THE attorneys who represent Governor Ralph DLG Torres in his lawsuit against the House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations have asked the Superior Court to deny Sen. Paul A. Manglona and tax payer Carmen Patricia Deleon Guerrero’s request to intervene in the litigation.
“Because Pro Se Movants have not demonstrated any grounds to intervene and have not met even the basic procedural steps for intervention, their motion to intervene should be denied,” stated the governor’s legal counsel Gil Birnbrich, the Banes Horey Berman & Miller law firm, and Washington, D.C.-based attorney Ross Garber in their opposition.
“Upon denial of the motion to intervene, Pro Se Movants’ motion for a temporary restraining order will be moot,” they added.
Manglona and Deleon Guerrero are representing themselves or “pro se.”
According to the governor’s lawyers, Article X, Section 9 of the CNMI Constitution does not confer a right to intervene.
This section of the Constitution confers a right of action, permitting a taxpayer to “bring an action against the government or one of its instrumentalities” to enjoin improper expenditure of public funds or breach of fiduciary duty, the governor’s attorneys said.
“Pro Se Movants may well believe that the Governor has improperly expended public funds. They are not, however, bringing an action against the Governor. They are trying to intervene in an action brought by the Governor against a committee of the Legislature. While it might be possible for Pro Se Movants to bring an independent action under Article X, Section 9, or perhaps even to make such a claim in a complaint in intervention in another action, standing alone this section of the Constitution does not confer a right to intervene. It only creates a cause of action.”
The lawyers added, “The motion to intervene should be dismissed with prejudice if Pro Se Movants do not file a proposed pleading, as they are on notice they must do.”
Intervention is addressed by NMI Civil Procedure Rule 24, they said.
The rule requires that all motions to intervene “be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.”
“Pro Se Movants did not accompany their motion with a pleading. The Court rightly pointed out this deficiency in its April 21 orders,” the lawyers said.
Moreover, “Pro Se Movants have not shown a right to intervene or a reason for the court to allow them to intervene,” they added.
“First, the motion to intervene is not timely.
“The House report alleging misuse of public funds by the Governor was known to Pro Se Movants already in December 2021 when the Governor brought this action.
“Defendant’s [House JGO committee] motion to dismiss has already been briefed and argued and is under advisement.
“Intervention will only delay the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination’ of this proceeding,” the governor’s attorneys said.
Second, “Pro Se Movants have not asserted a significantly protectable interest relating to the narrow subject matter of this action, namely, whether the House Standing Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations may compel the Governor to testify before it.”
“This lawsuit,” the attorneys said, “is not about whether the Governor misused public funds or whether Senate President Hofschneider has acted improperly in proceedings relating to the Senate impeachment trial, but solely about the validity and constitutionality of the defendant Committee’s subpoena.”
Third, “Pro Se Movants’ interest in holding the Governor and Senate President Hofschneider accountable for alleged abuses will not be impaired or impeded by the disposition of this lawsuit.”
According to the attorneys, “Even if the Court finds for the Governor, the impeachment process will go forward in the Senate, as will the criminal case that the Attorney General has filed against the Governor. And because this lawsuit has nothing at all to do with Senate President Hofschneider, it certainly will not impair or impede Pro Se Movants’ ability to seek other redress of grievances against him.”
Finally, “whatever interest Pro Se Movants may have in this case will be adequately represented by the Committee and its attorneys.”
“There is no indication in the moving papers that the Committee’s interest and Pro Se Movants’ interest are misaligned,” the governor’s lawyers said.
“When the applicant is a government officer, a court may permit intervention if the officer’s claim or defense ‘is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.’
“Insofar as Sen. Paul Manglona is a government officer, he has not met the test for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2). His claim is not based on a statute or executive order that he administers, nor has he claimed that it is,” the governor’s lawyers said.
“Even if grounds for permissive intervention were somehow found to exist, the court should not allow it because the motion is untimely and intervention would unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties’ rights,” they added.
“As previously stated, the intervention is months late. It is in the interest not only of the original parties but also the public for the central issue in this case involving the powers and immunities of two of the three branches of the Commonwealth government to be decided expeditiously. Intervention will needlessly interfere in the determination of this action and will bog down a straightforward constitutional issue in political recriminations.”
Last week, Judge Pro Tempore Timothy Bellas denied Senator Manglona and Deleon Guerrero’s request to intervene, motion for a temporary restraining order and other relief.
But the judge allowed Manglona and Deleon Guerrero to request an oral hearing.
Following the order, Manglona and Deleon Guerrero requested a hearing.
Deputy Clerk of Court Novelyn Wania-Tenorio on the same day issued a notice scheduling a hearing for May 6, 2022 at 9 a.m.
Torres, a Republican governor, was found by the Democrat-led House JGO committee in contempt of a legislative subpoena for refusing to appear before the panel, which was investigating his public expenditures.
Torres in his lawsuit wanted the court to find the subpoena issued by the legislative committee invalid and unlawful.
In their motion, Manglona and Deleon Guerrero are asking the court to prohibit the Senate leadership from proceeding with the governor’s motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment.
They also asked the court to declare null and void the Senate impeachment rules.
