Atalig statements trouble Brown

Attorney general Pamela Brown expressed alarm yesterday over the “possibly defamatory statements” made in Chamorro by lawyer Pedro Atalig during a court hearing on the lawsuit that seeks to block to the release of land compensation to the lawyer’s client, the Malite estate.

Brown, who is facing a lawsuit that seeks to unseat her as attorney general, also defended her confirmation by the Senate, saying that she never assumed the post—even in an acting capacity—until she obtained Senate confirmation and was sworn into office.

The Malite estate controversy apparently triggered the filing of the lawsuit that seeks to unseat Brown. Former Senate President Juan S. Demapan, represented by Atalig, filed the complaint in court on Thursday last week.

“I’m somewhat saddened that Demapan agreed to be the plaintiff,” Brown said. “We don’t have an axe to grind against anyone.”

Brown said she was “deeply troubled” by Atalig’s statements during the Malite estate case hearing. She characterized the statement as one that could have made one wash a child’s mouth with soap if the latter said it, based on a translation by a Chamorro-speaking person.

In that hearing, Atalig spoke almost entirely in Chamorro. He explained after the hearing that Brown had no authority to bring the lawsuit to court, questioning the validity of her confirmation.

Brown said the AGO is in the process of translating Atalig’s statement in court, adding that she is open to legal options, such as looking into the lawyer’s ethical behavior.

“My attorneys conduct themselves with civility,” Brown said. “We go on facts and law….I expect civility in the court of law.”

The attorney general also noted the motivation behind the filing of the suit against her amid the Malite estate controversy. She said that, when Demapan filed a similar lawsuit against former attorney general Maya Kara, the former Senate president was facing illegal gambling charges.

Brown said the 90-day clock within which she needed to be confirmed upon her nomination by Gov. Juan N. Babauta did not expire before her Senate confirmation, explaining that she never assumed the post from June to Dec. 30, 2003.

Atalig pointed out that Brown failed to muster the constitutional requirement for confirmation within the 90-day deadline following her appointment by the governor on June 16, 2003. The lawyer said the 90-day deadline fell on Sept. 14, 2003, when no Senate session was held.

“Thus, the Senate did not confirm Pamela S. Brown as attorney general on Sept. 14, 2003. Plaintiff [Demapan] contends that as soon as the 90-day Senate confirmation [deadline] expired, Pamela S. Brown’s nomination as attorney general was rejected and she could not be re-nominated,” Atalig said in the suit against Brown.

Atalig cited 1 CMC §2904, which states: “If the appointment is not confirmed by the Senate…within 90 days from the date the person was temporarily appointed, the appointment shall automatically terminate, the position shall become vacant and the person nominated shall not be re-nominated.”

On Sept. 17, 2003, the Senate explicitly rejected Brown’s nomination, according to Atalig. The Senate action transpired when the then minority bloc led by Sen. Pete Reyes took control over the Upper House’s leadership. The new leadership called for a session and with four senators present, three of them voted to reject Brown’s confirmation. One lawmaker abstained from voting.

On the same day, Reyes, who took over the post of Senate President, wrote a letter to Babauta to inform the governor that the Senate rejected his nomination of Brown.

On Nov. 17, 2003, however, five senators convened on Rota to regain the Senate leadership. The four minority senators who had taken over the leadership were absent. In that session, the five senators unanimously voted in favor of Brown’s confirmation.

The suit against Brown also alleged that she has been receiving salary and incurring expenses as attorney general unlawfully. It asked the court to compel repayment of funds received by Brown from the government in the form of salary and expenses as attorney general.

The suit also asked the court to permanently bar the CNMI government from paying Brown the salary and expenses of an attorney general, whether in official or acting capacities.