James Robert Kingman
ASSISTANT Attorney General James Robert Kingman is questioning the timing of the recent ruling of Judge Pro Tem Arthur Barcinas regarding Kingman’s contract with the Office of the Attorney General as a special prosecutor.
Judge Barcinas denied the Department of Finance’s motion to dismiss the petition of former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres, who is seeking a judicial review of the department’s decision regarding the contract for Kingman.
Kingman issued the following statement to Variety on Monday: “I’m glad to see such deep concern and knowledge by Mr. Torres over a strict compliance with procurement rules. I do not know why this ruling on a contract, which ended a year ago, would take this long. Nor do I know why Mr. Torres, who claimed that the OAG was a necessary party to the litigation as a signatory of the contract, did not include the other, me. Ranking their eight (and counting) efforts to prevent me from prosecuting Mr. Torres, I’d put this as the second most frivolous.”
On Facebook, he posted, “This article demonstrates the frustration of press coverage here. It is one of the eight efforts that the defense has undergone to avoid prosecution, each more unhinged than the last. I didn’t even get notified of this decision, because they never included me as a party in the litigation. This is despite the Defendant (in this case as plaintiff Ralph DLG Torres) arguing that the Attorney General’s Office is a necessary party to the litigation because it was a signatory under the contract. The other signatory? Me.”
Kingman added, “More significantly, the contract in question ended a year ago, because of the delay caused by these same attorneys based on them filing this exact lawsuit, and others. It would not be difficult at all for the reporters to follow up on any of this, or at least note it. But they don’t even reach out for comment to the parties that are subject of the suit. It isn’t like they don’t know where to find me.”
Kingman said he is “going to keep on working on these cases, despite the massive effort to wait me out and have me quit like many well-intentioned people before me, but the public will not get an accurate picture based on coverage here. And if you see what their story selection and framing is, it is clear what the overall agenda is. There needs to be outside, objective voices and an internal, passionate desire for change.”
Kingman was initially hired by the AG’s office as a special prosecutor in its misconduct-in-office case against the former governor pertaining to first-class travel.
On June 20, 2023, Gov. Arnold I. Palacios informed the Legislature that he had certified and approved Kingman’s employment as an assistant attorney general with an annual salary of $85,000.
Five days later, the AG’s office announced that Kingman would head a task force to investigate and prosecute government corruption, white collar, and financial crimes.
Torres challenged Finance’s refusal to issue a declaratory order on the validity of an employment contract between the AG’s office and Kingman, an off-island attorney.
Torres, through his defense team, filed a petition in court requesting a judicial review of a May 17, 2023, final administrative order by the secretary of Finance, who stated that the department had no authority to issue a ruling and declare that the special prosecutor’s contract executed by the Office of the AG in connection with Commonwealth v Torres, Criminal Action No. 22-0050 was invalid.
In his judicial review petition filed on June 15, 2023, Torres named the Finance Department and the AG’s office as respondents.
The nine-page petition asked the court to vacate or set aside the final agency decision, saying that “it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and/or contrary to law.”
The special prosecutor’s contract does not comply with the procurement regulations, the petition added.
Finance, represented by Assistant Attorney General Dustin Rollins, asked the court to dismiss the petition and affirm Finance’s administrative order, which stated that it lacked authority to issue a declaratory order regarding an existing contract.
Judge Barcinas, in a seven-page order on June 26, denied Finance’s motion to dismiss.
