N.J. bridge case defendants argue charges are not applicable
Two former aides to Gov. Christie charged in the George Washington Bridge lane-closure case say their alleged misconduct does not trigger an anticorruption law because they gained no financial benefit from the scheme.
Two former aides to Gov. Christie charged in the George Washington Bridge lane-closure case say their alleged misconduct does not trigger an anticorruption law because they gained no financial benefit from the scheme.
Further, there is no constitutional right to be free from "improperly created" traffic, the former aides argue in documents filed in federal court late Wednesday. They reiterated their request that U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton dismiss the indictment.
Prosecutors say Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie's former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, a former top Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, conspired in September 2013 to cause traffic jams at the bridge in an effort to punish a local mayor because he did not endorse Christie for reelection that year.
Kelly, Baroni, and David Wildstein, a former Port Authority official who has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the government, picked the first day of school to begin the lane closures to unleash maximum chaos, according to the indictment. The closures lasted four days.
Kelly and Baroni are charged with misapplying property worth at least $5,000 at an agency that received more than $10,000 in federal funds in 2013.
In a new filing Wednesday, Kelly argued that the anticorruption statute does not apply in the bridge case because she "did not receive any financial benefit from the alleged conspiracy."
"There is no allegation in the indictment that Ms. Kelly pocketed a penny of [Port Authority] funds. Similarly, there is no allegation that Ms. Kelly received any services for her personal benefit," Michael Critchley, her attorney, wrote.
"No [Port Authority] employee cut her grass, painted her house, washed her car, or built her a deck," Critchley continued. "The only purported benefit that Ms. Kelly received was the alleged 'pleasure' of punishing" Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, "by creating traffic in Fort Lee."
The statute mentioned in the indictment "does not apply to receipt of intrinsic or metaphysical benefits alleged by the government," Critchley wrote.
The office of U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman argues that it has met the $5,000 threshold, which accounts for "compensation paid to Port Authority personnel" and "losses suffered by the Port Authority."
Prosecutors also said the law "encompasses the theft and misapplication of employee services."
"In particular, the time of Port Authority employees, including traffic engineers, toll collectors, police officers, media relations employees, and other employees who unwittingly assisted defendants in perpetuating their false narrative of a traffic study was spent doing defendants' personal bidding, effectuated through lies and concealment," prosecutors wrote last month.
The indictment also charges that Kelly and Baroni violated the rights of Fort Lee residents to "localized travel on public roadways free from restrictions unrelated to legitimate government objectives."
In the filing Wednesday, Critchley argued that there was no constitutional right to such travel. "By definition, if there was a fundamental right to be free from improperly created traffic, there would first have to be a fundamental right to drive a car. But there is no such fundamental right," he wrote.
What's more, even if a constitutional right to travel did exist, a law must be "clearly established" in order to "provide the constitutionally required fair notice to a defendant," Critchley said.
What the government is asserting is "not a right to intrastate travel, but a constitutional right to be free from inconvenience," Critchley added. "At what point," he asked, "does the inconvenience become a federal crime?"
Baroni's attorneys made similar arguments on the property and civil rights counts. They also said the indictment should be dismissed because it relied on immunized testimony Baroni provided to a legislative committee investigating the lane closures.
Oral arguments regarding the motions to dismiss the indictment are scheduled for April 28 in federal court in Newark.
856-779-3846
@AndrewSeidman