Court to take up Brown’s legitimacy today

The Superior Court would hear today the arguments for and against the legitimacy of Pamela Brown as the CNMI’s attorney general and could possibly reach a ruling—upon which hinges the fate of the official and the prosecution or dismissal of several criminal cases.

This comes soon after the Public Defender’s Office flooded the court with requests to dismiss several criminal cases on the ground that they were not brought to court by a lawful attorney general.

Presiding judge Robert Naraja has scheduled this afternoon a consolidated hearing on at least three identical dismissal requests by the Public Defender’s Office concerning separate criminal cases.

In a criminal case against one Joaquin Peredo, the Public Defender’s Office asked that deputy attorney general Clyde Lemons Jr. be subpoenaed so he could be used as a hostile witness against Brown. Naraja, however, granted yesterday the request of the AGO to quash the subpoena. The judge also denied the Public Defender’s Office’s request to disqualify Lemons from prosecuting Peredo.

Two other criminal cases against two other defendants, Md. Aktar Hossain and Hua Wu Cheng, would also be part of the consolidated hearing today.

In all cases, the Public Defender’s Office assailed the legitimacy of Brown, saying that only the attorney general could prosecute criminal violations.

Assistant public defender Angela Marie Krueger said that Brown’s nomination for the attorney general post expired after Sept. 14, 2003, with the Senate yet to act on it. Krueger said Brown could not be renominated after her nomination expired. Gov. Juan N. Babauta nominated Brown on June 16, 2003. The Senate had 90 days to act on it.

On Sept. 17, 2003, a Senate faction explicitly voted to reject Brown’s nomination. Krueger said the subsequent action by five Senate members, who confirmed Brown’s nomination on Nov. 17, 2003, came at a time when the nomination had already expired.

“A member of the public could not just walk into court and ‘prosecute violations of Commonwealth law;’ nor could a senator, House member, an assistant attorney general, or even the governor himself. For whatever reason, the Constitution itself unequivocally vests that authority in the attorney general and the attorney general alone,” Krueger said.

“As a consequence, if the attorney general has not been validly appointed and confirmed, no other person is constitutionally permitted to ‘prosecute violations of Commonwealth law,’” she said.

Brown had contended her Nov. 17, 2003 confirmation by another Senate faction was valid. She said that the 90-day deadline did not apply in her case because she never assumed the attorney general post in an acting capacity.