“SUCH clear, open, and obvious conflict of interest should prevent the Torres Brothers Firm from representing defendant in this case,” Assistant Attorney General James Kingman said, referring to Shayne Villanueva, who was charged with contempt of Legislature.
“If the court considers the conflict to be consentable, the Commonwealth requests a full admonishment and waiver to be put in writing, to preclude the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in case of appeal,” Kingman added in his notice of conflict of interest, which he filed in Superior Court on Thursday.
Kingman is notifying the court that a conflict exists, but he is not moving to disqualify attorney Joaquin DLG Torres, who filed his appearance to represent Villanueva on Oct. 21. Attorney Keith Chambers is also representing Villanueva.
Torres is the brother of former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres, who has been charged in separate criminal cases by the Office of the Attorney General.
According to Kingman, Torres Bros LLC. is a law firm comprised of the brothers of the former governor.
“The firm currently represents former Governor Torres in criminal cases related to his alleged misuse of public funds, 13 22-0050-CR and 23-0127-CR, as well as accompanying civil matters related to efforts to disqualify the Commonwealth’s attorney,” Kingman said.
“Attorney Torres,” he added, “is the lead counsel in 23-0127-CR, a 1 CMC 1306 Contempt of Legislature charge and Misconduct of Public Office charge. He has also appeared in 22-0050, which comprises 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft. The current case relates to a 1 CMC 1306 Contempt of Legislature charge related to an investigation of the alleged misuse of public funds by former Governor Torres and senior members of his administration. Villanueva was a contractor with and a manager of the BOOST program. Simultaneously, he was an officer in former Governor Torres’s political party and a member of his campaign.”
Kingman acknowledged that it “would be impractical for the Commonwealth Courts to adopt the strictest possible rules for conflicts of interest. The population is small, the bar association is small, and there are many deep familial and business connections that span decades. With a strict standard for automatic disqualification, many defendants could plausibly be deprived of access to counsel [and] every criminal defense attorney could be conflicted in some way if there were the strictest test for automatic disqualification. The Torres Brothers … have advanced such an expansive and strict interpretation of interest that would shield their brother/client from prosecution, but clearly do not want such a rule to apply to themselves.”
Moreover, Kingman said, “22-CR-0050, 23-0127-CR, the present case, and other active criminal investigations known to Attorney Torres all involve allegations of financial impropriety carried on during the administration of defendant Torres with his cooperation, knowledge, or direction.”
Kingman said the “conflicted firm here appeared after close of business on the day before the pretrial hearing. The conflict — to wit, the interests of former Governor Torres in the BOOST investigation and any criminal proceedings based on the program with his associates — is one that does not require informing the court of evidence unknown to it.”
“Former Governor Torres’s name and signature are on the notices of awards, the agreements, and the solicitations. Public hearings and evidence have repeated the degree to which former Governor Torres was the authority and decision-maker for the program,” Kingman added.
He said there is no need for a lengthy process of briefing and counter-briefing, which will delay the case.
“If the Torres Brothers conflict is determined to be consentable, such admonishments and signatures can be made before trial. The necessities of tolerance for certain conflicts of interest that would likely require automatic disqualifications in other jurisdictions does not, however, mean that there should be no standards at all for conflicts of interest. Wherever the line is drawn, this case is on the other side of it,” Kingman added.
Subpoenas
Recently, the defense subpoenaed five more lawmakers and a Bank of Saipan official to testify in his bench trial scheduled for Nov. 6.
Those subpoenaed were Reps. Vincent Aldan, Vicente Camacho, John Paul Sablan, Marissa Flores and Vice Speaker Joel Camacho as well as Gina T. Deleon Guerrero of Bank of Saipan.
Last week, the defense subpoenaed the following lawmakers: Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez, Rep. Ralph N. Yumul, House Floor Leader Edwin K. Propst, and Rep. Blas Jonathan “BJ” Attao.
Chambers also subpoenaed Bank of Saipan officials Gina Muna and Karen Kalen.
Likewise, the defense subpoenaed Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman (who is prosecuting the case), Office of the AG investigator Ikluk Masayos, Legislative Sargent-at-Arms Pedro Towai, former Rep. Tina Sablan, and Saipan Tribune reporter Kimberly B. Esmores.
Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja, who is handling the case, has scheduled a motion hearing for Nov. 1.
Background
Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-Gov. Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help implement BOOST in 2022.
BOOST stands for “Building Optimism, Opportunities and Stability Together,” a $17 million federally funded program.
On March 5, 2024, Villanueva appeared before the House Special Committee on Federal Assistance & Disaster-Related Funding and invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked questions about BOOST. After the committee found him in contempt, Speaker Villagomez transmitted to Attorney General Edward Manibusan a “certification of statement of contempt” pertaining to Villanueva.
On March 22, 2024, Villanueva self-surrendered at the Department of Corrections after an arrest warrant was issued against him for contempt. He posted $1,000 bail for his release.
During an arraignment on April 2, 2024, Villanueva pleaded not guilty to the charge of contempt of Legislature.
Last month, Chambers requested the Superior Court to reconsider its ruling denying the defense motion to dismiss the contempt of Legislature case.
The court has yet to issue a ruling on the defense motion for reconsideration.
