Christine DeLay: SUBPOENAED

Christine DeLay (L) with husband Tom DeLay

=======

Update
December 19, 2008

Welcome OfftheKuff readers!

One trick Kuff has taught me is to look at the lawyers representing the parties in this case. Check out the Motion to Quash (link below). One Brent Perry is representing Christine DeLay. Mr. Perry is or at one time was a trustee for Tom DeLay's legal defense fund. Very interesting.

=======

[Begin original post dated December 17, 2008]

Saturday was a disappointing day for me. I wore out my clicker trying to find a good football game to watch, and I had to settle for watching Minnesota-Duluth win the D-2 championship.

Christine DeLay had a worse day, though. She was served with a subpoena compelling testimony in Corwin Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen PLLC, et. al.

Today, attorneys for Mrs. DeLay, wife of Abramoff scandal figure Tom DeLay, filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Alternatively, Mrs. DeLay's counsel are asking the court to place limitations on any deposition. Here are the basic arguments made by Mrs. DeLay's attorneys:

2. Christine DeLay, according to the disclosures filed by Teltshcik [sic], "has knowledge of her dealings with ARMPAC, Tom DeLay [her husband], Christine DeLay [sic], various members of Williams & Jensen, and Mr. Teltschik." Teltschik's central claim in this action is that a Conciliation Agreement between ARMPAC and the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") that lists him as ARMPAC's treasurer has damaged him. Christine DeLay does not have any knowledge of the Conciliation Agreement or the FEC action leading to the agreement, was not an officer of ARMPAC, and - in her dealings with ARMPAC, Tom DeLay, Williams & Jensen, and Telschik - did not discuss the FEC enforcement action of the Conciliation Agrement.

[Bracketed comments in original]
[Bolded and bracketed comments added]

I'm sure lawyers try to quash subpoenas all the time. I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with these things, so I'm not going to opine on the likelihood of Mrs. DeLay's motion being granted. While I take Mrs. DeLay at her word that she had nothing to do with the FEC action or the Conciliation Agreement, this motion glosses over how deeply Mrs. DeLay was involved with ARMPAC. In fact, according to Mr. Teltschik, Mrs. DeLay was the person who persuaded him to take on the role of ARMPAC's treasurer. (Why did ARMPAC need a naive treasurer?)

That's the thrust of Mrs. DeLay's attempt to quash the subpoena. Mrs. DeLay's attorneys make other seemingly standard points. The subpoena places an undue burden on Mrs. DeLay. There isn't enough time before the January 2, 2009 deposition for Mrs. DeLay to prepare properly. (I'm kind of sympathetic to that one, so just push the depo out a week or two. Interestingly, there was another version of the subpoena out on PACER with an earlier deposition date. Court documents aren't clear regarding what happened to that subpoena.) Lastly, Mrs. DeLay faces the financial burden of hiring a lawyer to represent her / quash the subpoena.

If I were a judge, I might tend to grant wide latitude for parties seeking depositions. After all, the deposition stage of a lawsuit is intended to gather information. Mr. Teltschik and his attorneys are hoping to learn more about the activities of the defendants by talking to Mrs. DeLay. Plaintiff may find out that Mrs. DeLay actually doesn't have anything relevant to say, but that determination should come after the deposition. That said, I'm sure I'd feel exactly the way Mrs. DeLay feels if I were subpoenaed in a case I thought touched me only tangentially.

Here's the strangest part of the Motion to Quash:

Any testimony regarding her dealings with her husband may be protected by spousal immunity, and attorney-client privilege may attach to any dealings with Williams & Jensen, a Washington, DC law firm.

Although I don't know the limits of spousal immunity, at least I understand that Tom DeLay may not want his wife testifying truthfully about his actions. I don't understand the attorney-client privilege between Mrs. DeLay and Williams & Jensen. Just exactly when did Mrs. DeLay become a client of Williams & Jensen? I'll have to think about that one a little longer.

These are the first statements under oath that Mrs. DeLay has made regarding her role at ARMPAC. This affidavit isn't very illuminating. Let's hope we see more such statements!

==

For more background on Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen, click the "Teltschik" label below.