Former public auditor files $750K suit vs CNMI

A former public auditor in the CNMI has filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court of Idaho, seeking damages of over $750,000 against the CNMI government, three CNMI magistrates, former attorneys at the Attorney General’s Office, and the Department of Interior.

Robert D. Bradshaw, who served as temporary public auditor for the CNMI from 1993 to 1994, claimed to have suffered from injustice in proceedings at the CNMI courts, which led to a $139,000-default judgment against him.

Bradshaw, a 71-year-old resident of Idaho, has also asked attorney general Pamela Brown to prosecute alleged postal fraud that was committed in effecting service of summons on the auditor in the CNMI court proceedings, when no actual service allegedly occurred.

In a 76-page amended complaint, Bradshaw claimed that his civil rights—including the right to due process and equal protection of the laws—have been violated. He also claimed being discriminated against due to his national origin as an American from the continental United States.

Defendants in the pending Idaho suit include the CNMI; former acting attorney general Nicole C. Forelli; former assistant attorneys general William C. Bush, L. David Sosebee, and Andrew Clayton; the Interior department; Supreme Court justices John Manglona and Alexandro Castro; former Superior Court judge Timothy Bellas; Robert A. Bisom; and lawyer Jay H. Sorenson.

Bradshaw sued the government attorneys and the magistrates in their personal capacities. He sued Castro as Superior Court judge pro tempore in a court proceeding he was involved in, and Bellas as Supreme Court justice pro tempore in an appeal that followed.

Bisom used to be an employee under Bradshaw’s supervision as temporary public auditor. Bradshaw fired Bisom for cause, prompting the latter to file a lawsuit in federal court, which lost even at the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 1996, though, Bisom filed a separate lawsuit against Bradshaw at the CNMI Superior Court.

Bradshaw said he advised the CNMI Attorney General’s Office not to accept service of summons and complaint on his behalf, but that he would contact the AGO to represent him to respond the suit if service is made on him. He claimed that no service was made on him regarding the Superior Court complaint.

“During the filings of several motions and several amendments by Bisom and/or his attorney, Jay H. Sorenson, the [AGO] accepted service for Bradshaw on the complaints without Bradshaw’s knowledge, authorization, and/or request (and also went on to file motions in court in Bradshaw’s name). [The AGO] made no answer in court on any of these served complaints it had accepted from Bisom/Sorenson without Bradshaw’s authorization,” Bradshaw’s complaint stated.

“The primary action of the [AGO] was to allow the court to enter a default judgment on Bradshaw…[who] was never notified or informed at all on what was happening in court on this [Superior Court] case,” it added.

Bradshaw claimed that the AGO, like Bisom, showed the Superior Court postal receipts signed allegedly by an unknown third party unauthorized by him, which became evidence of service of complaints and processes on him.

“The AG’s presentation of fraudulent postal receipts in connection with alleged communications from the AG to Bradshaw raise the spectrum that the AG’s action not only involved fraud and conspiracy with Bisom/Sorenson and the CNMI judge or judges; but also that the conspiratorial action involved intentional concealment of the fraud…to keep Bradshaw ignorant of the proceedings in court and the violation of his rights by the AG and the judges,” Bradshaw’s suit alleged.

Bradshaw alleged that Castro permitted the trial to proceed despite knowing that he has no direct involvement in the proceedings. Castro also refused to allow payment of the default judgment on the basis of the Indemnification Act, which would have held the CNMI government liable for the judgment, considering that it stemmed from Bradshaw’s actions as public auditor. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision.

Bradshaw claimed that the CNMI courts’ decision violated his employment contract with the CNMI government when he served as temporary public auditor, saying that the contractual relationship entitled him to indemnification any arising monetary losses in his employment.

Bradshaw claimed being discriminated as “a U.S. statesider who could be easily made to accept the blame for the actions and omissions of the CNMI AG and the courts.”

“As a minimum, DOI has acted to help conceal the open discrimination against outsiders who are present legally in the CNMI,” he added.