Bridget Anne Kelly, through her Lawyer, pleaded the Fifth today -- claiming she can't turn over documents related to her Public Employee Job, on the grounds that it might incriminate her of criminal activity.
Her Lawyer and the State's are arguing the opposing sides of this claim. A Judge must decide if her subpoenas will be upheld.
UPDATED: Christie bridge scandal hearing begins on fight over subpoenas
by Christopher Baxter, The Star-Ledger, NJ.com -- March 11, 2014
[...]
State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson peppered the panel’s attorney, Reid Schar, with pointed questions about why she should force the hands of the two advisers -- Bill Stepien and Bridget Anne Kelly -- who claim that complying with subpoenas issued by the panel would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
"This is not, has not been, and the subpoenas are not fishing expeditions of any sort," said Schar, a prominent Chicago attorney hired by the panel, adding that previously disclosed documents by others tied to the scandal suggested more communications exist. "It’s not an inference."State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson peppered the panel’s attorney, Reid Schar, with pointed questions about why she should force the hands of the two advisers -- Bill Stepien and Bridget Anne Kelly -- who claim that complying with subpoenas issued by the panel would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
"This is not, has not been, and the subpoenas are not fishing expeditions of any sort," said Schar, a prominent Chicago attorney hired by the panel, adding that previously disclosed documents by others tied to the scandal suggested more communications exist. "It’s not an inference."
[...]
The Fifth Amendment claim by Kelly may face tougher scrutiny than Stepien’s because she was a public employee, and case law states that records required under law to be maintained by a government cannot be withheld by claiming the constitutional protection.
[...]
The NJ Committee's Lawyer is even making the argument that Kelly can't make her Public Communications
Private -- simply by moving them to her own Private email and texting accounts, etc. Seems only logical.
Former Chris Christie aides seek to block subpoenas in bridge inquiry
by Joseph Tanfani, LATimes.com -- March 11, 2014
[...]
“This is not a fishing expedition,” he said [Reid Schar, attorney for the committee]. “There are additional emails out there. I’m not guessing, judge, because I’ve seen them.”
Arguing that the requests were not too broad, he said documents show that Kelly and others would start exchanges on their public email addresses but immediately move them to private accounts. “It can’t be that they get to take public information and privatize it,” he said. “It appears that a lot of the communication happened outside the servers of the office of the governor.”
Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson said she would take time to review the case before issuing an opinion. She probed Schar on the legal reasoning for the subpoena but also pressed [Kelly's lawyer, Michael] Critchley: “’Time for traffic problems in Fort Lee,’ it didn’t come out of thin air,” she said, saying it was a reasonable assumption there would be related emails before that one.
[...]
Perhaps Schar should get a few pointers, from the
John Doe prosecutors in Wisconsin, regarding the 'ins and the outs' of Private Email networks, eh?
Well, there is Supreme Court precedent regard taking the Fifth over Public Documents. And on the face of it, it doesn't look good for Kelly.
Analysis: Should Fifth Amendment protection apply to documents in GWB case?
by Karen Sudol, The Record, NorthJersey.com -- February 13, 2014
[...]
The committee is certain that it can prevail over the Fifth Amendment objections raised by lawyers for Kelly and Stepien, but legal experts say the two former Christie staffers may be on sound legal ground that will be supported by the courts.
The reasons for that are highly technical, but can have a profound effect on how the probe plays out. If Kelly and Stepien prevail, the committee may not get the information it seeks. If the committee is successful, it could have a substantial impact on an ongoing criminal investigation by the U.S. attorney in Newark.
[...]
[ pg 2 ...]
While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not typically protect one’s rights to refuse to turn over documents, there is an exception “if the mere act of producing them would be testimonial,” said James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert and law professor at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Va.
“What that means is it would be a functional equivalent of testimony,” Duane added.
[...]
Now, I'm not a Lawyer, nor do
I play one in my virtual life ... So I'll leave it to others to draw out the nuances of the case law involved here. Apologies in advance, for any mistakes I may
have already made in my brief summary interpretations, in an attempt to describe these posted documents. I'm not a Lawyer, nor do I have legal training. Heck, I barely managed to get my college degree, at the age of 34. I'm a mere rube, by some Goldberg standards. A rube with a keyboard, and some Google skills. That is all. My simple hope is that some find it "helpful."