Bruce Jorgensen told Variety in an email, “Our perception remains steadfast that removal was appropriate in accordance with pertinent legal and equitable considerations.”
He said he has not had the time to comprehensively review the remand order.
But Jorgensen finds the timing of the order “curious.”
He said, “At the outset, we note that the remand order was issued just one day after the Ninth Circuit’s mandate dismissing the baseless appeal filed previously by Fund counsel — and, so, we certainly find this timing curious.”
He also said, “With similar curiosity, we recognize that while the oral presentation before the District Court was initially scheduled to commence last month, this opportunity was then withdrawn at the last moment, with the court taking the matter off-calendar, and then issuing the remand order without hearing any oral argument from counsel of record.”
Last Oct. 14, District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands Designated Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood ordered the hearing on the motion to remand set for Oct. 17 be stricken off the calendar.
Jorgensen also recognized and expressed concern on the impact of the remand to the Fund’s and the beneficiaries’ interests citing “the overt and tacked conflicts-of-interest to which the CNMI Judiciary is institutionally possessed, and to which the CNMI judges are themselves possessed.”
He also pointed out the CNMI Judiciary’s recognition of its inability to enforce/collect upon its own judgments and the knowledge that no meaningful enforcement or collection of this $231 million judgment has been effected, by the CNMI Judiciary or Fund counsel, over the past 28 months.
Jorgensen also said, “Of related import, we concur with those remarks in which a 9th Circuit Court justice, only three weeks ago in Honolulu, expressed the view that an Article III federal judge should be assigned to handle current proceedings, rather than non-Article III judges such as those appointed to the federal courts in U.S. insular areas.”
Jorgensen was referring to the Oct. 13 Ninth Circuit hearing for Jane Roe et al vs Pedro Q. Dela Cruz, Sixto K. Igisomar, Adelina C. Roberto and the Retirement Fund in Hawaii in which the Appellate Court stated, “The [Ninth] Circuit needs to exercise supervision in the case to make sure that we get an Article III judge assigned to the federal litigation that you got somebody you can turn to for whatever relief either party wants from the federal court.”
An Article III judge refers to a judge serving on the circuit and district court who was nominated by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate and serves for life.
In that hearing, the Ninth Circuit Court Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Richard C. Tallman and Smith told Jorgensen, “If what you tell us is correct and the Article I judge recently confirmed is recused, then it seems…we should probably communicate with our chief judge [Chief Judge Alex Kozinski] to make sure that a judge from off island is designated to handle this litigation so that you don’t have to go through four different judges. We need somebody who can maintain some continuity with this litigation.”
Moreover, Jorgensen told Variety, “Most certainly, we view the current scenario as temporary and transitional, and shall act to remedy the matter appropriately in favor of Mr. Rayphand, those Fund beneficiaries possessing similar interests and concerns, and the Fund’s continuing viability and fiscal solvency.”
“Respecting that portion of the ruling as to sanctions, we expect a contrary determination, as time progresses,” said Jorgensen.
He also said, “Certainly, the Fund attorneys and Fund entity which have for 28 months permitted a $231 million judgment to languish in furtherance of the Fund’s demise — while in the process effecting further hindrance/delay by appellate proceedings recently deemed utterly baseless by the 9th Circuit Court — should not be entitled to monetary gain in furtherance of this behavior.”
On Tuesday, the Fund issued a statement welcoming the decision of the District Court to remand the lawsuit back to the Superior Court.
Finding “improper” Rayphand’s request to have the lawsuit removed, the Fund said in a statement that it was pleased with the district court’s decision and “it may now continue its efforts to collect and looks forward to moving forward with hearings that were delayed by Rayphand’s actions.
