‘Malite lawyer offered to drop suit vs Brown if…’

Former Senate president Juan S. Demapan has offered to withdraw the lawsuit over the legitimacy of attorney general Pamela S. Brown if she would allow the full $3.45-million payment to the Malite estate, government lawyers said yesterday.

Assistant attorneys general James D. Livingstone, Deborah L. Covington, and Benjamin I. Sachs made this claim, as they asked the Superior Court to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a motion for summary judgment, Brown’s attorneys reiterated that she was the lawfully confirmed attorney general and that there is no merit to the case.

“It is simply vindictive litigation to attempt to leverage a settlement in the Malite case. This case should be dismissed in its entirety,” said the attorneys.

The AGO maintained that the lawsuit was filed in retaliation for Brown’s action to stop the payment of the $3.45-million land compensation to the Malite estate.

“This lawsuit has not been brought in the public interest. It is simply a retaliatory, personal attack against AG Brown for her efforts to safeguard the illegal expenditure of public funds,” the attorneys said.

In fact, they said, the taxpayer lawsuit was filed approximately one week after the AGO sought a court order stopping the payment of the $3.45 million to the Malite family.

Demapan, they added, has an interest in the Malite estate.

Demapan is the office manager of Pedro Atalig, who represents the Malite family. Demapan is also the brother of Marianas Public Lands Authority chair Ana Demapan-Castro, one of the respondents in the lawsuit filed by the AGO.

“The plaintiff’s recent actions show his true motives,” the AGO added. “In particular, he recently offered to dismiss this action in exchange for her authorizing the full $3.45 million payment to the Malite estate. This confirms once again that this action is simply vindictive litigation brought by Juan S. Demapan in retaliation for stopping the illegal payment to the Malite Estate. The offer, of course, was rejected.”

The AGO stated in its motion that Brown’s legitimacy is a matter best left to the Legislature, which it said had jurisdiction over all issues regarding confirmations.

The AGO reiterated that Brown was the lawful attorney general for five reasons: she was confirmed to be attorney general by a vote; five senators voted to confirm her; the statute on temporary appointments is irrelevant to the dispute and Brown’s confirmation did not violate its terms anyway; Brown was confirmed within 90 days of nomination; and the purported vote rejecting Brown’s nomination is invalid.

Following through on its argument that Brown has a legitimate claim to the office, the AGO said the taxpayer action has no merit.

The defense said a taxpayer action may be filed if public funds are being used for non-public expenditures or if the government has committed a breach of fiduciary duty.

“AG Brown lawfully holds the position of attorney general. As such, payment by the CNMI government of wages to AG Brown is for a public purpose and is lawful expenditure. Furthermore, because the expenditure is for a public purpose, plaintiff has failed to show that the Secretary of Finance, in processing the payment of AG Brown’s wages had breached a fiduciary duty,” the AGO said.

The Saipan Tribune tried to obtain comments from Demapan and Demapan-Castro yesterday but they could not be reached.