Richard Benson completed his supplemental investigative report in Sept. 2007 but his findings were only unsealed recently.
In his report, Benson said: “Pursuant to Commonwealth Rule of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure 17, I conclude that there is reasonable cause to submit the complaint against Judge Lizama to the Supreme Court for a formal hearing based on my finding of likely violations of Commonwealth Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2A, 3(A)(4) and 3(A)(6) and Commonwealth Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure 6(a)(1) and 6(a)(4).”
Lizama resigned in May and is now a candidate for the CNMI’s first congressional delegate election.
But his campaign manager, former Sen. Ramon S. Guerrero, yesterday said Benson’s report won’t hurt Lizama’s political bid.
“It’s not going to hurt him at all. This happened while he was a judge,” Guerrero told Variety over the phone.
The disciplinary complaint against Lizama stemmed from a letter on July 27, 2006 to Presiding Judge Robert Naraja alleging misconduct by Judge David Wiseman.
Wiseman was assigned to decide on a motion to disqualify Lizama from presiding further in the Malite estate case.
The case involved $3.4 million in land compensation deal that the now defunct Marianas Public Lands Authority approved.
In 1976, the Malite property was used by the government as the site for Marianas High School.
Attorneys of the administrator of the Malite estate were awarded $1.1 million for their legal services.
Lizama said Wiseman’s comments indicated bias.
Wiseman made comments on a pending case and should be replaced, Lizama said.
On a May 27, 2007 hearing on the disciplinary complaint, when Lizama was asked if he had evidence regarding Wiseman’s supposed “conversations with other parties,” he admitted that it was based on “hearsay,” “suspicion” and “surmise.”
In 2007, Lizama wrote another letter to the presiding judge, a copy of which was provided to the six attorneys appearing in the Malite case.
Wiseman, for his part, said Lizama’s action violated the judicial rule of conduct. He said Lizama disparaged him on at least two occasions.
One of them involved a traffic case in which Lizama was quoted as saying in the transcript: “I think…I think you better go to Judge Wiseman and tell him he made a boo-boo out of it. He really made a boo-boo. I don’t like it. Even if [unintelligible] if any of the courts do that I will speak my mind, you know. Even if I don’t like it. It’s not proper.”
At issue was a bench warrant in a traffic case for which Wiseman reportedly arraigned a person without a lawyer.
In his opinion, Benson said Lizama acted as an “advocate” in the Malite case and not an arbiter, which “requires judges to refuse to consider arguments unless interested parties are provided their legal right to be heard and refraining from actions improperly advancing certain parties interests.”
Benson added, “By copying the letter to Judge Wiseman, Judge Lizama improperly thrust himself into the role of advocate — advocating Judge Wiseman to recuse himself from the disqualification motion and by advocating a position, the letter appears to be an ex parte communication.”
Ex parte is Latin for “by or for one party” or “by one side.” It refers to situations in which only one party — and not the adversary — appears before a judge. Such meetings are often forbidden.
In his written testimony submitted to the court, Lizama said his relationship with Wiseman had been soured even before he was tapped to hear the disqualification motion against him.
He said he had no intention of insinuating ethical violations on Wiseman’s part “but to alert Judge Naraja and Judge Wiseman of a potential conflict.”
Lizama added, “As there was not yet a written order re-assigning the case to Judge Wiseman, the status conference [for the Malite case] appeared to be no more than an opportunity to berate me in front of the press.”
