> So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me.

That's how the 5th amendment works. It gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, but if you invoke that right and there is other evidence against you then you'd better have some other way of refuting that evidence.

How would lawsuits work if that wasn't possible? Civil lawyers aren't able to use as many powers in evidence gathering as prosecutors. If uber's current tactic was allowed then every company would hire a designated employee who would have a paper trail of all the company's misdoings lead to him. That employee then pleads the fifth, the company does a shrug, and that's the end of the lawsuit

You're missing the point. The fifth just says that you can't have your silence held against you. Once you answer the question by saying anything at all, then the answers can be used against you, especially if you're lying. I believe he's under oath in these proceedings.

> None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light.

No, we're talking about the judge's statements, somebody who has seen all the evidence and is speaking as a professional jurist.

And unlike the rest of the Uber accusations, he has gone on record with these statements after seeing some fairly strong documented evidence. The fact that we haven't seen it yet is immaterial.

Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.

No, he could give up his 5th amendment right to save Uber money. This is a civil proceeding not a criminal one.