtha introduced a congressional resolution to redeploy forces from Iraq on Nov. 17, 2005 , two days before the Haditha battle. In May 2006, Murtha "held a press conference in Washington where he again questioned the United States military effort in Iraq" during which he criticized the Haditha killings.

"Following this press conference, Congressman Murtha appeared on national news programs to discuss his comments on the incident in Haditha," the motion said.

Geary was in court Thursday and did not immediately return calls for comment. He has said he believes Sharratt could pursue some of his claims under Pennsylvania law, which would make it harder for Murtha to argue that he's immune from being sued.

The Justice Department said those claims are barred, however, because Sharratt's suit was filed in September 2008, beyond Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations."

[SeaHawkFan]

The Justice Department said those claims are barred, however, because Sharratt's suit was filed in September 2008, beyond Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations."

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.

[Girlene]

Hmmmmmm. I don’t understand why this was filed in the first place if it was beyond the statute of limitations.

[xzins]

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.

[smoothsailing]

Hmmmmmm. I don’t understand why this was filed in the first place if it was beyond the statute of limitations.

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.

[SeaHawkFan]

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.

[smoothsailing]

Also keep in mind that Murtha repeatly made his assertions, beginning in May '06 and continuing for months thereafter. I'm sure we can find an example of his babbling that occured as late as Sept '06.

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

[Girlene]

Thanks, smooth.

[jazusamo]

Thank you all. I don’t understand the legalese but am watching your posts.

[smoothsailing]

UPDATE!!!

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!