GWB scandal: Port Authority won't pay legal bills for David Wildstein

[George II]

Source: Bergen Record

The Port Authority will not pick up the legal bills of a former executive at the center of an investigation into the George Washington Bridge access lane closures.

On Friday morning the agency notified David Wildstein, the agency executive who ordered the September lane closures, that it had turned down his request for indemnification, a Port Authority source familiar with the decision said. The notification said Wildstein's request "would not be warranted" under the agency's bylaws, the source said.

Those by-laws state that the Port Authority will provide current and former employees with legal representation if the action in question fell within their job duties, according to its bylaws. It will not pay if there was fraud, malice, misconduct or intentional wrongdoing, the bylaws state.

The decision puts additional financial pressure on Wildstein at a time when several investigations into the lane closures proceed. The U.S. Attorney's Office is investigating whether any federal laws were broken. There is a separate legislative investigation by a panel with subpoena power.



Read more: http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/Port_Authority_wont_pay_legal_bills_for_David_Wildstein_in_GWB_controversy.html

---

Can't believe he actually asked the Port Authority to pay for his legal bills. That's chutzpah!

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I can!

It's Wildstein after all!

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Actually ...

the ask is pretty typical; but two things:

I order for it to be a legitimate ask, Wildstein is indicating that he believes that he was reasonably carrying out a function of his job (acting within the scope of his employment) with the PA;

Secondly, the PA's refusal indicates that they believe he clearly was acting outside the scope of his employment.

From these two tidbits, I believe that Wildstein has/is close to cutting an immunity deal for himself and will implicate major players; or, the Christie administration believes he has/will.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Exactly!

He's going to sing like a canary. He's an opportunist of the highest order. If this is his opportunity to save himself - he's going to take it. His Attorney is very very clever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. I never really understood ...

why a fired employee would WANT a company paid for attorney, as this is fraught with conflicts of interests (ethically) and, in the real world, attorneys tend to pay more attention to the interests of the person/entity paying the bill (ethics, be darn).

[musiclawyer]

29. Because if you act within the scope of your duties it is your employer's problem ...

Not yours. Why should your personal assets be at risk when you were just doing your job?
Most states require employer indemnity and defense unless the employee was acting outside the scope. Only then is there a conflict and the employer will and should refuse coverage. This is what happened in this case. In cases where it's NOT clear if the employee or officer conduct rose to the level of fraud oppression or malice (actions outside scope of employment ), then the government employer usually tenders a defense subject to a reservation of rights ( to refuse to pay a judgment or legal bills later) if a judge or jury finds wrongdoing ....

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. That was my point ...

Most states require employer indemnity and defense unless the employee was acting outside the scope. Only then is there a conflict and the employer will and should refuse coverage. This is what happened in this case.

I guess I should have been more clear; rather than, just stating a "fired employee" (which at the time I wrote it meant "fired for acting outside the scope of employment&quot .

[pnwmom]

32. And on that flip side of that, wouldn't the Christie side want to pay for his attorney

to hand-hold him and keep him quiet?

But maybe it's the top PA person, a NY guy, who made the decision.

[sendero]

42. I agree..

.... that is what I was thinking also. This guy is now ripe for flipping.

It would be nice, just for once, if the little guys expected to take the fall for the Very Big Cheese "just says no".

[cosmicone]

2. This also means he will sing like a canary

sooner rather than later.

[Botany]

3. Only one thing to do Dave

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. LOL.

Hope we don't find him dead in a vacant lot with one stuffed in his mouth before he sings.

[SoapBox]

4. The guy has some kind of "brass".

But then again, I would expect nothing less from corrupt Pukes, than wanting the taxpayers to pay to defend their illegal actions.

[factsarenotfair]

5. He's from a wealthy family and I don't think that's a problem for him. n/t

[Myrina]

6. ... just another lazy 'taker', livin' on handouts ...

... expecting everyone else to cover his ass ...

[George II]

7. Probably expects "Uncle Sugar" to pay for his Viagara too!

[SunSeeker]

25. LOL nt

[TheOther95Percent]

8. Probably Won't Pay Bill Baroni's Either

And I believe the insurance company underwriting the PA's D&O liability insurance is going to fight any legal fees incurred by David Samson too. There was no "traffic study" and justifiable reason for the lane closures.

[mrmpa]

9. Every time I see GWB............

I'm not reading it as George Washington Bridge, but as George W. Bush. \

[Ikonoklast]

24. Close enough, both were epic clusterfucks

[Todays_Illusion]

10. The big new question, will he receive conservative billionaire support, like James O'Keefe,

quietly, or will the conservative radio and web sites begin fund raising for a defense fund?

[bpj62]

11. Standard Practice

My brother worked for Clinton-Gore and was subpoenaed by the committees looking into filegate and the death of Vince Foster. He asked the administration to pay his attorney fees and they turned him down. I don't blame Wildstein for trying but it is pretty clear that his actions fall under malice and intentional wrongdoing. Even if he comes from wealth this may be the straw that causes him to testify.

[MADem]

12. I'm surprised they didn't pay.

I'm surprised CC didn't find a way to MAKE them do it....

Gives him more incentive to flip, and start singing like a canary....he'll want to make a deal with all agencies, concurrently...maybe get them to cover his bills, too.

[George II]

14. It's not just a NJ agency, it's a joint NY-NJ agency, and the man at the top is a NYer

[MADem]

18. CC doesn't have any "crew" to lean on that guy? His reach ain't as long as he'd like, then!

Even Tony Soprano could do some business on the other side of the bridge if he needed to--all it took was having a "sit down" wit' da right guys!

[George II]

22. Not only isn't his reach as long as he'd like........

.....but I think he got the tips of his fingers snipped a little a few weeks ago.

[Iggo]

15. Wildstein signaled his intention to testify on day one.

He's just waiting for them to meet his price (immunity).

He'll sing, for sure.

[MADem]

19. He's going to need it for all venues--federal and state(s). nt

[hlthe2b]

16. Well, THAT ought to get him talking for a "deal"....

It is amazing, though typical, that RETHUGS think taxpayers should pay their legal fees.

[hrmjustin]

21. Good, now he will sing.

[old guy]

23. How do they give him immunity

when they really don't know if he knows anything? Couldn't he just cop to everything and say it was all his plan and by getting immunity nothing happens to anyone? These lawyer type things confuse me.

[bpj62]

26. Conditional immunity

He has to sign a document stating that if he is found to have perjured himself during his testimony the AG office can and will revoke the immunity and he will be subject to prosecution for those lies and anything else that he talked about. Immunity does not come without strings attached.

[old guy]

28. OK, Thanks

[pnwmom]

33. But how will they prove he perjured himself if everyone else keeps their mouths shut? nt

[geek tragedy]

47. essentially, if he tells them one thing under oath before the deal is struck, and then

reverses his testimony afterwards, he's committed perjury--either the statement given to prosecutors was perjury, or the flip-flop was perjury

[geek tragedy]

40. he won't talk to anyone until the federal prosecutor cuts a deal with him. nt

[Babel_17]

48. IIRC his lawyer has to offer a proffer

The proffer is part of the negotiations between the two sides. After both sides agree to discuss some form of immunity then the defense says what they have to offer and what they expect in return. If no deal is struck, the fact that the defense had an offer to make can't be held against them in court.

I am not a lawyer!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution

http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/Queen-For-A-Day-The-Dangerous-Game-of-Proffers-Proffer-Agreements-and-Proffer-Letters.shtml

[davidpdx]

31. HAHA!

[Hosnon]

34. Who made this decision?

My money is on it being ultimately a political opponent of Christie. Without indemnification, the pressure on him is greatly increased. He's now more likely to talk.

[George II]

35. It's in the agency's bylaws. It wasn't an arbitrary decision.

[Hosnon]

36. Didn't say it was. But the agency could have argued that his actions qualified for indemnification.

If whoever is in charge wanted to help Christie.

[George II]

37. Patrick Foye is the ultimate person in charge - he was appointed by Andrew Cuomo

[Hosnon]

38. I don't know the ins and outs of NY/NJ politics.

Are Christie and Cuomo political friends? Political enemies? In between?

[George II]

39. The Port Authority is probably different than any other in the US

It's essentially governed by Federal regulations/law. Each governor appoints a certain number of members, not sure how many each or if it's an even number.

I don't think the two governors are enemies, but they're not buddies either.

[geek tragedy]

41. no, given that it doesn't cover intentional misconduct, this was the only

plausible answer. dude's taking the 5th.

[Hosnon]

43. The agency didn't have to make a determination that it fit that exclusion.

If they wanted to defend him - if Christie were making that decision - they could have argued it didn't.

I don't think anything in a situation like this is apolitical.

[geek tragedy]

45. he was taking the fifth, in connection with actions Foye himself had explicitly

described as illegal in a contemporaneous email.

It would have been a sign of corruption if they had agreed to defend him

[Justice]

44. Normal for by laws to cover executives.employees if

Acting within the scope of their employment. Here, determined actions outside scope. Wildstein could challenge decision.

[geek tragedy]

46. he couldn't really challenge, since in order to do so he'd have to make some

kind of representation that there wasn't deliberate wrongdoing, which would open him up to perjury charges as well as waiving his 5th amendment protections