Lilian Tenorio further noted in documents she filed in court that Associate Judge Perry Inos and the plaintiff’s counsel, Robert Myers, have very close professional relationship.
She said it was a known fact that Inos turned over to Myers all his cases when he was appointed to the bench.
“Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Inos, who was in private practice then, told me that before assuming judicial office, he would be turning over his cases to attorney Robert Myers. I have personal knowledge that Judge Inos, while he was in private practice, also served as mentor to attorney Myers,” Tenorio said.
In her genealogy research, Tenorio said she found out that the judge is related to the plaintiff.
“Judge’s Inos’s father, Joseph S. Inos, is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff’s first cousin. I also learned that plaintiff Felipe Atalig was also related to Debra Concepcion Atalig Inos, the spouse of Judge Inos. The plaintiff and Mrs. Inos are second cousins, once removed,” she said.
According to Tenorio, the judge already warned her she could be sanctioned if she files a motion requesting for his removal in the case.
The bench trial was set for April 18.
Atalig is seeking public disclosure of certain documents from the Tinian mayor’s office but Tenorio said the records had already been made available.
Nonetheless, the trial was set to hear Atalig’s complaints.
Tenorio said Inos should not preside over the case because of his perceived biases.
She said Inos already inhibited himself in some cases where a conflict of interest was apparent.
“Judge Inos has disqualified himself from presiding over proceedings where the familiar and friendship relationships were significantly more attenuated. In the matter of Duenas v. Duenas, Civ. No. 10-0205, he recused himself without offering any reason on the record for declining to preside over the case. In the matter of Commonwealth v. Sasamoto, Crim. No. 10-009, Judge Inos also disqualified himself,” she added.
She said the judge inhibited himself from hearing the Sasamoto case because Dr. Ed Tudor, one of the parties involved, treated his pet dog before the scheduled change of plea hearing.
