Griffin Ruling

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 49

FILED 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

Santa Fe County
9/6/2022 8:36 AM
KATHLEEN VIGIL CLERK OF THE COURT
Marina Sisneros
Atthe outset, it is appropriate to quote in pertinent part the Judge’s charge to the grandjury
in In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828, 829-830 (D.CN.D. II. 1894):
‘Gentlemenofthe Grand Jury: You have been summoned here to inquire whether any of
the laws of the United States within thsjudicial district have been violated. You have
come in an atmosphere and amid occurrences that may well cause reasonable men to
question whether the government and lawsofthe United States are yet supreme. Thanks
to resolute manhood, and to that enlightened intelligence which perceives the necessity of
avindication of law before any other adjustments are possible, the governmentofthe
United States is til supreme.
You doubless fecl, as 1 do, that the opportunitiesoflife, under present conditions, are not
entirely equal, and that changes are needed to forestall someofthe dangerous tendencies
of current industrial tendencies. But tendencies. But neither the torchofthe incendiary,
nor the weaponofthe insurrectionist, nor the inflamed tongueofhim who incites to fire
and swordi the instrument to bring about reforms. To the mind ofthe American people;
o the calm, dispassionate sympatheticjudgmentof a race that is not afraid to face deep
changes and responsibilities, there has, as yet, been no appeal. Men whoappearas the
champions of great changes must first submit themto discussion, discussion that reaches,
not simply the parties interested, but the outer circles of society, and must be patient as
well as persevering until the public intelligence has been reached, and a public judgment
made up. An appeal to force before that hour is a crime, not only against government of
existing laws, but against the cause itself; for what manofany intelligence supposes that
any settlement will abide which is induced under the light of the torch or the shadow of
an overpowering threat?
With the questions behind present occurrences, therefore, we have, as ministersofthe
law and citizens of the republic, nothing now to do. The law as it is must first be
vindicated beforewe turn aside to inquire how law or practice, as it ought to be, can be
effectually brought about. Government by law is imperiled, and that issue is paramount.
The governmentofthe United States has enacted laws designed, frst, to protect itselfand
its authority as a government, and, secondly, its control over those agencies to which,
under the constitution and laws, it extends governmental regulation. For the former
‘purpose,— namely, to protectitself and its authority as a government,— it has enacted
that every person who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in, any rebellion or
insurrection against the authorityofthe United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or
comfort thereto, ‘and any two or more persons in any state or territory who conspire to
overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the governmentofthe United States, or to levy
‘waragainst them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof; or by force to prevent,
hinder or delay the execution of any lawofthe United States contrary to the authority
thereof, * shall be visited with certain penalties therein named.
i
Insurrection isa rising against civil or political authority, — the open and active:
opposition of a numberofpersons to the executionof law in a city or state. Now, the laws
ofthe United States forbid, under penalty, any person from obstructing or retarding the.
‘passageofthe mail, and make it the duty ofthe officers to arrest such offenders, and
bring them before the court, If, therefore, it shallappearto you that any person or persons
have willfully obstructed or retarded the mails, and that their attempted arrest for such
offense has been opposed by such a numberofpersons as would constitute a general
uprising in that particular locality, then the fact ofan insurrection, within the meaning of
the law, has been established; and he who by speech, writing, or other inducement assists
in setting it on foot, or carrying it along, or gives it aid or comfort, is guilty ofa violation
of law. It is not necessary that there should be bloodshed; it is not necessary that its
dimensions should be so portentous a to insure probable success,to constitute an
insurrection. It is necessary, however, that the rising should be in opposition to the
executionof the lawsofthe United States, and should be so formidable as for the time
being to defy the authorityofthe United States. When men gather to resist the civil or
political powerofthe United States, or to oppose the executionofits laws, and are in
such force that the civil authorities are inadequate to put them down, and aconsiderable
military force is needed to accomplish that result, they become insurgents; and every
person who knowingly incites, aids, or abets them, no matter what his motives may be, is
likewise an insurgent. The penalty for the offense is severe, and, as I have said, is
designed to protect the government and its authority against direct attack. ....
Mr. Griffin's attempts by his arguments, including his closing argument, to sanitize his
actions are without merit and contrary tothe evidence produced by the Plaintiffs, bearing in mind
that he produced no evidencehimselfin his own defense. His protestations and his
characterizationsofhis actions and the eventsofJanuary 6, 2021 are not credible and amounted
to nothing more than attempting to put lipstick on a pig.
‘The ironyof Mr. Griffin's argument that this Court should refrain from applying the law
and consider the willofthe people in District Two ofOtero County who retained him as acounty
‘commissioner against a recall effort as he attempts to defend his participation in an insurrection
by a mob whose goal, by his own admission, was to set aside the resultsof a ree, fair and lawful
election by a majorityofthe people of the entire country (the willofthe people) has not escaped
this Court.
ii
In this quo warranto action, Plaintiffs seek to remove Otero County Commissioner Couy
Griffin from office and disqualify him from any future public office pursuant to Section Three of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and NMSA 1978, Sections
44-3-4 and 44-3-14, based on his participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United
States Capitol and related events,
FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Parties.
I. PlaintiffMarco White is a private citizen and resident of Santa Fe County, New
Mexico. 8/15/22 Tr. 9:21-22;' Complaint (“Compl”) § 3.
2. PlaintiffMark Mitchell is a private citizen and resident of Los Alamos County,
New Mexico. 8/15/22 Tr. 9:21-22; Compl. 4.
3. PlaintiffLeslie Lakindis a private citizen and resident of Santa Fe County, New
Mexico. 8/15/22 Tr. 9:21-22; Compl. 5.
4. Defendant Couy Griffin currently serves as the District 2 Commissioner on the.
Otero County Boardof County Commissioners (“Otero County Commission”). 8/15/22 Tr.
46:15-17 (Griffin). His term ends on December 31, 2022. fd. 46:18-19.
5. The Otero County Commission was created pursuant to the Constitution and
statutes of New Mexico. NM. Const. art. X, § 1; NMSA 1978, §§ 4-38-1 10 4-38-42.
6. Asa county commissioner, Mr. Griffin performs “executive functions,” including
on spending, personnel, and election matters. 8/15/22 Tr. 52:18-57:23 (Griffin); 8/16/22 Tr.

! Citations to the trial transcript will identify the date, page, and line numberof the cited
transcript followed by a parenthetical identifying the testifying witness, where applicable.
19:12-24, 20:15-23 (Graber); Plaintiffs’ Exhibit (“PX”) 2-11 (Otero County Commission
Resolutions and Agendas).
7. Asacounty commissioner, Mr. Griffin implements state law. 8/15/22 Tr. 57:3-23
(Griffin); 8/16/22 Tr. 19:12-19 (Graber); PX 2-11 (Otero County Commission Resolutions and
Agendas).
8. State law required Mr. Griffin to take an oath to support the Constitutionof the
United States before assuming office, and Mr. Griffin did so. 8/15/22 Tr. 51:13-18 (Griffin); PX
1 (Dec. 28, 2018 OathofOffice); NM. Const. art. XX, § 1 (requiring “[e]very person elected or
appointed to any office” to take an oath “that he will support the constitutionof the United
States”).
9. Mr. Griffin's actions asa county commissioner have had a statewide impact,
8/16/22 Tr. 19:12-24 (Graber); see also Br.of Amicus Curiae Common Cause at 6-9 (Aug. 24,
2022) (explaining how Griffin's election denialism and defiance of the law have impacted the
State); 8/15/22 Tr. 14:10-15:11 (Court recognizing that Mr. Griffin's “refusal to certify election
results” and resulting “mandamus action” in the New Mexico Supreme Court “affected the entire
stateof New Mexico”).
10. Mr. Griffin is the founder and leaderof “Cowboys for Trump,” apolitical
advocacy organization established in 2019 to support former President Donald Trump and his
policies. 8/15/22 Tr. 47:17, 49:17-21 (Griffin).
IL The “Stop the Steal” Movement to Block the Lawful Transfer of Presidential Power.
11. On November 7, 2020, the major news networks projected Joe Biden as the
winner of the 2020 presidential election. PX 12 at 21 (June 2021 Senate Report).

2
12. President Trampdid not accept the election results and pursued multiple avenues
10 remain in power through legal and extra-legal means. 8/16/22 Tr. 96:19-21 (Kleinfeld). The
“Trump campaign and its supporters fled and lost dozens of frivolous lawsuits challenging the
election results based on alleged voter fraud. PX 12 at 21 (June 2021 Senate Report). A federal
judge called one such case “a historic and profound abuse of thejudicial process” meant to
“underminfc] the People’s faith in our democracy.” Kingv. Whitmer, 556 F. Supp. 3d 680, 688
89 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (sanctioning attorneys).
13. On December 14,2020, the Electoral College met and confirmed Joe Biden's
victory in the 2020 presidential election. PX 12 at 21 (June 2021 Senate Report). President
Trump thereafter continued to falsely claim the election was stolen from him. Jd. at 22.
14. As their strategy failed in the courts, Trump's team turned their focus to January
6,2021, the date on which ajoint session ofCongress (with Vice President Mike Pence serving
as presiding officer) would convene to certify the resultsofthe election as required by the
‘Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. § 15. PX 12 at 22 (June 2021 Senate
Report). They ultimately devised and carried out an extra-legal scheme to pressure Vice
President Pence—both privately and publicly—to take the unconstitutional actionofrefusing to
count electoral votes from several states during the January 6 proceedings. See Eastman v.
Thompson, 2022 WL, 894256, at *1-+7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022); see also PX 12 at 1,22 (June
2021 Senate Report) (describing the process for objections and the goalof disrupting the
electoral vote count). A federal judge has held it is “more likely than not” these efforts amounted
10 criminal obstruction of the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021 in violation of 18
USC. § 1512(c)(2). Eastman, 2022 WL 894256, at *20-+23.

3
15. The public-facing componentofthis pressure campaign was carried out through
the “Stop the Steal” movement, which championed the lie thattheelection was stolen and that
the constitutionally-mandated transferofpresidential power needed to be stopped. See 8/16/22
Tr. 96:19-97:2 (Kleinfeld); Initial Decision at 4, Rowan v. Greene, No. 2222582-0SAH-
SECSTATE-CE-57-Beaudrot (Ga. Off. Admin. Hr’gs May 6, 2022), https://perma.ce/M93H-
LATX (“May 2022 Greene Decision”).
16. Leadersofthe Stop the Steal movement undertook an expansive effort to mobilize
‘Trump supporters across the country to travel to Washington, D.C. to intimidate Vice President
Pence and Congress to not certify the election on January 6. 8/16/22 Tr. 96:21-97:7, 98:8-16
(Kleinfeld). Participants in these efforts planned to use mob intimidation and violence to stop the
transferofpresidential power. Id. 96:21-23. AheadofJanuary 6, they held Stop the Steal rallies
in various states, including New Mexico, where they ginned up support for the movement with
violentand inflammatory rhetoric. Jd. 103:25-105:22.
17. These state-level Stop the Steal rallies brought together a varietyofgroups,
including “violence specialist[]” militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, groups
that could rally and mobilize an armed intimidatory presence, and individuals who could simply
add to the sizeof themob. 8/16/22 Tr. 97:10-20 (Kleinfeld).
18. President Trump later announced his own Stop the Steal rally at the White House
Ellipse on January 6. PX 12 at 22 (June 2021 Senate Report). The rally was arranged in part by
‘Women for American First, a leading Stop the Steal rally organizer. Id. at 44, 45; 8/16/22 Tr.
107:3-6 (Kleinfeld); PX 40.
UL Mr.Griffin's Mobilization ofthe Stop the teal Movement AheadofJanuary 6,

4
19. Mr. Griffin and his organization Cowboys for Trump played a key role in the
Stop the Steal movement's mobilization efforts aheadof the January 6, 2021 attack on the United
States Capitol (“January 6 Attack”). 8/16/22 Tr. 100:4-7, 103:23-104:5 (Kleinfeld); see also
8/15/22 Tr. 69:13-21 (Griffin). Like other participants in the Stop the Steal movement, Mr.
Griffin believed (and still believes) the 2020 election was fraudulent and Joe Biden was not
legitimately elected President. 8/15/22 Tr. 40:7-8, 50:16-51:7, 79:1-8 (Griffin).
20. Cowboys for Trump participated in Stop the Steal rallies where Mr. Griffin spoke
and spread lies about the election being stolen. 8/16/22 Tr. 103:23-104:5 (Kleinfeld); PX 245
(Nov. 7, 2020 Santa Fe New Mexican article).
21. On November 14, 2020, Mr. Griffin appearedat a Stop the Steal rally in
Albuquerque along with the New Mexico Civil Guard, which had been sued as an illegal militia
by the State of New Mexico. 8/16/22 Tr. 104:22-105:1 (Kleinfeld); PX 248 (Nov. 14,2020
Albuquerque Journal article). This continued a seriesofappearances by Griffin at the same
events as the New Mexico Civil Guard and other “violent specialist groups” in the leadup to
January 6. 8/16/22 Tr. 103:9-105:8, 134:9-18, 159:19-160:16 (Kleinfeld); PX 246 (Sept. 14,
2020 KUNM article).
22. On social media and in public speeches, Mr. Griffin and Cowboys for Trump
spent months normalizing that violence may be necessary to keep President Trump in office, and
urged their followers to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to answer President Trump's
call. Eg, PX 63, 80. 127, 165.
23. Inthe days preceding the January 6 Attack, Mr. Griffin was a featured speaker on
amulti-city bus tour to Washington, D.C. organized by Women for America First, 8/15/22 Tr.
5
63:14-16, 69:13-17 (Griffin); PX 40 (videoofGriffin describing bus tour), the same Stop the
Steal group involved in President Trump's January 6 ray, supra Prop. Findingsof Fact§ 18.
“The goal of the bus tour was to rally and inflame crowds and recruit them to come to
Washington, D.C. to stop certificationofthe election on January 6. 8/16/22 Tr. 107:7-9.
(Kleinfeld); 8/15/22 Tr. 69:18-21 (Griffin).
24. On this tour, Mr. Griffin aided the Stop the Steal mobilization and recruitment
efforts with increasing fervor, calling on crowds to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to
join the “war” and “batdle” over the presidential election results. E.g., PX 162.
25. Mr. Griffin's friend, Matthew Struck, recorded videosofGriffin speaking during
the pre-January 6 bus tour. See 8/15/22 Tr. 65:4-8 (Griffin); PX 67, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 207 (Struck videos).
26. Mr. Griffin brought three firearms and ammunition with him on this cross-country
trip to Washington, D.C. 8/15/22 Tr. 67:12-69:12 (Griffin); PX 154, 155 (videos showing
Griffin loading his car witha gun anda different gun on the car's dashboard).
27. Ata January 1, 2021 speech in the Woodlands, Texas, Mr. Griffin told the crowd,
“We have everything to lose right now. And this is a battle and a war that we cannot lose...We
have to march into this charge with 2 00, no, no lose, no surrender . Ifany ofyou all need a
lesson on what it takes to stand, read the lesson of the Alamo . Those were men that drew a hard
line. They stood on i. . Meet us in Washington, D.C. Be there. Let’s stand together and let's
get er done.” PX 162.
28. Ata later January 1 speech in West Monroe, Louisiana, Mr. Griffin insisted that
President Trump would “continue and remain in office,” that “we need our President.. to be

6
confirmed through the states on the sixth,” and that “right afer that we're gonna have to declare.
‘martial law.” PX 164. He then urged the crowd to “meet us” on “the streets of Washington, D.C.
on January 6. Id. Griffin invoked the legitimacy of his elected office as an Otero County
Commissioner and his relationship with President Trump while trying to rally the crowd. fd.
29. Ata January 3 speech in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Mr. Griffin said, “If we allow
this election to be stolen from us, we will become a third world country overnight ... The elitist,
gross, wicked, vile people that are in place will continue to wagewar on America. Because there
is a war, mind you, I promise you that.” PX 167. He added, “we got to get our country back.
“There's no other way, there’s no other option.” d. Mr. Griffin indicated that he expected
violence to take place in Washington, D.C. on January 6, acknowledging that “there might be
someofus that might lose our lives.” Id.; see also 8/16/22 Tr. 110:11-14 (Kleinfeld). He then
invoked faith as support for the cause, stating “there is nobody that really truly ever loses when
you trust in the lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior.” PX 167; see also 8/16/22 Tr. 110:14—
17 (Kleinfeld)
30. Atalater January 3 speech in Franklin, Tennessee, Mr. Griffin declared that
“we're a nation at War right now ... Ifwe lose this election, everything is on the line.” PX 168.
He insisted “We're not gonna surrender to them. We're gonna charge forward.” Id. He implored
the crowd to come “to D.C. on January 6,” explaining that “the reason why I'm going to
Washington D.C. is because my president called me there and I'm gonna be there.” Id.
31. Ina January 4 video recorded in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Griffin stated, “We want to
win it through our democratic process, but losing is not an option. We'll win i... in the ballot
box or we'll win it in the street. That's where I stand.” PX 67. In those remarks, Mr. Griffin also

7
directed a warning to the “sellouts,” the “RINO," and the “turncoats,” stating that [hey re the
first ones that we're going to hunt down.” Id
32. In another January 4 video recorded in Atlanta, Mr. Griffin again anticipated
possible violence in Washington D.C. on January 6, calling “men from across our nation to come.
to Washington, D.C. on January 6, because it might be a battle. .. If it comes down to a ight, if
it boils down to what it could come to, we're gonna need men standing strong shoulder to
shoulder. .. I encourage you to come, don’t let the media try to keep you home . . Whenever
you're in battle... that’s a man’s place. ... Ifit comes down to .. those kindofinstances.” PX
171.
33. Ina January 4 video recorded in Birmingham, Alabama, Mr. Griffin urged Vice
President Pence to “step up” and “do what's right for our nation” because “we will never
acknowledge a Biden presidency.” PX 170. Mr. Griffin threatened Republican officials,
indicating he and others would “come to your places first” and “be after” themifthey “sell out”
Tramp supporters. Id.
34. Ina January $ video recorded with a groupof Trump supporters on his way to
‘Washington, D.C., Mr. Griffin again called upon Vice President Pence “to do the right thing and
call this election the fraud that it is, because we won't take anything less.” PX 173. He added,
“Losing is not an option. ... Every card is on the table. Every option is available. And we feel
that we are a nation at war right now and we are men that are answering the call.” Id
35. While Mr. Griffin inflamed and mobilized crowds across the country tojoin the
“war” in Washington, D.C. on January 6, threatsof violence to stop certification of the election
were widespread on social media and reported in the press. PX 13 at 1 (May 2022 U.S,

8
Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) Report). Based on open-source data collection,
federal agencies generated “26 threat products” identifying potential violence tied to planned
“Stop the Steal” and other demonstrations in Washington, D.C. on January 6, with some
predicting a “potentially violent uprising could take place at the U.S. Capitol.” PX 13 at 21, 24,
39,40.
IV. The January 6, 2021 Attack on the United States Capitol.
36. On January 6, 2021, the joint session of Congress convened to certify the
presidential election. PX 12 at 23 (June 2021 Senate Report).
37. Just before noon, President Trump took the stage at his Stop the Steal rally at the
‘White House Ellipse, where he repeated his false claims that the election was “rigged” and
“stolen,” and urged Vice President Pence to “dof] the right thing” by unconstitutionally refusing
to certify the election. PX 12 at B-1-B-2 (June 2021 Senate Report). President Trump then told
the crowd to march to the Capitol to “demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the
electors who have been lawfully slated,” insisting “we must stop the steal.” Jd. at B-5, B-20. He
pushed them to “fight like hell,” warning that, “if you don’t ight like hell, you're not going to
have a country anymore.” fd at B-22.
38. Before the speech ended, thousands of Trump supporters began marching to the
Capitol, some armed with weapons and wearing full tactical gear. PX 12 at 22-23, 27-29 (June
2021 Senate Report). “They were wearing helmets, gogles, gas masks, and respirators. They
were in tactical vests, exterior load bearing vests that appeared to be designed to be capable of
holding within it a ballistic panel which would protect the wearer from firearms. Many had
padded gloves, tactical boots and backpacks with equipment [law enforcement] could not

9
observe.” 8/15/22 Tr. 150:12-17 (Hodges).
39. The mob, including Mr. Griffin, illegally breached security barriers surrounding
the Capitol complex on the Capitol’s West Front grounds, ignoring clear signage prohibiting
entry. PX 12 at 23 (June 2021 Senate Report); 8/15/22 Tr. 113:4-9 (Gowdy); PX 40, PX 152, PX.
159 (videosofMr. Griffinadmitting he knowingly breached a restricted area). The mob that Mr.
Griffinjoined then quickly and violently breached other barricades around the Capitol perimeter,
overwhelmed law enforcement, and scaled walls. PX 12 at 24-25. By 2:11 p.m, the mob
breached the Capitol building, where they confronted law enforcement, smashed windows, and
wreaked further havoc. Id; see also PX 15 at 14 (Mar. 2022 GAO Report) (timelineofattack);
PX 136 (January 6 Select Committee compilation video); PX 53 (Capitol Police surveillance
video compilation).
40. The mob also utilized “classical forms] of intimidation,” 8/16/22 Tr. 41:17-42:5
(Graber), including displaying a noose and gallows and chanting “hang Mike Pence” on the
Capitol grounds, PX 136. In another actof intimidation, membersof the mob charged toward the
officeof Speakerofthe House Nancy Pelosi, chanting menacingly, “Nancy! Nancy! Nancy!” PX
136.
41. The mob brutally attacked police officers with a varietyofactual and improvised
weapons, engaged them in hand-to-hand combat, and sprayed them with chemical iritants.
8/15/22 Tr. 156:3-9, 172:4-19 (Hodges); PX 147 (Officer Hodges’ body camera video); 8/15/22
Tr. 118:25-119:1 (Gowdy); PX 253 at 148-49 (Erickson Crim. Trial Testimony). Officers were
shocked with cattle prods, bludgeoned with flag poles and metal poles broken apart from security
barricades, and beaten with their own stolen batons and riot shields. 8/15/22 Tr. 155:11-20,

10
156:3-9 (Hodges).
42. The mob crushed Plaintiffs’ witness Officer Daniel Hodges of the D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department in a metal door frame and bashed in his face with his own baton
while he was trapped there. 8/15/22 Tr. 179:1-10 (Hodges). The mob, including Mr. Griffin,
chanted “Heave! Ho!" as they synchronized their movement in an attempt to ram through Officer
Hodges and other police officers guarding an entrance tunnel on the Capitols West Terrace. Jd.
179:15-20; PX 148 (videoofOfficer Hodges attacked in West Terrace Tunnel); PX 153 (video
of Griffin describing his chantingof “Heave! Hot”); 8/15/22 Tr. 96:2-11 (Griffin).
43. Some officers lost their lives, others suffered broken bones, contusions,
Iacerations, and psychological trauma. 8/15/22 Tr. 155:11-20 (Hodges). All told, the attack led
10 seven deaths, injuries to more than one hundred police officers, and millionsof dollars in
damage to the Capitol complex. PX12 at 1, 26 (June 2021 Senate Repord),
44. The “sizeofthe mob is what enabled them to achieve the level of success that
they did.” 8/15/22 Tr. 157:12-14 (Hodges) (“The sizeof the mob was the mobs greatest
weapon.”). The thousands ofindividuals in the mob overwhelmed and outnumbered law
enforcement by approximately 50 or 75 to 1. Jd. 157:4-7. Becauseof the mobs size and the
chaotic atmosphere it created, law enforcement could not use their firearms, make arrests, or
freely move around the Capitol grounds. Jd. 157:25-159:13, 173:21-174:2; PX 147 (Officer
Hodges’ body camera video).
45. Law enforcement’s efforts to secure the Capitol building were impeded by violent
and non-violent membersof the mob alike. 8/15/22 Tr. 159:14-25 (Hodges). Police officers
could not tell in the moment which individuals were going to be violent; every trespasser within

n
the restricted area was a potential threat and needed tobetreated as such. Id. 157:16-21, 159:14—
160:3. Non-violent members of the mob camouflaged violent members ofthe mob and
contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed by a “sea ofpotential threats.” Id. 157:12~
24, 159:14-25. Every trespasser 100k up space and made it harder for law enforcement to defend
the Capitol building and disperse the mob away from Capitol grounds. Id
46. The mob also made it clear—through their words, chants, flags, banners, and
clothing—that they came to the Capitol for the explicit purposeofstopping the certification of
the 2020 election and the transfer of presidential power by force. 8/15/22 Tr. 156:16-157:3,
162:2-13, 169:7-171:19, 181:16-22 (Hodges); PX 147 (Officer Hodges’ body camera video);
8/15/22 Tr. 119:10-12, 132:25-133:20 (Gowdy); PX 208-243 (Nathaniel Gowdy pictures); PX
136 (January 6 Select Committee compilation video); PX $3 (Capitol Police surveillance video
compilation).
47. The mob forced Vice President Pence and Congress to halt their constitutional
duties and flee to more secure locations, PX 12 at 25 (June 2021 Senate Report), disrupting the
‘peaceful transfer of presidential power for the first time in American history, 8/16/22 Tr. 148:3-5
(Kleinfeld). The Secret Service evacuated Vice President Pence to asecure loading dock and
Kept him there for several hours. PX 253 at 222-23, 258 (Hawa Crim. Trial Testimony); PX 55
(Capitol Police surveillance videoofVice President Pence’s evacuation). Once the “Capitol went
into lockdown,” that meant “everything hafd] to stop,” including the election-certification
proceedings over which Vice President Pence was the presiding officer. PX 253 at 224 (Hawa
Crim. Trial Testimony). The Vice President could not return to the Senate chamber and the
constitutionally mandated proceedings could not resume until all trespassers in the restricted area

2
were removed. See id. at 225, 258.
48. To clear the mob and regain control of the Capitol, the Capitol Police called in
more than 2,000 reinforcements from 19 federal, state, and local agencies. PX 14 at 20 (Feb.
2022 GAO Report). Officers used chemical spray and munitions, flash bangs, tactical teams with
firearms, riot shields, and batons to fight back the mob. PX 15 at 26-33 (Mar. 2022 GAO
Report); PX 14 at 21 (Feb. 2022 GAO Report); PX 253 at 148-49 (Erickson Crim. Trial
Testimony); 8/15/22 Tr. 168:2-6, 176:15-16, 177:13-17 (Hodges). Even with this significant
show of force, the Capitol grounds were not deemed secure until 8:00 p.m. PX 12 at 26 (June
2021 Senate Repor).
49. The mob forced both chambersofCongress to go into recess by 2:18 pm. The
Senate did not reconvene until 8:00 p.m., with the House reconvening approximately an hour
later. PX 12 at 25-26 (June 2021 Senate Report). It was not until 3:42 am. on January 7 that
Congress completed its business and certified the election. Idat 26.
50. Mr. Griffin disputed none of these facts at trial; instead, he blamed law
enforcement for not being “better prepared” for the more than “a million . disgruntled Trump
supporters” who collectively “descend{ed]” on Washington, D.C. that day. 8/15/22 Tr. 197:14~
18.
SI. After January 6, insurrectionists sought to mobilize violence for President-elect
Biden's inauguration on January 20 ina final effort to block the transfer of presidential power
required by the Twentieth Amendment. 8/16/22 Tr. 97:49 (Kleinfeld). The threat was so
significant that the government called in 25,000 National Guardsmen to Washington, D.C.—
nearly “two and a half times the number that would normally go to an inauguration.” fd. 130:5~

3
8. The “law enforcement presence ultimately fizzled out the plan.” Id. 130:11-12.
V. Mr. Griffin's Participation in the January 6 Attack.
52. Mr. Griffin traveled to Washington, D.C. for the eventsof January 6 because he
shared the goalof stopping the constitutionally-mandated certification of the 2020 presidential
election. 8/16/22 Tr. 151:4-8 (“W]e went to Washington, D.C. on January 6 ... so our voices
would be heard by Mike Pence so Mike Pence would vote no on the certificationofthe election
«eu; id 7321-25 (similar); id. 167:8-10 (similar); PX 173 (similar).
53. Video from early in the morningof January 6 shows Mr. Griffin working up
‘Trump supporters in Washington, D.C. by telling them Vice President Pence is “gonna have to
find areal deep hole to craw into” and that “we'll all be lining up at his houseif he doesn't
. come through.” PX 38. Later in the video, someonenear Mr. Griffin says, “storm the Capitol.”
Id. Griffin also asked a man, “Where's your gun at? That's what I want to know.” Id.
54. Videos from later on January 6 show Mr. Griffin illegally breaching multiple
security barriers and occupying restricted Capitol grounds from at least 2:31 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.—
actions for which he was later criminally convicted. PX 45 at 326:22-327:23 (Crim. Trial Bench
Ruling); PX 47 (Crim. Case Judgment).
55. Around 2:31 p.m. just 20 minutes after the mob breached the Capitol building
and seven minutes after President Trump tweeted that Vice President Pence had not done what
he needed him to do, Mr. Griffin climbed over the Olmstead Wall and entered restricted Capitol
grounds. PX 42; PX 253 at 143 (Erickson Crim. Trial Testimony) (describing restrictions);
8/16/22 Tr. 119:3-10 (Kleinfeld) (describing Trump tweet).
56. By this point in the day, law enforcement “had a loud speaker set up that was

14
telling [the mob], in no uncertain terms, that theirassembly was unlawful and that they needed to
disperse” and law enforcement had deployed “(pepper spray and tear gas” to make the crowd
disperse. 8/15/22 Tr. 167:15-168:6 (Hodges); see also PX 253 at 149 (Erickson Crim. Trial
Testimony).
57. Around 2:41 pm., Mr. Griffin approached the Capitolbuildingamid shouts of
“let's fight like crazy for our country” and “this is civil f*cking war.” PX 25. He used a metal
security barrier that the mob had repurposed into a ladder to scale another wall. fd. He proceeded
to fist bump other membersof the mob and declare “this is our house!” and “we could all be
armed.” Id. He then helped a member of the mob climb up a makeshift ramp to breach another
security barrier and ran over the ramp himself. 1d
58. Mr. Griffin made his way to just below the inaugural stage and the Capitol’s West
Terrace, where he said he would wait until the mob got “this door broke down” to enter an
enclosed staircase. PX 139.
59. By 2:56 pm, the mob had broken the door and Griffin walked up to the inaugural
stage on the West Terrace, where he covered his mouth presumably from the acrid smell of tear
‘gas and pepper spray and stated gleefully “1 love the smell of napalm in the air.” PX 26; see also
8/15/22 Tr. 168:2-6 (Hodges) (describing lawenforcement’s deployment of tear gas and pepper
spray); PX 253 at 149 (Erickson Crim. Trial Testimony) (similar).
60. Once he reached the inaugural stage, Mr. Griffin filmed a speech for social media
promoting the attack. PX 27. He exhorted, “Itsa great day for America! The people [arc]
showing that they’ve had enough. People are ready for fair and legal elections, or this is what
‘you're going to get, and you're going to get more of it.” fd. As the mob brutally attacked Officer

15
Hodges and other law enforcement in a tunnel a short distance away from him, Mr. Griffin
threatened into the camera, “We're not going anywhere. We're not gonna take ‘no’foran answer
... Anything to get our country back.” fd.
61. MrGriffin then assumed a leadership role in the mob by using a bullhorn to gain
the crowd's attention. PX 141. As he attempted to lead the mob in prayer, he riled them further.
3
62. Eyewitness testimony of Plaintiffs’ witness Nathaniel Gowdy confirms that
Griffin's attention-sceking behavior energized the mob when violence had already been ongoing
for hours. 8/15/22 Tr. 122:25-123:1 (Gowdy) (“{Griffin] was attempting to inserthimself in a
leadership role.”); id. 123:3-5 (“He appeared to be reveling ineverythingthat was happening,
smiling, pumping his fists, laughing,just having a good time.”); id. 123:14-16 (Q. Was Mr.
Griffin'sconduct such that it wasadvancingthe goal and purposeof the mob? A. Yes. It was
very encouraging, was my impression.”); see also 8/16/22 Tr. 121:18-122:20 (Kleinfeld)
(observing that by addressing the mob withabullhorn from “high ground,” Griffin increased the
“emotional arousal of the crowd” when “violence” had been “going on for two hours”).
63. Video shows Mr. Griffin on the inaugural platform from 2:57 p.m. until 4:24 p.m.
PX 54. At this time, Griffin was near attackers beating police officers, stealing their riot shields,
forming a human battering ram to break through Officer Hodges and other officers in the West
Terrace tunnel, and breaking windows. £.g., PX 34, PX 148, PX 152.
64. By4:27 p.m., Mr. Griffin had walked back down to the area below the West
Terrace, where he sought to normalize the ongoing violence. PX 35. He is heard stating, “What a
historical day, you know?” to which someone responded, “This is horrible.” Id. Griffin replied,

16
“I0’s unfortunate, but sometimes these sortsofthings need to happen in order to send a signal
that we're going to quit putting up with their bull crap, you know?” Id
65. Mr. Griffin later confirmed that he saw and egged on the violence at the Capitol
on January 6. In one video recorded while driving from Washington, D.C., Mr. Griffin stated
with laughter, “It was funny, whenever those guys ~ all those guys were down there on that one
line where they were trying to push into the Capitol, and everybody that was gathered in the
dome area, we were all screaming ‘Heave! Ho! Heave! Ho!” PX 153. Mr. Griffin appeared to be
describingjoining the attackers in screaming “Heave! Ho!” as they brutally crushed Officer
Hodges ina metal doorframe in the West Terrace tunnel. PX 148.
66. In another video from later in January, Griffin boasted, “I watched it all .. I saw
some windows getting broken outofthe Capitol and I saw some people pushing on police
officers down below.” PX 152.
67. Ina video posted to Facebook on January 7 that Mr. Griffin recorded in Roanoke,
Virginia, he acknowledged that the events at the Capitol the preceding day were violent and
celebrated them. He gloated that he “climbed up on topof the Capitol building” and “saw a little
bitof thatactionon .. the inside.” PX 37. He characterized the mob as “unleashing [the]
whirlwind” and a “shot over the bow.” Jd. He explained the purpose ofthe attack was to stop
the transforofpresidential power and threatened further action to achieve that goa, stating,
“[ylou saw America rise up. . You saw a people that had had enough... because we will not
Tose. And Joe Biden will never be President . you thought yesterday was a big day? I¢ll be
nothing like -- compared to like the next one.” Id. Mr. Griffin previewed a more brutal attack to
prevent Biden from taking office, stating “You want to say that was violence? ... No, we could

7
have a Second Amendment rally on those same steps that we had that rally yesterday, you know,
andifwe do, then its going to be a sad day because there’s going to be blood running out of that
building.” fd.
68. In the same video on January 7, Mr. Griffin again insisted that Joe Biden “will
never be president.” PX 37; see also PX 62 (January 11, 2021 video where Griffin declared there
“will never be a Biden presidency”). By this point, the presidential election had already been
certified, so the only way to prevent Biden's inauguration as president would be physical
violence. 8/16/22 Tr. 127:22-128:4 (Kleinfeld).
69. Atan Otero County Commission meeting on January 14, 2021, Mr. Griffin
confirmed that he knowingly breached restricted Capitol grounds on January 6, stating he saw
“some fencing up and they were saying that you could not go any further because this was being
reserved for Joe Biden and his inauguration,” and that he breached the area anyway. PX 40; see
also PX 152 (making similar admission); PX 159 (same). Mr. Griffin also conveyed his
continued support for the insurrection and his plans to return to the Capitol withfircarmson
January 20 for the presidential inauguration. PX 40.
70. Mr. Griffin then traveled to Washington, D.C. for the presidential inauguration,
but was arrested there on January 17, 2021 for his involvement in the January 6 Attack. Returned
Arrest Warrant,UnitedStates v. Griffin, No. 21-c1-00092-TNM (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2021), ECF No.
4
71. Following a bench trial, Mr. Griffin was convicted on March 22, 2022ofentering
and remaining on restricted grounds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1), and acquitted of
disorderly conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2). PX 45 at 324:9-337:25 (Crim. Trial Bench

18
Ruling); PX 47 (Crim. Case Judgment).
VI. This Lawsuit and Related Federal Proceedings.
72. On March 21,2022, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Mr. Griffin under
New Mexico's quo warranto statute, NSMSA 1978, Section 44-3-4. Compl. at 1
73. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts that Mr. Griffin is disqualified from federal and state
office under Section Threeof the Fourteenth Amendment based on his engagement in the
January 6 Attack and surrounding events. Compl. §§ 97-99. The Complaint further alleges that,
by taking action resulting in his disqualification under Section Threeofthe Fourteenth
Amendment, Mr. Griffin “worked a forfeitureofhis office,” NMSA 1978,§ 44-3-4(B), and is
presently ‘unlawfully hold[ing] .. public office” in the State, id. § 44-3-4(A).” Id. § 100.
74. Asrelicf, the Complaint secks a declaratory judgment that the January 6 Attack
and surrounding events were an “insurrection” within the meaningofSection Three and that Mr.
Griffin is disqualified from federal and state office for having engaged in that insurrection.
Compl, Prayer for Relief§ 1.
75. The Complaint also secks injunctive relief removing Mr. Griffin from his current
position as an Otero County Commissioner, barring him from performing anyofficialsacts as a
county commissioner, and barring him from holding any future state or federal office. Compl.
Prayer for Relief 492-4.
76. After being timely served with the Complaint and summons on March 26, 2022,
Mr. Griffin, through counsel, removed the case to federal court on April 17, 2022.
77. On May 10,2022, Mr. Griffin, through counsel, fled a collateral federal suit
against Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin Plaintiffs from pursuing this quo

19
warranto case on the grounds that it violates his purported First Amendment right to run for
political office, his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and the Amnesty Act of 1872.
Griffin. White, No. 22-cv-0362-KG-GIF (DN.M..
78. On May 27,2022, Chief Judge William P. Johnson granted Plaintiffs’ motion to
remand this case back to this Court for lack of federal subject-matterjurisdiction. Stateex rel.
White v. Griffin, 2022 WL 1707187, at *1 (DN.M. May 27, 2022).
79. On June 10,2022, this Court held an initial scheduling conference. Although Mr.
Griffin was represented at that hearing by counsel, his counsel moved to withdraw and the Court
granted that motion at the hearing, with the caveat that counsel would assist Griffin in a limited
capacity to assist in the filing ofa proposed scheduling order. See June 14, 2022 Order Granting
Motion to Withdraw.
80. On June 14,2022, the Court entered the parties” jointly-proposed scheduling
order, setting forth various pretrial deadlines and atrial date of August 15, 2022, Since that time,
Mr. Griffin has proceededpro se in this case.
81. On June 28,2022, Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales denied Mr. Griffin's motion fora
preliminary injunction in his parallel Section 1983 suit and dismissed the case for lack of
subject-matterjurisdiction. Griffin v. White, 2022 WL 2315980, at #12 (D.N.M. June 28, 2022).
Griffin did not appeal that ruling.
82. On July 22,2022, this Court held a pretrial conference pursuant to the parties”
jointly-proposed scheduling order. Despite being a party to the jointl-proposed scheduling order
‘and otherwise receiving ample notice, Mr. Griffin did not attend.
83. On July 27,2022, the Court entered a pretrial order supplementing the deadlines

20
and details set forth in the June 14, 2022 scheduling order.
8. On August 12,2022, the Court helda final pretrial conference.
85. On August 15 and 16, 2022, the Court held abench tral. Plaintiffs called five
witnesses and presented the prior testimonyof two witnesses from Mr. Griffin's federal criminal
trial. Mr. Griffin cross-examined cachofPlaintiffs’ witnesses and provided his own testimony on
cross-cxamination as a witness in Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief. Mr. Griffin called no witnesses and
offered no evidence apart from his own testimony.
VIL Mr. Griffin's Lack of Credibility as a Trial Witness.
86. Inmakingthe factual findings set forth above, the Court did not findGriffinto be
a credible witness at trial.
87. Video evidence ofMr. Griffin's statements from January 2021 contradict key
aspectsofhis trial testimony, including his testimony that he did not witness violence on January
6. Compare PX 152 (Mr.Griffin admitting he “watched itall”he “saw some windows get
broken outofthe Capitol,” and “saw some people pushing on police officers down below,” and
indicating the violence he saw was justified to prevent our “country” from “gef(ting] hijacked by
China"); PX 149 (Mr. Griffin admitting he saw “those guys were down there on that one line
where they weretryingto push into the Capitol” and stating “everybody that was gathered in the
dome area, we were all screaming ‘Heave! Ho! Heave! Hol’); PX 37 (Mr. Griffin admitting he
“climbed up on topofthe Capitol building” and “saw a litle bitofthat action on ... the inside”),
with 8/15/22 Tr. 83:1-4 (Griffin) (testifying that “[e]verywhere where I was [on January 6], all
around me in my direct vicinity, was peaceful. I didn’t see one violent act insideof my area the
whole time I was there”); id. 87:10 (“It was abig peaceful crowd”); id. 99:7-9 (“[Mly

21
assessment during the time . was that it wasa totally peaceful protest.”).
88. Mr. Griffin's testimony with respect to his characterizationof theevents at the
United States Capitol on January 6 and his witnessing any violence that day has evolved over
time in this litigation and is fundamentally inconsistent.
89. Athis deposition, Mr. Griffin characterized the eventsatthe Capitol on January 6
while he was there only as “peaceful” and denied seeing any violence, even in the face ofvideo
evidence to the contrary. PX 250 at 146:10-13 (Griffin Dep.) (“1 wanted to be in D.C. for a
peaceful protest, which it was.”); id. 181:6-13 (“[1]¢’s all peaceful ... Q. You're saying you sce
this as a peaceful event? A. Absolutely, it was.”); id. 185:18-24 (“I thought it was all just part of
a celebration.”); id. 186:5-8 (“Because we were peacefully protesting.”); id. 187:5-16 (“[Ijn my
area, it was always peaceful... Q...[What you see is a peaceful protest? A. Absolutely.”); id.
189:6-8 (“It looks consistently peaceful ... I don’t see anything violent. I don’t see anything
aggressive”),
90. In his (unsworn) answers to written discovery, Mr. Griffin changed his story and
stated that “{a]t the time I did not know there had been any violence. Now seeing the
documented evidence I would admit that there was violence. I did not know that at the time
though.” PX 143 at4 (Response to Request for Admission 101); see also id. (Response to
Request for Admission 103) (similar).
91. Attrial, Mr. Griffin's testimony was inconsistent. At times he testified that
“where I was, it ... was peaceful. Everywhere where I was, all around me in my direct vicinity,
was peaceful” 8/15/22 Tr. 82:24-83:4. Later, he testified that he had seen “chaos” but it was in
the distance. Id. 83:7-11. After repeatedly being confronted with his acknowledgements at the

»
time that he had seen violence, Mr. Griffin conceded he had witnessed violence and force but
stated he did not participate in the violence, id. $3:18-19, 87:22-88:9: or blamed the violence on
“Antifa,” id. 94:15-23; or sought to minimize the violence, id. 95:3-10 (comparing violent mob.
pushing into the tunnel to a happy crowd aftera basketball victory); or characterized his
statements as “emotionally driven,” id. 103:23-25, or manifestationsof“frustrations,” id.
104:20-22.
92. Similarly, Mr. Griffin's prior videotaped statements and other evidence contradict
his trial testimony that he did not knowingly breach and remain within restricted Capitol grounds
on January 6. Compare PX 40 (Griffin admitting he saw and ignored signage warning he was
entering arestricted area); PX 152 (similar); PX 159 (similar); PX 26 (Griffin at the Capitol
covering his mouth and stating “1 love the smellofnapalm in the air,” seemingly referencing tear
‘gas and pepper spray in the air); 8/15/22 Tr. 167:15-168:6 (Hodges) (describing law
enforcement’s useof loudspeakers and chemical irritants to disperse the crowd), with 8/15/22 Tr.
‘Tr. 87:7-10 (Griffin) (“There was nobody telling us to leave. There was no signage telling us we
couldn't be there. There was no loud speaker telling [us] to vacate the area. Nothing of the
sort”).
93. The Court does not find credible Mr. Griffin's claim that he thought a security
barricade the mob used as a makeshift ladderto climb over a wall was, in his words, “steps.”
8/15/22 Tr. §6:23-87:7; see PX 25 (videoofMr. Griffin climbing up security barricade).
94. Nor does the Court find credible Mr. Griffin's attemps to characterize violent and
inflammatory statements he made in January 2021—in which he repeatedly referred to an
impending “war” in Washington, D.C. on January 6 that “we cannot lose"—as referring only to

2
peaceful political activity. See, e.g, 8/15/22 Tr. 69:13-21, 74:10-75:12, 76:10-82:19, 99:25
100:19 (Griffin). At the time Mr. Griffin made these statements, he did not clarify he was
referring only to lawful activity, and the language and context of his statements strongly
indicates his intent was to mobilize a violent mob for the eventsof January 6. See id. The Court
finds that Mr. Griffin's after-the-fact characterizationsofhis prior statements were self-serving
and not credible.
95. Mr. Griffin's trial testimony also referenced a number of January 6 conspiracy
theories that he failed to substantiate with credible evidence. £.g., 8/15/22 Tr. 94:19-23 (Griffin)
(“1 sawa guy that was dressed [as] Antifa hit a window . and I saw him immediately get
stopped by what looked like a Trump supporter.”); id. 104:3-5 (“Is not any secret that there
was FBI informants that were involved in January 6th ... like Ray Epps ....); id. 42:18-25
(describing a purported video showing a “Capitol Police officer taking down the barricades” and
“waving people in”).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Legal Framework.
A. New Mexico's Quo Warranto Statute.
1. Aquowarranto action may be brought against a person who “unlawfully holds]
.. any public office” in the State, NMSA 1978, § 44-3-4(A), or “any public officer, civil or
military, [who] shall have done or suffered an act which, by the provisions of law, shall work a
forfeitureofhis office,” id. § 44-3-4(B).
2. “[Wjhen the office usurped pertains to a county,” any “private person” has
standing to bring a gua warranto action “on his own complaint,” and need not first file a

u
‘complaint with the Attorney Generalor a district attorney. NMSA 1978, § 4-3-4; State ex rel
Martinez v. Padilla, 1980-NMSC-064, §8, 94 NM. 431, 434.
3. Any private citizen ofNew Mexico has standing to bring a quo warranto action
and need not demonstrate any direct injury traceable to the defendant, See Martinez, 1980-
NMSC-064, §8 (permitting quo warranto suit by two private persons without addressing any
injury 10 them); Clark v. Mitchell, 2016-NMSC-005, 18, 363 P.3d 1213, 1216 (stating private
persons may bring a quo warranto action against state official upon refusalofdistrict attomey
without discussing standing). This reflects the breadth of standing doctrine in New Mexico
courts, where standing “is not derived from the state constitution,” is “not jurisdictional,” and
can be freely conferred by statute. Gandydancer, LLC'v. Rock House CGM, LLC, 2019-NMSC-
021, 17,453 P.3d 434, 437 (intemal quotation marks omitted).
4. Ifthe defendant is “adjudged guilty of usurping or intruding into or unlawfully
holding or exercising any office, franchise or privilege,judgment shall be rendered that such
defendant be excluded from such office, franchise or privilege.” NMSA 1978, § 4-3-1.
5. “Oneofthe primary purposesof quo warranto is to ascertain whether one is
constitutionally authorized 10 hold the office he claims, whether by election or appointment, and
[oourts] must liberally interpret the quo warranto statutes to effectuate that purpose.” Clark,
2016-NMSC-005, 18.
6. The quo warranto statute authorizes courts to make a “judicial finding” that an
official has engaged in conduct resulting in their “forfeiture” of office due to constitutional
disqualification. Martinez, 1980-NMSC-064, 94 5-6. No prior criminal conviction is necessary if
the constitutional qualification at issue does not require one. See id.

25
B. Section Threeof the Fourteenth Amendment.
7. Scotion Three ofthe Fourteenth Amendment provides:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or electorofPresident
and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or
‘under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,
or as an officerofthe United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-
thirdsofeach House, remove such disability.
USS. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
8. Section Three thus disqualifies any person from being a “Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold[ing] any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State”if that person took an “oath ... to
support the Constitutionofthe United States” as an “executive orjudicial officer of any State,”
and then “engaged in insurrection ... against” the Consiitution, unless Congress “removes] such
disability” by a two-thirds vote.
9. State courts have adjudicated Section Three challenges through guo warranto or
similar sate-law proceedings. See, e.g, Louisiana exrel.Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631
(La. 1869) (quo warranto); Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199,205 (1869) (mandamus): In re Tate,
63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869) (same).
10. Section Three imposes a qualification for public office, much like an age or
residency requirement. It is not a criminal penalty, and neither the courts nor Congress have ever
required a prior criminal conviction fora person to be disqualified under Section Thrce. See infra
Concl. of Law 94 61-64. Section Three is thus akin to New Mexico constitutional
disqualifications that do not require a prior criminal conviction. See Martinez, 1980-NMSC-064,
26
1s.

IL Mr. Griffin is Disqualified from Public Office Under Section Three of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
11. Based on the trial evidence and argument, the Court concludes that (1) Mr. Griffin
took an “oath . . to support the Constitution ofthe United States” asan “executive... officer of
af] State,” (2) the January 6 Attack and surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement were
an “insurrection” against the Constitutionofthe United States, and (3) Mr. Griffin “engaged in”
that insurrection.
12. The Court therefore concludes that, effective January 6, 2021, Mr. Griffin became
disqualified under Section Threeofthe Fourteenth Amendment from serving as a “Senator or
Representative in Congress, or electorofPresident and Vice-President, or holding] any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,” including his current office as an
Otero County Commissioner.
A. Mr. Griffin Took an Oath as a StateOfficerto Support the Constitution of
the United States.
13. Section Three applies to county officials required by state law to take an oath to
support the Constitutionofthe United States. See Worthy, 63 N.C. at 202-04 (county official
‘was subject to disqualification because state law required him to take the oath), In re Tate, 63
N.C. at 309 (disqualifying county official); UnitedStates v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605, 607
(C.CDN.C. 1871) (finding that county official who took the oath was subject to disqualification
and that Section Three is “broad enough to embrace every officer in the state”); Op.ofAtt'y Gen.
Stanbery under the Reconstruction Laws, at 16 (Wash. Gov't Print. OFF. June 12, 1867),

2
hitps://perma.cc/U4C3-4T8D (concluding that “county officers” who are “required to take... the
oath to support the Constitutionofthe United States” are “subject to disqualification”); 8/16/22
“Tr. 17:2-18:6 (Graber) (describing “broad consensus” among knowledgeable nineteenth-century
‘people that Section Three applies to county officials).
14. New Mexico constitutional and statutory law required Mr. Griffin to take an oath
10 support the Constitution of the United States before assuming office as an Otero County.
Commissioner. See N.M. Const. art. XX, § 1; NMSA 1978, 10-1-13(B).
15. Mr. Griffin took that oath on December 28, 2018. Findings of Fact 8.
16. Because state law required Mr. Griffin to take an oath to support the Constitution
as a county official and he did so, the Court concludes he is subject to disqualification under
Section Three.
17. The Court further concludes that Otero County Commissioners are “executive
officers”ofthe State within the meaning of Section Three. Mr. Griffin testified that as a county
commissioner he performs “executive functions,” including on spending, personnel, and election
matters. Findingsof Fact § 6; see also Br. ofAmicus Curiae Common Cause at 2-6 (explaining
‘why county commissioners qualify as “executive officers” under New Mexico law). And
knowledgeable nincteenth-contury Americans, including Section Three's drafters, would have
considered New Mexico county commissioners “executive officers” since their offices are
created by state constitutional and statutory law, the state constitution refers to them as
“officers,” they perform traditional executive functions, and they exercise discretionary
authority. 8/16/22 Tr. 18:16-20:23 (Graber). It follows that Mr. Griffin took an “oath.. to
support the Constitutionof the United States” as an “executive . officer of [a] State.” See U.S.

2
Const. amend. XIV, § 3.

B. The January 6 Attack and Surrounding Events Were an “Insurrection”


Against the Constitution of the United States.
1. Definition of“Insurrection”
18. The term “insurrection,” as understood by knowledgeable nineteenth-century
Americans and Section Three's framers, referred to an (1) assemblage of persons, (2)acting to
prevent the executionofone or more federal laws, (3) for a public purpose, (4) through the use of
violence, force, or intimidation by numbers. 8/16/22 Tr. 26:1-S (Graber); see also, e.g., Case of
Fries, 9 F. Cas. 924 (C.C.D. Pa. 1800) (Chase, 1. John Catron, Robert W. Wells & Samuel
Treat, Charge to the Grand Jury By the Court, July 10, 1861 (St. Louis: Democratic Book and
Job Office, 1861) (“Charge to the Grand Jury, July 1861); “Insurrection,” Websters Dictionary
(1828), hutpsi/perma.ce/9YPA-XNSJ.
19. Judges, members of Congress, presidents, and legal experts from the era described
as insurrections events such as the Whiskey Insurrection (1794) and Fries’ Insurrection (1799),
‘which involved efforts to resis the federal government's right to impose or collect certain taxes.
8/16/22 Tr. 22:23-23:3, 267-10 (Graber). This reflected the common understanding that an
insurrection need not rise to the level of tryingto overthrow the government or secede from the
Union; resisting the govemment’s authority to execute a single law sufficed. fd. 24:2-8, 30:24
31s.
20. Section Three's framers and nineteenth-century Americansdid not understand an
insurrection to require actual violence; intimidation by numbers sufficed. 8/16/22 Tr. 27:18-28:2
(Graber); Charge to theGrandJury, July 1861. Thus, Fries’ Insurrection was considered an
29
insurrection even though there was only intimidation and not actual violence. A tax collector fled
‘when marched upon by angry Pennsylvania farmers, but “there was no evidence that anyone
fireda shot, anyone threw a stone, anyone threw a punch.” 8/16/22 Tr. 27:15-28:2 (Graber).
21. Nor did the nineteenth-century definition of insurrection depend on the truth or
moralityofthe insurrectionists’ cause: an prising could be an insurrection evenifthe
participants sincerely believed their cause wasjust. 8/16/22 Tr. 29:11-22 (Graber). Efforts to
rescue fugitive slaves were considered insurrections even though many believed the Fugitive
Slave Actof 1850 was unconstitutional and freeing slaves was a moral obligation. Jd. 29:11-22.
‘That participants “firmly believe[d]” they “were acting for the good of [their] country” was “not
a defense to insurrection,” but rather was proofthey were acting for an insurrectionary “public
purpose.” fd. 29:11-22, 53:17.
2. The January 6 Attack and Surrounding Events Meet the Definition of
an “Insurrection.”
22. The Court concludes that the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol
and the surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement constituted an “insurrection” within
the meaning of Section Threeof the Fourteenth Amendment.
23. The transfer of presidential power is governed by the Twelfth and Twentieth
Amendments and the Electoral Count Act, among other laws. The Twelfth Amendment requires
electors to meet after the election in their respective states to casttheir votes, which are then
transmitted to Congress to be “openfed]” by the Vice President (in his capacity as the President
ofthe Senate) and “counted” ina joint congressional session. U.S. Const. amend. XIL. The
Electoral Count Act establishes procedures for electoral votes tobe opened and counted on the
sixth dayof January following any presidential election in a joint sessionof Congress, in which
30
the Vice President “shall be the[]presidingofficer.” 3 U.S.C. § 15. The Twentieth Amendment
provides thata President's term “shall end at noon on the 20th dayofJanuary” and “the term(] of
his or her] successor] shall then begin.” U.S. Const. amend. XX, § 1
24. The January 6 Attack followed a weeks-long campaign to stop—through extra-
legal means—certificationofthe 2020 presidential election and the transfer ofpower as
‘mandated by federal law. Findingsof Fact §§ 12, 14-16. Participants in these efforts did not hide
their objective: they called their movement “Stop the Steal” based on the false premise that the
2020 election was stolen and that the lawful transfer of power needed to be stopped. Id. § 15.
25. The Stop the Steal movement successfully mobilized and incited thousands of
people from across the country to form a violent mob in Washington, D.C. to intimidate Vice
President Pence and Congress so that they would not certify the 2020 presidential election and
thus block the lawful transfer of power. Findingsof Fact 19 16, 38.
26. The mob that arrived at the Capitol on January 6 was an assemblage of persons
‘who engaged in violence, force, and intimidation by numbers. The mob numbered at minimum
in the thousands. Many came prepared for violence in full tactical gear. They used a variety of
‘weapons, brutally attacked and injured more than one hundred police officers, sought to
intimidate the Vice President and Congress, and called for the murderofelected officials,
including the Vice President. Findingsof Fact 19 38, 40-43.
27. The mob was unified by the common public purposeof opposing the execution of
federal law—namely, the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments and the Electoral Count Act.
‘Through their chants, flags, banners, and clothing, the mob made clear they came to the Capitol
to stop Vice President Pence and Congress from carrying out their constitutional duties to certify

31
the election by force and intimidation. Findings of Fact § 46. That someof the January 6
attackers may have believed that the 2020 presidential election was stolen does not negate their
insurrectionary purpose. 8/16/22 Tr. 35:4-6 (Graber).
28. The mob ultimately achieved what even the Confederatesneverdid during the
Civil War: they breached the Capitol building and seized the Capitol grounds, forcing the Vice
President and Congress to halt their constitutional duties and flee to more secure locations.
Findings of Fact 147, 49.
29. The mob succeeded in delaying the constitutionally-mandated counting of
electoral votes by several hours and, for the first time in our Nation's history, disrupted the
peaceful transferofpresidential power. Findings of Fact § 49. To clear the mob and regain
controlofthe Capitol, the Capitol Police called in more than 2,000 reinforcements from 19
‘agencies. 1d. { 48. Officers used chemical spray and munitions, flash bangs, tactical teams with
firearms, riot shields, and batons to fight back the mob. Jd. Even withthissignificant show of
force, the Capitol grounds were not deemed secure and the congressional proceedings did not
resume until 8:00 p.m. Jd. 49. It was not until 3:42 a.m. on January 7 that Congress completed
its business and certified the election. Id
30. After January 6, there was a continuing effort to violently prevent Biden from
taking office on January 20 as required by the Twentieth Amendment. Findings of Fact 51. The
threat subsided only after the goverment deployed nearly two and ahalf times the number of
National Guardsmen that would normally attend a presidential inauguration. fd
31. Knowledgeable nineteenth-century Americans including Section Three's framers
‘would have regarded the eventsof January 6, and the surrounding planning, mobilization and

2
incitement,asan insurrection. 8/16/22 Tr. 43:2-15 (Graber) (*We saw an assemblage, acting in
concert, chanting *hang Mike Pence” in concert, attacking police officers in concert. We saw that
they were there to prevent the executionof those laws that would have certified that Joe Biden
won the Presidential election. We saw that they were there was because they believed in the
public purpose, that the election had been fraudulent, had been stolen. ... And we saw ...
substantial violence, force and intimidation.”).
32. Reinforcing the evidence presented at trial, each branchofthe federal government
has referred to the January 6 Attack asan “insurrection” and the participants as
“insurrectionists,” including bipartisan majoritiesof both chambers of Congress,” more than a
dozen federal courts,’ President Biden, and the DepartmentofJustice under former President
Trump. Former President Trump's own impeachment defense lawyers acknowledged “everyone

agrees” there was “a violent insurrectionof the Capitol” onJanuary 6. 167 Cong. Rec. 5717,
5733 (Feb. 13,2021),

2 Eg,167Cong. Rec. HI91(dailyed.Jan. 13, 2021); 167 Cong, Rec. $733 (dailyed. Feb. 13,2021); H. Res. 503,
1170 Cong, Ist Sess. (2021); 5. 35, 117thCong. (2021); H.R. 3325, 17th Cong.(2021),
3 Eg,UnitedStates . Munchel, 991 F34 1273, 1281 (D.C. Cir. 2021);Unite Satesv. DeGrave, 539 F. Supp. 3d
184 (DID.C. 2021); Noem v. Hacland, 542 F. Supp. 34 898,906 (D.S.D. 2021): Alsaada v. CityofColumbus, 536 F.
Supp. 34 216, 274 (S.D. Ohio), modified in nonrelevantpart by 2021 WL. 3375334 O21:United Sates . Brogan,
2021 WL 2313008, at 2 (EDN.Y. June 7, 2021); UnitedSates . Brockhof, 2022 WL 715223, at *1 (D.C. Mar
10,2022);UnitedSates v. Hunt, 573 F. Supp. 34 779, 807 (ED.N.Y. 2021); UnitedStates . Puma, 2022 WL.
823079, at*2 (D.D.C. Mar. 19,2022); O'Rourkev. Dominion Voting Sys. Ine. 552 F. Supp. 3d 1168,1199 (.
‘Colo, modified innanrelevantpart by 2021 WL 5348129, at #2 (D. Colo. 2031);UnitedSates v. Randolph, $36 F.
Supp. 3d 128,132 (E.D. Ky. 2021;United Sates . Lite, 2023 WL 768685, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2022),
O'Handley . Padilla, 023 WL 93625, at 5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022), Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 v.
PortAuth.ofAlleghenyCry. 2021 WL 719671, at*2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 34, 2021).
“Eg, Statement By President Joc Biden On the Six-month Anniversaryofthe January 6th Insurrection On the
Capitol (uly 6, 2021), htps:/perma.ce/VS89-CC3.
© Gov't Br. in Supp.of Det at 1,UnitedStates v. Chansle, No. 21-¢r-00003, ECF No. § (D. Ariz. Jan. 14,2021).
3
C. Mr. Griffin “Engaged in” the Insurrection.
33. The case law holds thata person “engage[s]” in an insurrection within the
‘meaningof Section Three by “{v]oluntarily aiding the [insurrection], by personal service, or by
contributions, other than charitable,ofanything that is] useful or necessary” to the
insurrectionists’ cause. Worthy, 63 N.C. at 203; see also Powell, 27 F. Cas. at 607 (defining
“engage” as a “a voluntary effort to assist the Insurrection ... and to bring it to asuccessful
termination” from the insurrectionists’ perspective).
34. Consistent with this case law, knowledgeable nineteenth-century Americans
understood that a person “engaged in” insurrection whenever they were “leagued” with
insurrectionists—either by acting in concert with othersknowing that the group intended to
achieve its purpose in part by violence, force, or intimidation by numbers, or by performing an
“overt act” knowing that act would “aid or support”the insurrection. 8/16/22 Tr. 43:22-44:22
(Graber). Under the nineteenth-century understanding, “there [were] no accessories” in an
insurrection; rather, “[¢]verybody... involved”was a “principal actor.” Id. 15:8-10.
35. One need not personally commit acts of violence to “engagle] in” insurrection.
See Powell, 27 F. Cas. at 607 (defendant “engaged in” rebellion ifhe voluntarily provided a
substitute to avoid serving in Confederate Army); Worthy, 63 N.C. at 203 (individual “engaged
in” rebellion by holding office of countysheriffunder the Confederacy); 8/16/22 Tr. 52:10-19
(Graber). Engagement thus can include non-violent overt acts or words in furtherance of the
insurrection. See May 2022 Greene Decision at 14; 8/16/22 Tr. 135:13-24 (Kleinfeld)
(explaining “there are a lot ofroles in an insurrection.” someofwhich do not involve violence).

34
36. Under the nineteenth-century understanding, “an overt act is not measured by how.
‘much it contributes” to the insurrection; in the context ofa violent insurrection such as the
January 6 Attack, just “[o]ne more person closer to the Capitol” or “one more voice™
encouraging violence would be “one more person” engaged in the insurrection. 8/16/22 Tr.
51:17-52:9 (Graber).
37. Applying these principles, the Court concludes that Mr. Griffin “engaged in” the
January 6 insurrection.
38. Ahead of the January 6 Attack, Mr. Griffin voluntarily aided the insurrectionists’
cause by helping to mobilize and incite thousands across the country tojoin the mob in
‘Washington, D.C. on January 6 to intimidate and threaten Vice President Pence and Congress so
they would not certify the election. Prop. Findings of Fact 14 16, 19-35. Griffin was a featured
speaker on a multi-city bus tour organized by a leading Stop the Steal rally organizer, during
which Mr. Griffin urged crowds tojoin the “war” and “battle” in “the streets” of Washington,
D.C. on January 6 to stop certification of the election and the peaceful transfer ofpower. /d. 9%
23-24, 28. The mobs size was their “greatest weapon” and what enabled them to achieve the
levelof success that they did on January 6. Id. § 44. The pre-January 6 mob mobilization and
incitement efforts by Mr. Griffin and others helped make the insurrection possible.
39. Mr. Griffin further aided the insurrection when he joined and incited the mob that
attacked and seized the Capitol grounds on January 6. Griffin illegally breached the Capitol
‘grounds and remained there between at least 2:31 p.m. 10 4:48 p.m.—the heightof the attack.
Prop. Findings of Fact 19 54-55. He knowingly crossed multiple layersofsecurity barricades
and helped insurrectionists do the same, ultimately ascending all the way to the inaugural stage

35
on the Capitol's West Terrace. Findingsof Fact 44 55-59, 69. He remained there, and incited the
mob, even after secing membersofthe mob a short distance away attack police officers and
violently try to break into the Capitol building. Findings of Fact1§60-63, 65-67. And he
remained even after law enforcement ordered the mob to disperse and deployed tear gas, pepper
spray, and chemical munitions to make them do so. Findings of Fact §§ 56, 59. The Court finds
that Mr. Griffin knew he should not have been at the Capitol, but that he stayed in supportofthe
insurrection.
40. The Court concludes that Mr. Griffin's crossing of barricades to approach the
Capitol were overt acts in supportof the insurrection, as Griffin's presence closer to the Capitol
building increased the insurrectionists” intimidation by numbers. Mr. Griffin's marching with the
‘mob all the way to the inaugural stage, knowing the mob’s insurrectionary purpose, likewise
constitutes an overt act. The Court’s conclusions are consistent with how knowledgeable
nineteenth-century Americans would view Mr. Griffin's actions. 8/16/22 Tr. 51:3-21 (Graber).
41. Mr. Griffin aided the insurrection even though he did not personally engage in
violence. Byjoining the mob and trespassing on restricted Capitol grounds, Mr. Griffin
contributed to delaying Congress's election-certification proceedings. The constitutionally-
mandated proceedings could not resume until all members of the mob, including Mr. Griffin,
were removed from the restricted area. Findings of Fact 9§ 47, 49. The presence of Mr. Griffin
and other purportedly non-violent membersof the mob also contributed to law enforcement
being overwhelmed. Findingsof Fact 1§ 44-45.
42. Mr. Griffin also incited, encouraged, and helped normalize the violence on
January 6. Hejoined insurrectionists in chanting “Heave! Ho!” as they synchronized their

36
movement to crush Officer Hodges and other police officers in the West Terrace tunnel to break
into the Capitol. Findingsof Fact §65. He filmed a speech for social media promoting the attack
as it was ongoing, threatening “this is what you're going to get, and you're going to get more of
it” Id. § 60. Hee fist-bumped insurrectionists and chanted “this is our house!” and “we could all
be armed as he approached the West Terrace. Jd.§ 57. And he minimized concerns about the
ongoing violence raised by those around him, stating “sometimes these sortsof things need to
happen in order to send a signal that we're going to quit puting up with their bull crap, you
know?” Id. § 64. Eyewitness testimony confirms that Mr. Griffin's boisterous, attention-secking
behavior had the effectof energizing the insurrectionist mob. Id. 62.
43. The Court concludes that Mr. Griffin's encouragement and normalizationofother
insurrectionists” violent activities were additional overt acts in supportofthe insurrection. See
8/16/22 Tr. 52:3-9 (Graber) (“[Llegally knowledgeable peopleofthe Nineteenth Century said
one more voice is one more person who is involved in the insurrection.”).
44. Mr. Griffin also repeatedly alignedhimselfwith the insurrectionists. In videos
recorded before, during, and after the January 6 Attack, Griffin used the first-person plural to
describe how “we” could not permit Joe Biden to steal the 2020 presidential election, “we took
over the Capitol grounds because it was “our” house, and “we” shouted “Heave! Hot” in support
of attackers breaking into the Capitol building. Findings of Fact §§ 27-34, 57, 65-67. Mr. Griffin
knew the individuals he was acting in concert with during the January 6 Attack were engaged in
violence and force to stop certificationofthe election, and he proudly associatedhimselfwith
them. Id; see also 8/16/22 Tr. 46:1-48:20 (Graber).
45. After the attack, Mr. Griffin took to social media tojustify and normalize the

»
violence he acknowledged witnessing on January 6. Consistent with the insurrectionists’ post-
January 6 focus on the presidential inauguration, see Findings of Fact § 51, Mr. Griffin vowed a
‘more brutal attack to prevent Biden from taking office on January 20, when he threatened there
‘would be “blood running out”ofthe Capitol building, id. §67. Mr. Griffin later conveyed
specific plans to attend Biden's inauguration with firearms. Id. § 69.
46. Nineteenth-century Americans would have regarded Mr. Griffin as being
“leagued” with the January 6 insurrectionists because he acted in concert with those
insurrectionists and committed several overt acts supporting the insurrection. See 8/16/22 Tr
44:23-53:22 (Graber),
47. Mr. Griffin's actions normalized and incited violence. 8/16/22 Tr. 99:15-21,
101:16-103:19, 135:13-136:1 (Kleinfeld). By calling on “men” tojoin him in “battle,” telling
crowds they were in the midst ofa “war,” dehumanizing the opposition as “wicked” and “vile,”
‘warning that “losing [was] not an option,” and associating as an elected official with “violent
specialist” groups, Griffin lowered inhibitionsofothers to engage in violence. fd. 108:14—
109:12, 113:11-17, 114:12-115:3, 115:11-18 (explaining thatplacing violence in asanctioned
context, like war, and dehumanizing people are meansof lowering inhibitions to violence). And
by using language that goes outsideofdemocratic norms, like urging supporters take to “the.
streets” rather than the “ballot box,” Mr. Griffin suggested that the useofviolence to prevent the
transferof presidential power was legitimate. Jd. 113:11-17. Political violence predictably
occurred at the Capitol on January 6and Griffin helped make that happen. 1d. 99:24-100:2.
D. Mr. Griffin Became Constitutionally Disqualified from Any Federal or State
Office, Including His Current Office, Effective January 6, 2021.
48. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Mr. Griffin is constitutionally
38
disqualified from serving as a “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and
Vice-President,” or from “hold[ing] any office, civil ormilitary, under the United States, or
under any State.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
49. The Court further concludes that Mr. Griffin's current office of Otero County
Commissioner qualifies as “any office . under af] State” from which Mr. Griffin is now
disqualified. Section Three’s listofoffices from which one is disqualified (“Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector ofPresident and Vice-President, or .. any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State”) is facially broader than the offices eligible
for disqualification (“memberof Congress,” “an officerofthe United States,” or “a member of
any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officerof any State”). Because the Otero
County Commission falls into Section Three's narrower listof disqualification-eligible offices,
see Prop. Concl. ofLaw§§ 13-17, it follows that it is also an office from which Mr. Griffin is
now disqualified, see Powell, 27 F. Cas. at 607 (Section Three is “broad enough to embrace
every officer in the state”).
50. Under the quo warranto statute, the “effective date” ofa disqualified official's
forfeiture ofoffice is the date on which the disqualifying condition occurred. See State ex rel.
King. Sloan, 2011-NMSC-020, 19 13-14, 149 N.M. 620, 623-24 (official's “forfeitureof...
office” was “automatic” upon occurrenceof constitutionally-disqualifying condition and the
Court's the quo warrantojudgment “simply operated to enforce that which had already
occurred). For Mr. Griffin, that date was January 6, 2021
SI. The Court concludes that Mr. Griffin became constitutionallydisqualified from
federal and state office and forfeited his current office as an Otero County Commissioner

39
effective January 6, 2021.
HL Mr. Griffin's Defenses Are Meritless.
52. The Court concludes that noneofthe defenses Mr. Griffin raised before this Court
have merit,
53. While the Court regards] pleadings frompro se litigants” suchas Mr. Griffin
“witha tolerant eye,” a “pro se ltigant is not entitled to special privileges because of his pro se
status.” Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-01, €4, 127 NM. 301, 302. Rather, a pro se litigant “is
held to the same standardofconduct and compliance with court rules, procedures, and orders as
are members of the bar.” Newsome v. Farer, 1985-NMSC-096,4 18, 103 NM. 415, 419.
54. Accordingly, the Court need not consider defenses Mr. Griffin asserted in the
related federal proceedings but failed to aise in this Court as those arguments are deemed
forfeited. And while the Court must “review the argumentsofself-represented litigants to the
best of its ability,” it “cannot respond to unintelligible arguments” raised by Mr. Griffin. Brooks
v. Brooks, 2015 WL 4366711, at *I (N.M. June 30, 2015) (unpublished) (citing Clayton v.
Trotter, 1990-NMCA-078, 9% 16-17, 110 N.M. 369).
A. Mr. Griffin's First Amendment Defense Fails.
55. Mr. Griffin has claimed that disqualifying him under Section Three of the
Fourteenth Amendment would violate his First Amendment rights. Sec, e.g, 8/15/22 Tr. 10:8
10; 104:9-15. Whether construed as asserting his First Amendment right to run for political
office, his right to freedomofspeech, or is right to the free exercise of religion, Mr. Griffin's
argument fails.

40
56. Despite Mr.Griffin'sobjections to his own words being used against him in this
case, “[tJhe First Amendment ... does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech.” Wisc. .
Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476,459 (1993).
57. Mr. Griffin also overlooks that Section Threeofthe Fourteenth Amendment is
just as much a partof the Constitution as the First Amendment, Griffin's “unconstitutional
constitutional amendment” theory has never succeeded in American courts and was specifically
rejected by SectionThree's drafters. See Br. of Amici Curiae Floyd Abrams ef al. at 8-13 (Aug.
1,202)
58. Evenifa constitutional amendment could somehow be deemed unconstitutional
as Mr. Griffin claims, Section Three poses no genuine threat to First Amendment rights; the two
provisions can and must be harmonized. See Br.of Amici Curiae Floyd Abrams ef al. at 13-28.
Section Three affects the qualified right to run for political office—a right that has always been
limited by qualifications such as age, citizenship, and residency. See Thournir v. Meyer, 909 F.2d
408, 412 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Candidacyitselfis nota fundamental right ....”); Griffin, 2022 WL
2315980, at *12 (“Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment narrows the First Amendment
right to run for office ...”). Moreover, Section Three serves compelling interests in “protecting
the integrity and practical functioningofthe political process” by excluding candidates due to
their disloyalty to the Constitution. Hassan . Colorado, 495 F. App’ 947, 948 (10th Cir. 2012)
(Gorsuch, 1); see Sandlin, 21 La. Ann. at 632 (recognizing “the State has obviously a great
interest” in enforcing Section Three “and a clear right to do? so).
59. Nor can Mr. Griffin's free speech or free exercise rights immunize him from
disqualification, evenifhis insurrectionary activities are entangled with speech and prayer.

a
“[Flreedomof speech andofreligion do not extend so far as to bar prosecutionof one who uses
a public specchor a religious ministry to commit crimes” or other illegal conduct, United Sates
v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1999). Rather, Mr. Griffin could be held to violate even
a statute pursuant to traditional First Amendment exceptions, such as speech integral to illegal
conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949); Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Inc.,
547 U.S. 47, 62 (2006); true threats, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359-60 (2003); and
incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Here, Mr. Griffin is accused of
violating the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as noted, mustbe “be read together and
harmonized” with the First Amendment, State v. Sandoval, 1980-NMSC-139, 8,95 N.M. 254,
257, to ensure Section Three is not rendered “without effect,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,
174 (1803).
60. Moreover, courts have uniformly rejected arguments by Mr. Griffin and other
insurrectionists that their conduct on January 6 was constitutionally-protected protest activity.
See Br. of Amici Curiae NAACP New Mexico Conference and NAACP Otero County Branch at
3-8 (Aug. 23, 2022) (compiling cases). Courts have likewise rejected January 6 insurrectionists’
attempts to compare their conduct to that ofBlack Lives Matters protesters. See id. at 8-11; see
also 8/16/22 Tr. 161:12-18, 163:21-164:7, 148:3-5 (Kleinfeld) (explaining that while some
Black Lives Matter protests “caused a lotofproperty damage,” January 6 was an unprecedented
useof “violence and intimidation” to “affect the orderly transitionofpower” as mandated by
federal law).
B. Mr. Griffin Can Be Disqualified Under Section Three Regardless of Whether
He Has Been Convicted of Any Crime.
61. Mr. Griffin has also argued he cannot be disqualified under Section Three because
2
he was acquittedofdisorderly conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) and has not been charged
with the crimeof insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2483. See 8/15/2 Tr. 10:4-6; 8/16/22 Tr.
146:10-13, 146:25-147:16. But Mr. Griffin is conflting a Section Three disqualification suit
with a criminal prosecution. See 8/15/22 Tr. 105:19-21 (“THE COURT: Just to clarify. this isn’
acriminal proceeding. I's a civil proceeding. So you mentioned criminal conduct before. That's
not this rial”).
62. Section Thee imposes a qualification for public office, much like an age or
residency requirement; it is not criminal penalty. See Sandlin, 21 La. Ann. at 632-33 (Section
Three suit was brought “not to inflict punishment or to impose penalties or disabilities.” but “to
inquire legally into [defendant's] right to hold ... office”); Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., Ist Sess.
2918 (1865-66) (Section Three is “not... penal in its character, it is precautionary”).
63. Norisa criminal conviction (for any offense) a prerequisite for disqualification.
Indeed, neither the courts nor Congress have ever required acriminal conviction fora person to
be disqualified under Section Three. See, e.g., Sandlin, 21 La. Ann. 631; Worthy, 63 N.C. 199; In
re Tate, 63 N.C. 309; May 2022 Greene Decision at 13.
64. Noris Mr. Griffin's acquittal for disorderly conduct legally relevant here. Unlike
18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(@), Section Three does not require proof that Mr. Griffin engaged in
“disorderlyordisruptive conduct.” Instead. Griffin is disqualified under Section Threeifhe
“[Violuntarily aid(ed) the [insurrection], by personal service, or by contributions, other than
charitable,ofanything that [is] useful or necessary” to the insurrectionists’ cause,” or ifhe
otherwise “leagued” with insurrectionists. Concl. ofLaw 9 33-34. Thejudge in Mr. Griffin's
criminal case had no occasion to apply this standard. The quantum of proofalso differs

a
significantly: to secure a § 1752 conviction, the United States had to prove each element beyond
a reasonable doubt. In this civil action, the standard of proof is, at most, preponderanceof the
evidence. Finally, Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence at this trial that the federal
government may not have presented at Mr. Griffin's criminal trial, making the conclusions at the
criminal rial inapplicable to the evidence in this case.
C. Mr. Griffin's Other Arguments Are Similarly Meritless.
65. Attrial, Mr. Griffin incorrectly claimed an insurrection must involve a
“collaborated effort 0 overthrow the government” and “replace” it. E.g., 8/15/22 Tr. 41:10-12.
He cited no authority supporting that definition and, as outlined supra, it is refuted by historical
evidence. Prop. Conel. of LawI 18-19. Not even the Civil War—the event that precipitated the
Fourteenth Amendment—would meet Griffin's definition of insurrection. 8/16/22 Tr. 55:1-10
(Graber).
66. Mr. Griffin also suggestedhecannot be removed through a quo warranto suit
because a recall effort against him failed. 8/16/22 Tr. 186:23-188:5. The case law forecloses
this argument. See Martinez, 1980-NMSC-064, § 6 (affirming quo warrantojudgment and
rejecting argument that recall election was the “exclusive means” for removing disqualified
officials).
67. The Court also rejects Mr. Griffin's argument that his removal and
disqualification pursuant to the Constitution ofthe United States would “subvert the willof the
people.” 8/15/22 Tr. 11:1. Mr. Griffin disregards that the Constitution itselfreflects the will of
the people and is “the supreme Lawof the Land.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; see also N.M. Const.
art. IL, § 1. And he overlooks that his own insurrectionary conduct on January 6 sought to subvert

a“
the results ofa free and fair election, which would have disenfranchised millions of voters. See
Br. ofAmici Curiae NAACP New Mexico Conference and NAACP Otero County Branch at 13-
15 (refuting Griffin's “disenfranchisement” argument).
ORDER GRANTING QUO WARRANTO RELIEF
For the reasons sated in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court
ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES as follows
1. Defendant Couy Griffin s disqualified under Section Threeof the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitutionofthe United States because (1) he took an oath to support the
Constitutionofthe United States as an “executive ... officerof any State,” (2) the January 6,
2021 attack on the United States Capitol and surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement
were an “insurrection” against the Constitutionof the United States, and (3) Defendant “engaged
in” that insurrection afte taking his oath.
2. Dueto his disqualification under Section Threeofthe Fourteenth Amendment,
Defendant is constitutionally ineligible and barred for lfe from serving as a “Senator or
Representative in Congress, or electorofPresident and Vice-President” or from “hold[ing] any
office, civilormilitary, under the United States, or under any State,” including his current office
as an Otero County Commissioner.
3. Defendant becameconstitutionally disqualified from the federal and state
positions specified above in Paragraph 2 and forfeited his current office as an Otero County
‘Commissioner effective January 6, 2021.
4. Defendant shall be removed from his position as an Otero County Commissioner
effective immediately.

4s
5. Defendant is permanently enjoined and prohibited from performing any official
acts in his purported capacity as an Otero County Commissioner or on behalfofthe Board of
County Commissionersof Otero County.
6. Defendant is permanently enjoined and prohibited from seeking or holding any
federal or state position specified above in Paragraph 2.

Fraficis J. Mathew
District Court Judge

xc: Counsel, e-served


Couy Griffin

46

You might also like