Barbara Bonfiglio: DEPOSED

Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio

INTRODUCTION: This post is part of a series of entries following the ARMPAC-related civil lawsuit Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen. For more entries on this subject, click on the "Teltschik" label at the bottom of this post.

==

Plaintiff Corwin Teltschik filed two memorandums with the DC District court last week. The only thing I learned from Mr. Teltschik's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Joinder in Christine DeLay's Motion to Quash her subpoena is this:

The Plaintiff, one of Plaintiff's experts and two of the individual Defendants have been deposed.

Paragraph 5; Emphasis added

Yippee! Statements under oath! I like truthful statements!

The Memorandum indicates two of the defendants have been deposed. Currently, there are three individual defendants: Managing Director of Williams & Jensen, Robert Martinez, W&J lawyer Meredith Kelley, and former W&J lawyer Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio. One of them hasn't been deposed. I don't know which defendant that is, though.

The other document filed last week contains a few more facts. Let's look at the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Christine DeLay's Motion for a Protective Order. In this second document, we learn the identity of one of the defendants who has been deposed:

Barbara Bonfiglio has been deposed and her testimony is unequivocal: Mr. Teltschik had nothing to do with those decisions or the reports [filed with the FEC].

Boy, I'd like to see that deposition show up on PACER someday! As we already know, Ms. Bonfiglio was treasurer to literally dozens of leadership PACs and charities of Congressmen. I'd really like to learn of how such entities operate.

Even though we know Ms. Bonfiglio has been deposed, I can't determine whether Ms. Kelley or Mr. Martinez was the second person to be deposed.

Here are a couple of other minor things I learned from the Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order:

Robert Martinez told Mr. Teltschik that Williams & Jensen had authorization and backup for all allocations and expenditures for ARMPAC.

[Paragraph 19]

Hey! This seems rather significant to me. Recall that the Federal Election Commission found that ARMPAC's allocations and expenditures were in violation of the law. If Mr. Martinez has authorization and backup for the allocations and expenditures, then we'll know who, like, authorized them. Why is this so difficult? Tell us who authorized Williams & Jensen to file unlawful reports with the FEC.

==

Mrs. DeLay, through her Houston-based attorney Brent Perry, filed her Motion to Quash in US District Court here in Houston. Mrs. DeLay also hired Washington DC-based Charles McIntyre to file her Motion for Protective Order to prevent dissemination of any potential deposition testimony. The Motion for Protective Order was filed in US District Court in Washington, DC. From Paragraph 44:

Here, counsel for Christine DeLay, has unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings by filing this motion. The motion seeks relief that was available in the Southern District of Texas but was not sought, or that is duplicative of relief sought in the Southern District of Texas.

Mr. Teltschik then asks for Mrs. DeLay or her attorneys to pay for responding to these vexatiously duplicative motions. I don't know why Mrs. DeLay is filing motions in two separate courts in this issue. Maybe Mr. Teltschik is right and this is just meant to be an annoyance. Alternatively, maybe Mrs. DeLay is doubling her chances of getting a favorable order regarding her subpoena by asking two different judges to get rid of it. Having two bites at the apple doesn't seem to be in the interests of justice, either.

==

One last thing. Both Memorandums indicate that there is a status conference on February 6. Maybe we'll learn more about this case at that time.