Judge’s tentative ruling is to deny all motions

The federal court heard yesterday the pre-trial motions filed by Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez and his co-defendants James Santos and Joaquina Santos.

After listening to the lawyers’ arguments, U.S. District Court for the NMI chief judge Alex R. Munson said he is placing the matter under advisement and that he will issue a written decision.

Before the start of the hearing, Munson announced that based on his review of the arguments his tentative ruling is to deny all the motions.

Villagomez appeared in court with three lawyers—David Lujan, Leilani Lujan, and Joey San Nicolas. Leilani Lujan made the oral argument on behalf of the lieutenant governor.

James Santos was with attorney Victorino DLG. Torres, while his wife, Joaquina Santos, came with attorney Ramon Quichocho.

In Villagomez’s motion to dismiss, Leilani Lujan insisted that the indictment is defective as the allegations in the conspiracy charge are time-barred due to the statute of limitations of five years.

She pointed out that the indictment does not contain a single allegation of any overt act or wrongdoing by Villagomez or any co-conspirator between 2000 and 2007.

She said that in that span of seven years and eight months, there was absolutely no activity whatsoever.

Leilani Lujan said the court should dismiss the conspiracy count as it relates to the transaction of 1998 to 2000 since it is already beyond the five-year statute of limitations.

She said there should be at least one overt act that is required for the 2007 transaction.

“But that did not occur! Instead we have seven years and eight months’ gap,” Lujan said, adding that the jury would have no basis to make a factual finding.

Lawyers Torres and Quichocho joined in Villagomez’s motion.

Quichocho said the indictment does not allege that his client, Joaquina Santos, was an agent of the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. It just says that Joaquina Santos aided and abetted, but there are no elements provided with respect to aiding and abetting, he said.

Quichocho said the charge was must dismissed for a failure to state a claim.

He said the jury is going to be confused as to which count will they decide with respect to Joaquina Santos.

Torres noted several issues as to the wire fraud and the allegations whether the facts were pled with particularity.

“We believe that it puts the defendants in a very awkward position. And we’re not in a position to put up a solid defense and we don’t know with adequate notice on the pleading itself,” Torres later told Saipan Tribune.

On Villagomez’s motion for a bill of particulars, Leilani Lujan said they want disclosure of the agents’ rough notes.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O’Malley did not argue much at the hearing, explaining later that he believes the U.S. government’s arguments were sufficiently stated in the pleadings submitted in court.

“Their arguments raised during the oral hearing weren’t really that different from their own motions,” he said.

As for the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the prosecutor said the purpose of the indictment is merely to put the defendant on notice of what the charges are.

“It doesn’t have to be tremendously specific. They were seeking a level of specificity that we argued that the law does not require and that based on that the indictment was sufficient,” O’Malley said.

He said the defendants were trying to seek dismissal of the 1998 to 2000 claims due to the five-year statute of limitations.

O’Malley said the U.S. government’s argument is that there was one ongoing conspiracy, one ongoing agreement that began in 1998 and went dormant for a period and was reactivated in 2007.

“The law of conspiracy supports that. Our position is that the law of conspiracy is such that conspiracy doesn’t die just because a period of time has passed. A conspiracy is presumed to continue until one of the conspirators or all of the conspirators take an affirmative step to disband it,” he said.

O’Malley said the fact that the defendants reactivated the conspiracy in 2007 would give the U.S. government jurisdiction.