Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Republican In Legal Peril: No mo’ Mo?

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, August 1, 2021

California U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (RIGHT), a Democrat for the state’s 15th Congressional District, listens to testimony of U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn describing the Trump-led terrorist attacks upon Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 as Congress was preparing to certify the election results.

The Alabama GOP Mo-ron Brooks, POS45, and his corrupt lying entourage will likely end up in prison… hopefully – if there’s any justice at all in this violently topsy-turvy world.


In a Federal Court filing Tuesday, July 27, 2021, the United States Department of Justice served notice that they will not be representing Alabama GOP Representative Morris “Mo” Brooks-CD5 in California Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell’s-CD15 lawsuit against him, Donald John Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., and Rudolph Giuliani.

“Brooks submitted a request to the Department of Justice (“Department”) for certification under the Westfall Act that he was acting within the scope of his office or employment as a Member of Congress at the time of the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Brooks later petitioned this Court for a scope-of-employment certification, and the Court called for the United States to respond by July 27, 2021.”

Explaining that “If the Department certifies that the employee was acting within scope, the employee is dismissed and the action proceeds against the United States; if the Department declines to issue a certification, the case proceeds against the individual defendant in his personal capacity,” they cited previous case law and rulings – particularly the Westfall Act – and wrote in part that,

“In response to the Court’s order, the United States hereby reports that the Department has declined to issue a certification because it cannot conclude that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or employment as a Member of Congress at the time of the incident out of which the claims in this case arose. In light of the Department’s declination, the United States should not be substituted as a defendant in this action.”

So much for “kicking ass and taking names,” eh, Mo?

“The record indicates that Brooks’s appearance at the January 6 rally was campaign activity, and it is no part of the business of the United States to pick sides among candidates in federal elections. Members of Congress are subject to a host of restrictions that carefully distinguish between their official functions, on the one hand, and campaign functions, on the other. The conduct at issue here thus is not the kind a Member of Congress holds office to perform, or substantially within the authorized time and space limits, as required by governing law.”

“Indeed, although the scope of employment related to the duties of a Member of Congress is undoubtedly broad and there are some activities that cannot be neatly cleaved into official and personal categories, Brooks’s request for certification and substitution of the United States for campaign-related conduct appears to be unprecedented. And in a variety of contexts involving state and local elected officials, courts have routinely rejected claims that campaigning and electioneering activities fall within the scope of official employment. Brooks thus has not sustained his burden of demonstrating that his conduct at the January 6 rally was undertaken in his official capacity.”

“In addition, the Complaint alleges that Brooks engaged in conduct that, if proven, would plainly fall outside the scope of employment for an officer or employee of the United States: conspiring to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election and to injure Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol. Alleged action to attack Congress and disrupt its official functions is not conduct a Member of Congress is employed to perform and is not “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve” the employer, as required by District of Columbia law to fall within the scope of employment.”

“Thus, if the Court were to reject our argument that the campaign nature of the January 6 rally resolves the certification question, the Court should not certify that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or employment unless it concludes that he did not engage in the conspiracy and incitement alleged in the Complaint.”

TRANSLATION: Alabama’s GOP Mo-ron Brooks is in deep doo-doo in more ways than one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: