Now We Wait! Couy Griffin Case Closing Arguments & Amicus Briefs Filed


Now the wait begins, Couy Griffin defended himself in court and then was forced to submit written closing arguments by August 29th. The case pending is asking for his “removal” and some say more importantly a “ban from holding future offices.” This case could determine Mr. Griffins political future for the rest of his life. If he loses, will he appeal and play the victim or will he embrace the decision, accept responsibility and move on with life?

If three additional organizations have their way, he will be removed as Amicus Briefs, were filed in the case by the NCAAP, Common Cause and the National Council of Jewish Women. 

These groups even fearing potential backlash and further racial strife filed for the removal citing constitutional precedent and references dating back to the creation of the 14th Amendment resulting from the fallout and reunification of the nation from the Civil War.

In a court filing last week, the NAACP noted that Griffin attempted to draw comparisons between the Jan. 6 insurrection and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The NAACP has also highlighted attempts by Griffin to invoke the plight of civil rights activists of the 1960s in his own defense. The NAACP briefing also denounces Griffin’s prior criticism of those who support performances at football games of “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing, also known as the Black National Anthem.

According to the AP, Griffin argued that the move to remove him would "set a dangerous precedent."

"If the plaintiffs prevail and a single judge subverts the will of the great people of Otero County, it will only be further proof of the tyranny we currently live under," Griffin told The AP on Friday. "There was already a recall effort waged against me after Jan. 6. In that recall effort the people of Otero County spoke, and the recall failed."

Couy Griffin is an insurrectionist," the Common Cause amicus curiae brief states. "He is a conspiracy theorist, He has placed partisanship and loyalty to a dangerous political faction over his sworn loyalty to the Constitution, the duties of his office and the rule of law, and he has engaged in insurrectionist activity against the United States."

The Common Cause brief states that Griffin's conduct satisfies the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment disqualification clause, and his removal could set a precedent for the behavior of future elected officials.

The amicus curiae brief from the National Council of Jewish Women was drafted pro-bono, meaning without any compensation, per the brief. Per their brief," the 14th Amendment was drafted after the American Civil War of the 1860s and was intended, to protect the U.S. from elected officials in violation of the Constitution.”

"The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment considered limiting constitutional disqualification to officials who had sided with the Confederacy," the National Council of Jewish Women's, et al. brief states. "Instead, they looked to the future, when a different insurrection might again lure opportunistic officeholders into forsaking their oath to support the Constitution.

Judge Francis J. Mathew, who presided over the bench trial, is expected to deliver a ruling within 10 days of receiving the closing arguments.

Griffin was previously convicted of a misdemeanor for entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021. He was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served. The Capital Ground Conviction and his variety of statements groups consider “flaming” are what launched the lawsuit and the multiple filings for his removal.

I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified