Williams & Jensen, P.L.L.C., Robert Martinez, Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio and Meredith Kelley (the W&J defendants) have indicated that they intend to call former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith as an expert witness:
On or about January 3, 2005, then FEC Chairman Bradley Smith issued a "Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurers Subject to Enforcement Proceedings ..." In that policy statement, Chairman Smith explains at length the reasons for and the effect of the Official/Personal Capacity Distinction.
Apparently, there is some law that prevents former employees of the federal government from appearing as expert witnesses without a court order. The W&J defendants are asking the court to issue a court such an order so that Chairman Smith may testify as an expert witness on their behalf. While not explicitly spelled out, it appears to me that Chairman Smith would testify that no harm occurred to plaintiff Teltschik as long as he was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws only in his official capacity as treasurer to ARMPAC. Defense counsel writes: "Since this is a fundamental issue in this case, Smith should be an expert witness." Based on what I know this is indeed a fundamental issue in the case.
However, in paragraph 1, we learn that lawyers for Mr. Teltschik are opposed to the court issuing an order for Chairman Smith's testimony:
Counsel for Defendants has conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff regarding the relief sought in this motion. Plaintiff is opposed to the relief requested.
Without a court order, Chairman Smith can't testify. I'm sure that Chairman Smith's testimony would be mighty inconvenient for Mr. Teltschik. At the same time, I'm sure that Mr. Teltschik has expert witnesses lined up to enumerate any number of harms done to Mr. Teltschik due to the acts of the W&J defendants. My understanding of the scales of justice says that a jury should weigh all evidence including the testimony of expert witnesses to determine whether or not Mr. Teltschik was harmed. Until I see Plaintiff's reasoning to effectively exclude Chairman Smith's testimony, I must assume that this is a tactical effort to limit the defendants' case. Consequently, opposition to Defendants' motion doesn't appear to be an effort to uncover the truth.