Bradshaw re-files $750K damage suit

Following the dismissal of his lawsuit in Idaho, former CNMI public auditor Robert Bradshaw refiled with Saipan’s federal court Friday his $750,000 damage suit against the CNMI government and some CNMI magistrates, this time with Attorney General Pamela Brown as co-defendant.

In his 76-page complaint, Bradshaw accused Brown of obstruction of justice.

He had claimed that former attorneys at the Attorney General’s Office improperly accepted service of summons in a 1996 complaint against him by one Robert A. Bisom, which resulted in a$139,000 judgment by default against him by the CNMI Superior Court. The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Bradshaw asked the court to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate “the operations of the [AGO] and the [CNMI] courts” in connection with Bisom’s suit against him.

He asked that the court order the conduct of an independent investigation on possible conspiracy and fraud among Bisom and his attorney, Jay H. Sorensen; former assistant attorney general L. David Sosebee; Supreme Court Associate Justice and then Superior Court judge Alexandro Castro; and Brown.

Alternatively, Bradshaw wants the court to forward the case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the conduct of an investigation on the alleged conspiracy and fraud.

He also asked the court to set aside the default judgment by the CNMI court or, alternatively, compel the CNMI government to pay for the judgment pursuant to the CNMI Indemnification Act.

Besides asking for an award of some $750,000 in punitive damages, he also sought an award of some $8,230 representing compensation for his expenses in pursuing litigation.

Bradshaw filed the case by himself, without representation by an attorney. Several weeks ago, the U.S. District Court of Idaho, where he originally brought the suit, dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. None of the defendants reside or engage in any activity in that state.

Except for adding Brown as co-defendant, Bradshaw maintained his complaint against the defendants in the Saipan federal court suit. The defendants in the new case also include the CNMI government; former acting Attorney General Nicole C. Forelli; former assistant attorneys general William C. Bush, Andrew Clayton, and Sosebee; the Interior department; Supreme Court justices John Manglona and Alexandro Castro; former Superior Court judge Timothy Bellas; Bisom and Sorensen.

Bradshaw sued the former attorneys at the AGO and the magistrates in their personal capacities. He sued Castro as Superior Court judge pro tempore in the 1996 complaint by Bisom, and Bellas as Supreme Court justice pro tempore in his appeal that followed.

Bradshaw served as temporary public auditor for the CNMI from 1993 to 1994. He claims to have suffered from injustice in proceedings at the CNMI courts, which led to the $139,000 default judgment.

Bisom used to be an employee under Bradshaw’s supervision as temporary public auditor. Bradshaw fired Bisom for cause, prompting the latter to file a lawsuit in federal court. Bisom lost the case even at the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 1996, though, Bisom filed a separate lawsuit against Bradshaw at the CNMI Superior Court.

Bradshaw said he had advised the AGO not to accept service of summons and complaint on his behalf, but that he would contact the AGO to represent him to respond to the suit if service is made on him. For Bradshaw, no service of summons properly took place regarding the Superior Court complaint.

Despite this, the AGO accepted service on Bradshaw’s behalf, but he said the agency made no answer to Bisom’s complaint. Bradshaw alleged that Castro improperly permitted the CNMI Superior Court trial to proceed despite knowing that the former public auditor had no direct involvement in the proceedings.

Castro eventually refused to allow payment of the default judgment on the basis of the Indemnification Act, which would have held the CNMI government liable for the judgment, since the suit stemmed from Bradshaw’s actions as public auditor. The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision.

Bradshaw claimed that the CNMI courts’ decision violated his employment contract with the CNMI government when he served as temporary public auditor, saying that the contractual relationship entitled him to indemnification for any monetary losses arising during his employment.

Bradshaw claimed being discriminated as “a U.S. statesider who could be easily made to accept the blame for the actions and omissions of the CNMI AG and the courts.” He added: “As a minimum, DOI has acted to help conceal the open discrimination against outsiders who are present legally in the CNMI.”