Byoong Seob Choi, through attorney Timothy H. Bellas, filed a motion for disqualification on Oct. 3, seeking to disqualify Govendo owing to his personal bias and appearance of partiality citing disqualification in accordance with the Commonwealth Code of Judicial Conduct.
“The judge disclosed to me that in spite of the restriction imposed on him by the CNMI Superior Court he intended to continue as the judge in this matter,” stated Bellas in his declaration in support of the motion for disqualification recounting his June 6 meeting with Govendo in his chambers.
The lawyer also said he was told by Govendo that he had already initiated contact with both Judge Perry Inos and Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja whom he said had approved of his keeping the case.
He also stated in his declaration there was no mention whether or not Inos—who had been exercising jurisdiction over the case—requested Govendo to retain jurisdiction.
To resolve the issue, Bellas filed a request for a status conference which was held on June 20 and presided by Govendo.
He also said the opposing counsel raised other issues which were not before the court regarding the dismissal of certain defendants which would then be added as additional defendants to the case.
For Bellas, dismissing the defendants would be prejudicial to the claims of Choi, his client, since there might be statute of limitations issues raised in response to such a dismissal and then adding the defendants in this matter.
The hearing resulted in the opposing counsel drafting a proposed order for Judge Govendo stating that Choi was ordered to dismiss the defendants in other civil action and join them as additional defendants in the instant domestic matters.
Despite his opposition, Bellas said Govendo had indicated his intent to grant the motion and opposing counsel still has to file motion so that these could be part of the record; however, opposing counsel refused to amend the proposed order that should have been amended to delete the relief that had already been granted even without filing of the motion.
In his own declaration, Choi said he welcomed the Supreme Court decision last year that ruled Govendo would no longer be handling divorce matters.
On Dec. 1, 2010, the Supreme Court found Govendo violated certain provisions of the Commonwealth Code of Judicial Conduct [Canons] and some of the Commonwealth Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure that resulted in Govendo’s reassignment from Family Court Division for a period of one year.
In spite of this, Govendo told Choi’s lawyer that he would continue as judge of the case, which convinced Choi of the judge’s bias against him and that he believed the judge wanted to retain the case to punish him and to prevent another judge to look at the facts from an unbiased view, his declaration stated.
He also said that he even learned that his former wife Jung Ja Kim has been telling members of the community that Choi would lose the case owing to Govendo’s dislike for poker machines and their operators.
“While I have no way of knowing if this is the real reason that Judge Govendo is biased against me, his actions in this case make it seem as though he has some interest in the case and is not as unbiased as he should be in deciding the marital property issue,” Choi’s declaration further stated.
Choi and Kim entered into a divorce proceedings in 2005 with Govendo initially awarding Kim $15,000 in interim support per month and full access to all businesses and records.
Shortly thereafter, the couple reconciled and cohabited as husband and wife again that led to them instructing their respective attorneys to cancel the divorce.
This led to an order by Govendo on Dec. 15, 2005 declaring the divorce vacated.
Three years later, Choi went to Korea on a business trip leaving all businesses under the care of his wife.
Court documents also showed that Choi’s wife allegedly had an affair with her lawyer and when Choi found out, he initiated another divorce proceeding.
On June 23, 2008, the court ruled the divorce was never vacated and that it was still in full force.
Govendo issued a temporary restraining order as requested by Kim that not only restricted Choi’s access to his former marital residence, he was also divested of participation to martial businesses in 2008 which were then earning between $50,000 to $60,000 a month.
Kim has sole custody of property and income amounting to roughly $1.8 million.
Choi was then receiving an interim support payment of $3,000 a month; however, Govendo ordered this to be stopped in Dec. 2010.
“Denying me such a small amount of money out of all the marital income in Ms. Kim’s possession means that he has already made up his mind and does not intend to fairly divide the marital property between me and Ms. Kim,” he said in his declaration.
With Govendo’s order stopping payment of $3,000 a month, Choi said he has been unable to meet his financial obligations and unable to continue paying a loan he previously took out to start his business.
He also said he has been unable to pay his monthly $1,000 rent on Joe Ayuyu’s property on Navy Hill on which he located his new business.
Bellas, Choi’s lawyer, cited that the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court recognize that proving actual bias on the part of a judge is “nearly impossible”; however, it is for that reason that the evaluation of a motion to disqualify a judge must focus on the appearance or potential bias, not actual or proven bias.
“In the instant motion, Mr. Choi alleges not only that there is bias against him, but that at a minimum, there is cause to doubt the impartiality of the judge presiding over the case,” the lawyer said.
