FOR OFFENSIVE REMARKS Supreme Court rebukes Goldberg

While rejecting the government’s bid for immediate deportation of two overstaying aliens, the Supreme Court yesterday rebuked Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert Goldberg for making “scandalous” and “offensive” remarks directed at Asian women, and for hurling “unprofessional criticisms ” at a trial court judge.

The high court warned Goldberg to refrain from writing offensive language in court documents, saying it “will not hesitate” to disbar any lawyer “for engaging in such unnecessary pleadings.”

The Supreme Court was referring to comments made by Goldberg in the government’s brief entitled “Children as Deportation Shields,” in which he wrote that “An alien’s uterus is not a license to violate our immigration laws with impunity” and that the CNMI should not “become an Asian baby factory.”

Goldberg also wrote that “many alien parents pretend to believe that dropping babies on CNMI soil somehow immunizes them from our immigration laws.”

These remarks stemmed from the Division of Immigration Services’ efforts to deport Alicia U. Fabricante, a native of the Philippines, and Min Yu Chi, a native of China. Fabricante has overstayed on Saipan for six years, and Chi for three years.

Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Timothy Bellas postponed the deportation of Fabricante and Chi pending the Supreme Court’s decision on a similar case involving another Filipina, Gemma Sagun, who has requested to be allowed to go on voluntary deportation.

The Superior Court has removed the offensive remarks in the government’s legal brief.

However, the high court noted, the “exact same language” was found in the government’s succeeding petition.

The government has petitioned the high tribunal to instruct the trial court to effect the deportation of the two overstaying aliens through a writ of mandamus.

In the government’s petition, Goldberg repeatedly criticized Bellas.

The government lawyer alleged that Bellas “refuses to follow the law,” “refuses to deport overstays” and “clearly violated the law.”

The high court admonished Goldberg for these remarks.

“It is one thing to allege that a judge has made an error in judgment but quite another to accuse a judge of intentionally violating the law which he or she has been sworn to uphold,” the high court said.

“The importance of maintaining and protecting the integrity of the judiciary is reflected by the rule that prohibits lawyers from making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth of falsity concerning the qualification or integrity of a judge,” it added.

As for denying the government’s petition for writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court said it did not find errors in the trial court’s order.

“We find no direct or circumstantial evidence that the trial court purposely delayed its decision to frustrate the government,” the high court said.

“Although we do not condone the trial court’s postponement of its decision, the trial court may take up to one year to issue its opinion,” the court added.