Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt

MERKT: GET TO BOTTOM OF JUDICIARY "VISIT"

DEMANDS THAT SUPREME COURT DIRECT FULL DISCLOSURE

Citing recent reports in The Star-Ledger that a Judiciary employee last week visited the Legislature's office and "joked" that Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt (R. - Morris) could be prosecuted for "threatening judges" because he called for impeachment of members of the Supreme Court, Merkt today demanded that the Judiciary immediately and publicly disclose everything it knows about the incident, including who made the visit, who sent the visitor, and exactly what was said.

"It is no 'joking' matter for a Judiciary official to suggest to a legislative employee that a legislator might be subject to criminal charges for calling for impeachment of Supreme Court justices," asserted Merkt. "At best, it seems highly inappropriate behavior on behalf of the Judiciary employee. The Supreme Court should immediately direct the Judiciary to divulge publicly everything it knows about this incident, so that we can get to the bottom of this affair."

Merkt noted that Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce yesterday sent a letter to Chief Justice James Zazzali, asking for an explanation of the incident.

"While I am certainly grateful for Leader DeCroce's prompt action asking the Chief Justice to look into what happened," said Merkt, "I believe that all members of the Legislature, the media, and the public have a right to know precisely what occurred, who was involved, and what was said."

Merkt observed that Judiciary officials have been less than forthcoming so far regarding the details of the incident. A court spokesperson, for example, reportedly told one member of the media what was said, then later denied to another reporter having any idea what was said. The same spokesperson also originally claimed that Merkt put out a press release before the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision was issued and that staffers had seen a copy earlier. Later, confronted with proof by the media that the press release was issued after the decision, she changed her story. The court spokesperson has yet to publicly divulge the identity of the visitor to the Legislature.

"If the visit by the Judiciary employee to the Legislature was so benign and involved nothing improper, then why all the secrecy on the part of the Judiciary?" asked Merkt, who added, "Why not publicly disclose who was involved, so the official can directly answer questions about the incident, rather than channeling everything through a spokesperson?"

Merkt pointed out that, if, on the other hand, it turns out that the "visit" was intended to convey the Judiciary's disapproval of his criticism of the Supreme Court and intention to file impeachment resolutions, the so-called "joke" takes on a far more sinister aspect, as well as raises serious issues regarding free speech and the constitutional separation of powers.

"No one in public life is above criticism or accountability for his or her actions, not even members of the Supreme Court," stated Merkt. "This is why it is so important that we get to the bottom of this situation, uncover the facts, and determine whether or not there was an effort on the part of the Judiciary to intimidate or silence a legislative critic. The court"s own credibility depends on a prompt and full disclosure of the facts, so the people of New Jersey can judge for themselves whether anything improper took place."

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 31, 2006

Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt/908-850-1595 ext. 520

MERKT: GET TO BOTTOM OF JUDICIARY "VISIT"

DEMANDS THAT SUPREME COURT DIRECT FULL DISCLOSURE

Citing recent reports in The Star-Ledger that a Judiciary employee last week visited the Legislature's office and "joked" that Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt (R. - Morris) could be prosecuted for "threatening judges" because he called for impeachment of members of the Supreme Court, Merkt today demanded that the Judiciary immediately and publicly disclose everything it knows about the incident, including who made the visit, who sent the visitor, and exactly what was said.

"It is no 'joking' matter for a Judiciary official to suggest to a legislative employee that a legislator might be subject to criminal charges for calling for impeachment of Supreme Court justices," asserted Merkt. "At best, it seems highly inappropriate behavior on behalf of the Judiciary employee. The Supreme Court should immediately direct the Judiciary to divulge publicly everything it knows about this incident, so that we can get to the bottom of this affair."

Merkt noted that Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce yesterday sent a letter to Chief Justice James Zazzali, asking for an explanation of the incident.

"While I am certainly grateful for Leader DeCroce's prompt action asking the Chief Justice to look into what happened," said Merkt, "I believe that all members of the Legislature, the media, and the public have a right to know precisely what occurred, who was involved, and what was said."

Merkt observed that Judiciary officials have been less than forthcoming so far regarding the details of the incident. A court spokesperson, for example, reportedly told one member of the media what was said, then later denied to another reporter having any idea what was said. The same spokesperson also originally claimed that Merkt put out a press release before the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision was issued and that staffers had seen a copy earlier. Later, confronted with proof by the media that the press release was issued after the decision, she changed her story. The court spokesperson has yet to publicly divulge the identity of the visitor to the Legislature.

"If the visit by the Judiciary employee to the Legislature was so benign and involved nothing improper, then why all the secrecy on the part of the Judiciary?" asked Merkt, who added, "Why not publicly disclose who was involved, so the official can directly answer questions about the incident, rather than channeling everything through a spokesperson?"

Merkt pointed out that, if, on the other hand, it turns out that the "visit" was intended to convey the Judiciary’s disapproval of his criticism of the Supreme Court and intention to file impeachment resolutions, the so-called "joke" takes on a far more sinister aspect, as well as raises serious issues regarding free speech and the constitutional separation of powers.

"No one in public life is above criticism or accountability for his or her actions, not even members of the Supreme Court," stated Merkt. "This is why it is so important that we get to the bottom of this situation, uncover the facts, and determine whether or not there was an effort on the part of the Judiciary to intimidate or silence a legislative critic. The court's own credibility depends on a prompt and full disclosure of the facts, so the people of New Jersey can judge for themselves whether anything improper took place."

#####