Previous Story
Malite defendants ask for dismissal of AGO lawsuit
|
Posted on Feb 09 2005
The defendants in the controversial Malite case insisted on the dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that it was not brought to court by a lawful attorney general, rebutting Pamela Brown’s claim that her Senate confirmation to the post beat the 90-day statutory deadline.
The Marianas Public Lands Authority, its board and commissioner Edward DeLeon Guerrero, together with the Malite estate, jointly asserted that Brown failed to obtain Senate confirmation within the 90-day deadline from the time she was nominated to the attorney general post on June 16, 2003.
They disagreed with Brown that the 90-day period did not begin until the Senate conducted a session on Aug. 27, 2003.
“Such an argument is hogwash and does not even merit a reply. The defendants deplore the waste of taxpayer resources in such supplemental pleadings,” the defendants’ attorneys said in a document they filed with the Superior Court yesterday.
“Nothing in the CNMI Code or the Constitution supports this argument. If the CNMI Legislature wanted to begin the 90-day period only when the Senate was in session, they would have made it clear in [the statute]. The statute is not ambiguous. It doesn’t say ‘session days.’ It merely says days,” the defendants said.
Assistant attorney general James Livingstone, on behalf of Brown, earlier said that the 90-day timeframe within which to confirm Brown’s nomination did not begin right after the governor made the nomination. He said that the Senate was in recess at the time the nomination was made.
He said the 90-day clock only began when the Senate convened for a session on Aug. 27, 2003, explaining that Brown was confirmed 82 days thereafter.
