Jun 4, 2020 — or, in the case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the
80 KB – 8 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:19 -cv-01868-RJL v. OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, DEFENDANT OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN™S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO CORRECTED COMPLAINT Defendant, _______________________________________/ DEFENDANT OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN™S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO CORRECTED COMPLAINT Comes now the Defendant, Omarosa Manigault Newman, by and through her undersigned counsel pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(A), Federal Rules of Civil P rocedure, hereby files her Answ er and Defenses to Plaintiff™s Corrected Complaint [DE 2-1] and , in response to the correspondingly numbered paragraphs thereof, states and alleges as follows: 1. Admitted 2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, denied. 3. Admitted for venue purposes only; otherwise, denied. 4. Admitted 5. Admitted 6. Admitted that 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 101(e) provides, fi Any individual who occupies a position described in subsection (f) shall, on or before the thirtieth day after termination of employment in such position, file a report containing the information described in section 102(a) Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 8
PAGE – 2 ============
2 covering the preceding calendar year if the report required by subsection (d) has not been filed and covering the portion of the calendar year in which such termination occurs up to the date the individual left such office or position, unless such individual has accepted employment in another position described in subsection (f). Otherwise, denied. 7. Admitted that 5 U.S.C. app. 4 §101(f)(3) provides, fi each officer or employee in the executive branch, including a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, Unite d States Code, who occupies a position classified above GS Œ15 of the General Schedule or, in the case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay paya ble for GS Œ15 of the General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose pay grade is at or in excess of O Œ7 under section 201 of title 37, United States Code; and each officer or employee in any other position determined by the Director of the Offi ce of Government Ethics to be of equal classification .fl Otherwise, denied. 8. Admitted that 5 U.S.C. app. 4 §104(a) provides, fi The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil pe nalty in any amount, not to exceed $50,000. fl Otherwise, denied. 9. Admitted that 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 104(a)(1) provides, fi The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly an d willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 8
PAGE – 3 ============
3 such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $50,000. fl Otherwise, denied. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Admitted. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Without knowledge, therefore denied. COUNT 1 25. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 3 of 8
PAGE – 4 ============
4 AFFIRMATIVE, SPECIAL AND/OR ALTERNATIVE DEFENSES 1. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the Corrected Complaint fails to state any claims against Mrs. Manigault Newman upon which relief can be granted. 2. As to Plaintiff™s claims against Mrs. Manigault Newman that she fiviolated the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U .S.C. app. 4 § 104, by knowingly and wilfully failing to file her termination financial disclosure report within the time required by the EIGA,fl Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that she did not knowingly and wilful ly fail to file her termination disclosure report. 3. Further, there are insufficient allegations in the Corrected Complaint to show, and no evidence to support, that Defendant Manigault Newman knowingly and wilfully failed to file her termination financial disclosure report within the time requi red by the EIGA. 4. Mrs. Manigault Newman acted in good faith in attempting to complete her financial disclosure report. 5. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the actions of United States Department of Justice prevented Mrs. Manigault Newman from compl ying with the provisions of the Ethics in Government Act , including but not limited to, completing her termination financial disclsoure report within the time prescribed under the EIGA . 6. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the actions of the Execu tive Office of the President , prevented Mrs. Manigault Newman from complying with the provision of the Ethics in Government act, including but not limited to, completing her termination financial disclosure report within the time prescribed under the EIGA. 7. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the Plaintiff has unclean hands. Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 4 of 8
PAGE – 5 ============
5 8. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the Executive Office of the President failed to give required notice. 9. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the United States Department of Justice failed to give the required adequate notice. 10. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the United States Department of Justice has failed to satify all conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit. 11. Mrs. Manigault New man alleges that the Executive Office of the President and/or the United States Department of Justice failed to mitigate any damages. 12. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that she has fully complied with the requirements of the Ethics in Government A ct. 13. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the actions of the Executive Office of the President of withholding Mrs. Manigault Newman™ s financial document s and refusal to correct the subject termination financial disclosure form prevents the prosecution of this claim under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 14. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that the actions of the United States Department of Justice prevents the prosecution of this claim under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 15. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges impossibility as a defense to the allegatio ns of the Corrected Complaint. Mrs. Manigault Newman™s completion of the termination financial disclosure report was impossible due to the incorrect termination date listed on the report and the Executive Office of the President™s refusal to return her personal boxes of financial information following her termination from the White House. 16. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges illegality as a defense to the allegations of t he Corrected Complaint. The Ethics in Governme nt Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 104(a)(2) , imposes Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 5 of 8
PAGE – 6 ============
6 criminal sanctions on former governmental employees who fiknowingly and wilfully falsify any information that such person is required to reportfl. The termination da te on the termination financial disclosure report provided by the Executive Office of the White House to Mrs. Manigault Newman was incorrect and/or false. As such, Mrs. Manigault Newman could not, in good faith, complete and submit said termination financ ial disclosure report prior to the Executive Office of the President correcting the termination date . 17. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges the Executive Office of the White House and the United States Department of Justice have unlawfully engaged in select ive civil enforcement of the Ethics in Government Act in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5 th Amendmend to the United States Constitution. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that this selective civil enforcement of the EIGA is motivated by an intention to discriminate against her on the basis of impermissible considerations, including race , to punish or inhibit her exercise of First Amendment constitutional rights, and/ or by malicious or bad faith int ent to injure Mrs. Manigaul t Newman. 18. Mrs. Manigault Newman alleges that this issue s raised in the Correct ed Complaint are moot. As stated in a previous filing of the Department of Justice in this matter, fiDefendant submitted a termination report on September 11, 2019, the sam e date that she moved to dismiss this action.fl [DE 13]. 19. Mrs. Manigault Newman denies all paragraphs, including all sub -parts, and allegations in the Corrected Complaint not herein specifically admitted or denied. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Mrs. Manigault Newman demands a trial by jury on all counts so triable. Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 6 of 8
PAGE – 8 ============
8 /s/ John M. Phillips JOHN M. PHILLIPS, ESQUIRE DC Bar Number: 1632674 4230 Ortega Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32210 (904) 444 -4444 (904) 508 -0683 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant jphillips@floridajustice.com michele@floridajustice.com Kirby@floridajustice.com The Law Office of J. Wyndal Gordon, P.A. /s/ J. Wyndal Gordon, Esq. J. WYNDAL GORDON, ESQUIRE MD Bar Number: 23572 20 South Charles Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21201 (410)332 -4121 (410)347 -3144 facsimile jwgaattys@aol.com Attorneys for Defendant Case 1:19-cv-01868-RJL Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 8 of 8
80 KB – 8 Pages