travis2
03-29-2006, 08:09 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/264732_mcdermott29.html
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Court rebuffs McDermott
Appeals panel upholds judgment in wiretapping lawsuit
By CHARLES POPE
P-I WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott broke the law 10 years ago when he passed to reporters an illegally recorded telephone conservation between then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his top lieutenants.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a potentially crippling blow to McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, and prolongs his losing streak in the long-running case against Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who now serves as House Majority Leader. Boehner was one of the lawmakers speaking with Gingrich in 1996 about how they should handle ethics charges lodged against Gingrich by Democrats.
A Florida couple illegally recorded the conversation, and a tape of the call eventually made its way to McDermott.
With Tuesday's ruling, McDermott is one step closer to having to pay Boehner more than $700,000 in damages and legal fees. The case began in 1998, when Boehner filed a civil suit against McDermott charging him with violating state and federal wiretapping laws. McDermott is not facing criminal charges.
Though McDermott did not record the call himself, Boehner successfully argued that he should be held liable because he knew that the tape was obtained illegally when he gave copies to The New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
At every turn in the case, which has bounced from federal District Court to the Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and back to the lower courts, McDermott argued that he did nothing wrong.
McDermott insists that he was not aware that the conversation recorded by John and Alice Martin was illegally obtained. The First Amendment, he said, protected his actions. His attorney, Frank Cicero, told the three-judge panel in December that ruling against McDermott would "jeopardize and chill traditional newsgathering and likely encourage an increasing variety of efforts by the government and private citizens to punish the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance."
The appeals court, however, rejected that position, concluding that McDermott understood the conversation was improperly obtained and therefore not protected.
"It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and someone who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen," Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority.
"The former has committed no offense; the latter is guilty of receiving stolen property, even if the ring was intended only as a gift."
Judge David Sentelle agreed with McDermott, writing in a dissenting opinion that the prevailing opinion was "fraught with danger." Carried to its logical extreme, Sentelle wrote, anyone reading a newspaper story about the case could be liable since that reader would also know that the conversation was illegally taped.
"No one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect," Sentelle wrote.
Boehner, who as majority leader is the No. 2-ranking Republican in the House, said Tuesday that he pressed the case because of the principle involved. He pointed out that he aggressively sought to settle with McDermott three years ago, asking McDermott to pay $10,000 to charity and apologize for his actions.
McDermott refused.
Boehner said he expects the decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court. If Boehner's prediction is correct, it will be the second time the case will come before the nation's highest court.
McDermott declined to say if he would appeal, noting that his attorneys were reviewing the ruling. In a statement, however, McDermott did not sound conciliatory.
"There is no greater responsibility for a member of Congress than to defend the Constitution, and I fully accept my duty to protect the First Amendment, which is what this case is all about," he said, noting that 18 major news organizations filed briefs in support of his position.
"The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders, including then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner," McDermott said in the statement.
Beyond its legal significance, the case also carries political overtones. Democrats have openly promised to run this fall against "the Republican culture of corruption."
Republicans officials denounced Democrats as hypocrites, citing the court ruling against McDermott as proof.
P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or [email protected].
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Court rebuffs McDermott
Appeals panel upholds judgment in wiretapping lawsuit
By CHARLES POPE
P-I WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott broke the law 10 years ago when he passed to reporters an illegally recorded telephone conservation between then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his top lieutenants.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a potentially crippling blow to McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, and prolongs his losing streak in the long-running case against Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who now serves as House Majority Leader. Boehner was one of the lawmakers speaking with Gingrich in 1996 about how they should handle ethics charges lodged against Gingrich by Democrats.
A Florida couple illegally recorded the conversation, and a tape of the call eventually made its way to McDermott.
With Tuesday's ruling, McDermott is one step closer to having to pay Boehner more than $700,000 in damages and legal fees. The case began in 1998, when Boehner filed a civil suit against McDermott charging him with violating state and federal wiretapping laws. McDermott is not facing criminal charges.
Though McDermott did not record the call himself, Boehner successfully argued that he should be held liable because he knew that the tape was obtained illegally when he gave copies to The New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
At every turn in the case, which has bounced from federal District Court to the Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and back to the lower courts, McDermott argued that he did nothing wrong.
McDermott insists that he was not aware that the conversation recorded by John and Alice Martin was illegally obtained. The First Amendment, he said, protected his actions. His attorney, Frank Cicero, told the three-judge panel in December that ruling against McDermott would "jeopardize and chill traditional newsgathering and likely encourage an increasing variety of efforts by the government and private citizens to punish the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance."
The appeals court, however, rejected that position, concluding that McDermott understood the conversation was improperly obtained and therefore not protected.
"It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and someone who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen," Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority.
"The former has committed no offense; the latter is guilty of receiving stolen property, even if the ring was intended only as a gift."
Judge David Sentelle agreed with McDermott, writing in a dissenting opinion that the prevailing opinion was "fraught with danger." Carried to its logical extreme, Sentelle wrote, anyone reading a newspaper story about the case could be liable since that reader would also know that the conversation was illegally taped.
"No one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect," Sentelle wrote.
Boehner, who as majority leader is the No. 2-ranking Republican in the House, said Tuesday that he pressed the case because of the principle involved. He pointed out that he aggressively sought to settle with McDermott three years ago, asking McDermott to pay $10,000 to charity and apologize for his actions.
McDermott refused.
Boehner said he expects the decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court. If Boehner's prediction is correct, it will be the second time the case will come before the nation's highest court.
McDermott declined to say if he would appeal, noting that his attorneys were reviewing the ruling. In a statement, however, McDermott did not sound conciliatory.
"There is no greater responsibility for a member of Congress than to defend the Constitution, and I fully accept my duty to protect the First Amendment, which is what this case is all about," he said, noting that 18 major news organizations filed briefs in support of his position.
"The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders, including then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner," McDermott said in the statement.
Beyond its legal significance, the case also carries political overtones. Democrats have openly promised to run this fall against "the Republican culture of corruption."
Republicans officials denounced Democrats as hypocrites, citing the court ruling against McDermott as proof.
P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or [email protected].