Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Full-text: March 21 2002
Deportation/exile of the Chagos Islanders
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
| ) | |
| Olivier Bancoult, et al., | ) |
| Plaintiffs, | ) |
| ) | |
| v. | ) |
| ) | |
| Robert S. Mcnamara, et al., | ) |
| Defendants. | ) |
| ) | |
Certification
I, John Lodge Euler, Acting Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, acting pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1), and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Civil Division Directive No. 90-79, reprinted in Appendix to 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 {July 1 2001: 5kb.txt, 25kb.pdf} {current rule, § 15.4: 5kb.txt 25kb.pdf}, hereby certify that I have read the complaint in this action. On the basis of the information now available with respect to the allegations therein, I find that Donald H. Rumsfeld, Robert S. McNamara, Melvin R. Laird, James R. Schlessinger, Thomas Moorer, James L. Holloway, Eric D. Newsom and George T. Churchill were acting within the scope of federal office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the plaintiff’s claims arose.
Dated:
Dated: 19 March 2002
{Signature}
John Lodge Euler
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
______________________
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on March 21, 2002, I served a true copy of the foregoing Certification of Scope of Employment by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel as follows:
Michael E. Tigar, Esq.
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Room 460
Washington, D.C. 20016
Elaine Lacy
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
Department of Justice
Box 888
Washington, D.C. 20044
Harry Reasoner
Vinson & Elkins
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77002-6760
{Signature}
Richard Montague
Source: Photocopy of a duplicate original (the Court’s file copy). This document is not listed on the docket sheet, the “filed” date stamp appears on the back of its page 2 (the certificate of service) not, as here, on the front of page 1. The U.S. Department of Justice lawyers refer to it in their “Individual Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,” filed at the same time (“A Certification of Scope of Employment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1), and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities have been filed in support of this motion.”) (page 1).
By CJHjr: Scanned, converted to text (OCR: FineReader 6.0), formatted (xhtml/css), links, text {in braces}.
This case: Bancoult v. McNamara, complaint filed, Dec. 20 2001, refused to adjudicate, 370 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., No. 01-CV-2629, Dec. 21 2004), appeal docketed, Feb. 22 2005, affirmed refusal to adjudicate, 445 F.3d 427 {justia, altlaw, 147kb.pdf, copy} (D.C. Cir., No. 05-5049, April 21 2006), petitions to rehear and en banc filed, June 5 2006, denied, July 11 2006, petition for certiorari docketed, Oct. 11 2006, refused to review refusal to adjudicate, certiorari denied, 549 U.S. — (U.S., No. 06-502, Jan. 16 2007).
Commentary: Diego Garcia: The Criminal Question Doctrine and Bancoult v. McNamara.
This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.
Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
Posted Dec. 5 2002. Updated May 16 2008.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bancoult-d14a.html