Lawyers for the defendants have until April 4 to reply to the government's filing. Watch video
NEWARK -- Federal prosecutors, in a 107-page brief filed Friday evening, tore at the arguments made by lawyers for the two remaining defendants seeking dismissal of the criminal charges against them in the Bridgegate case.
The brief by the U.S. Attorney's office is in response to filings issued more than a month ago by lawyers for former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, ex-deputy chief of staff for Gov. Chris Christie.
Baroni and Kelly are charged in a nine-count indictment that they conspired with former Port Authority official David Wildstein with planning massive traffic tie-ups in Fort Lee in 2013 to punish Mayor Mark Sokolich for not endorsing Christie's re-election. Wildstein pleaded guilty to related charges last year.
Among other things, the brief attacks Baroni's and Kelly's claims that the indictment criminalizes "normal politics."
The charges stem from the misappropriation of resources and employees at the Port Authority "to perpetrate a private punitive objective fundamentally at odds with the agency's public mission," the U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman argues.
Who else knew about Bridgegate?
Among other things, the prosecutor's filing says Baroni and Kelly cannot argue that they shouldn't be accused of depriving Fort Lee residents' right to move about freely because no earlier case law settles the issue of whether creating the traffic jams violated those rights.
Baroni and Kelly "are not absolved because their plan was so callous and audacious that it evidently lacks factual precedent," Fishman wrote.
Likewise, the scheme didn't require an outright prevention of travel to meet the legal standard for violating residents' travel rights, it says. It only has to infringe on their rights as a result of an "illegitimate government purpose."
The brief also attacks Baroni's and Kelly's claims that they should not have been charged with misappropriation of Port Authority funds, since they got no financial benefit from the lane closures.
The government responded that the law focuses on the "misuse" of money, not whether they benefitted financially.
But the brief goes further -- it says the scheme, which the defendants initially described as a traffic study, "spoiled" a legitimate traffic study at the time at Center and Lemoine avenues. It says the government will introduce evidence at the trial about the lost cost of that traffic study.
Lawyers for Baroni and Kelly have until April 4 to reply to the government's brief.
U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton will rule on Baroni's and Kelly's motions to dismiss before the trial, which is still scheduled for May 16.
Tim Darragh may be reached at tdarragh@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @timdarragh. Find NJ.com on Facebook.