Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
- Commander-In-Chief
- Got A Minute?
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
- ~J~ on Taking The Charity Out Of The Church
- ~J~ on Back In The Swing Of Things Soon..I Hope
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Congressman Murtha might find himself in a bit of legal jeopardy if this suit holds up and moves forward:
A slander lawsuit against Congressman John Murtha is expected to be formally filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh Thursday afternoon.
The litigation stems from a 2005 incident in Iraq and Murtha’s reaction to it.
At that time, a group of Marines were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in a raid in Haditha. Shortly after, Murtha appeared on various news broadcasts and characterized the Marines as cold-blooded killers.
The Marines were later cleared or wrongdoing in the incident.
One of the Marines, 24-year-old Cpl. Justin Sharratt, of western Pennsylvania, is suing Murtha for slander.
Murtha’s comments about the incident have also served as the campaign focus for the man who wants to unseat Murtha in November, retired military officer William Russell.
Russell said, as a career military officer and 911 Pentagon survivor, he has a personal interest in seeing the record and reputations of the Marines cleared. He said a right to justice goes beyond politics. Even so, within the last couple of weeks, Russell’s campaign launched a 60-second ad that focuses solely on Murtha’s widely reported comments of the eight Marines at Haditha as “killing innocent civilians in cold blood.”
Russell said on Thursday he has met with Sharratt and his parents, and said the federal lawsuit has been a long time coming. A legal fund was established when Sharratt was exonerated of the charges.
If there has ever been an important race here in Pennsylvania, this is the one.
I hold no real hope though that Russell can overtake Murtha as the Congressman has both a wide lead in the polls and the support of the state party leaders.
Written by SueFormer Marine sues Rep. John Murtha over Haditha comments. Yes! « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN linked with Former Marine sues Rep. John Murtha over Haditha comments. Yes! « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN
Former Marine sues Rep. John Murtha over Haditha comments. Yes! « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 4:26 pmVisit Former Marine sues Rep. John Murtha over Haditha comments. Yes! « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN
[...] Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, Democrat=Socialist, Beltway Blips, Public Opinion Online, J’s Cafe Nette Explore posts in the same categories: National [...]
David M. Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pmVisit David M.
It’s hard to tell without seeing the lawsuit, but if was expressed as an opinion it’s legally protected under the first Amendment. If it was expressed as a fact, it is not protected. I’m not defending his statement, but that’s the legal standard. Libel and slander suits are very difficult to win since NY Times v. Sullivan, a SCOTUS opinion from about the early 1960’s.
Sue Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pmVisit Sue
Thanks David.
I do not understand the laws at all in a case such as this so if you could, would you please clarify the following for me?
“In what is shaping up to be a very interesting defamation case, a federal judge has ordered Rep. John Murtha to testify in a defamation lawsuit filed against him for commenting on an alleged Iraqi massacre. Murtha (D-Pa.) , a former Marine. accused Marines involved in the killings at Haditha of particiipating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes.” Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments. Usually a member of congress is absolutely privileged (or protected) under the speech and debate clause of the constitution. On the floor of the House, Murtha can say most anything about anyone — within the rules of the House. Outside of Congress, however, courts have historically been more reluctant to recognize an absolute privilege. That seems to be the thrust of the comments made by U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: ‘You’re writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?” Collyer said, adding later, ”How far can a congressman go and still be protected?” This could be an precedent setter in the making.”
This case in ongoing and my question is does this decision by the judge then say that Murtha did express this as a fact? I suppose legally it really would be difficult to prove.
What is most confusing to me though is the Congressman could have avoided all of this with a simple apology. I guess for some that is simply to difficult.
David M. Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pmVisit David M.
There’s a lot of hidden meaning in that comment by the Judge. If the court thought it was protected speech, the case would have been dismissed by Summary Judgment. What I can tell just from that comment is that Murtha lost summary judgment. The very fact that this is going to trial tells me the judge is now inclined to view this as a statement of fact. The judge is already inclined to see no first amendment immunity for Murtha. My state has eliminated the distinction between slander and libel. Here it’s all classified as “defamation.” When you accuse someone of committing a crime, it is defamation per se, and that’s true in all the states. The importance of defamation per se is that damages are presumed. That means the plaintiff is relieved of the normal burden of proving he was damaged. Hope that helped. Bottom line–looks bad for Murtha.
Sue Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 8:38 pmVisit Sue
It definitely helped quite a bit and now I suppose I should look for the same findings in the Sharratt case as justification for it moving forward or being dismissed. Different venue, different judge so I would imagine there could be a totally opposite interpretation.
I wish no ill on anyone against a crime cannot be proven but in the case of John Murtha his statements were so definitive when he made them that I would see no way they would not be seen as him presenting a fact, but again, I am not an attorney nor a judge.
All those gray areas in the law are really murky, especially to those of us who have no formal training in this area. It’s great to have you around to clarify and help us through those holes.
Thanks again!