Hocog claims legislative immunity
Saying he was acting then as a Rota senator, Lt. Gov. Victor B. Hocog insists he is immune to the lawsuit filed by Japanese investor Takahisa Yamamoto against him and the owners of cargo ship M/V Luta.
In his response to Yamamoto’s lawsuit, Hocog claimed legislative immunity, saying the actions alleged were undertaken in his capacity as senator.
In Hocog’s two-page answer, his lawyer, F. Randall Cunliffe, asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to dismiss the case in its entirety.
Cunliffe also argued that the complaint does not identify claims that give the federal court jurisdiction over them. The lawyer also denied other allegations in the lawsuit.
Last month, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied Hocog’s motion to dismiss Yamamoto’s first amended complaint against him and owners of M/V Luta.
Manglona said that Hocog’s second motion to dismiss raises defenses that were available to him when he filed his first motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 25, 2016, Yamamoto sued M/V Luta, Luta Mermaid LLC and six other defendants, including Hocog, alleging beach of contract and fraud.
On Nov. 17, 2016, Hocog filed a motion to dismiss Yamamoto’s complaint for failure to plead sufficient facts to sustain a claim of fraud.
In response, on Dec. 1, 2016, Yamamoto amended his complaint. The court then determined that Hocog’s motion to dismiss was moot.
Within hours of the court’s order, Hocog filed another motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. He asserted that the first amended complaint was not verified.
On March 7, 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
Last March 22, Hocog filed the motion to dismiss to first amended complaint.
I thought immunity applies only during session. Anything you say deprives everyone their constitutional rights. You can screw anyone including Mr. Yamamoto-san.
My recollection of legislative immunity is limited only to what a member says or does during an officially sanctioned session or meeting of either the House or Senate. And I think it also applies, if a member is on the way going to attend a session or meting. Those were what I remembered coming across as a former member back then. I hope it has not changed overnight for a simple convenience to suit anyone’s butt for that matter.
You’re right. It has to be a bona fide legislative activity for a legislator to claim immunity. Buying a boat and negotiating for investment is nowhere a point for immunity. Fighting out of the legislative chamber won’t get you immunity. Driving from a picnic to home or elsewhere won’t get you immunity. And only during session as Taotaoisland says.
I have not been so observant in following this losers (Victor) court cases, BUT by an occasional glance, it would seem that he has been running down the phone directory list of available attorney’s in his attempts to keep from having to appear in court to account for the “alleged” $mills. unaccounted for.
BS!. Like someone said, “when the Governor is away, the mice……..I meant Actng. Governor will come out and play!”. So very true to the last drop.
It also forms a negative chain reaction down to the civil service employees from certain cabinet member(s) which affects their loyalty, integrity and fair judgements to fulfill………. as they say “special interest”.
No matter how great you do your job for the Department you’re in, you’re useless when corruptics come out to play. OPA in the meantime will not do anything because they too, are part of the special interest group.
As cabinet members (Commissioner, Superintendent, Secretary) your jobs could be the easiest in the Department if you act like one but, when you encroach into the day to day operations, and making operational decisions, when you don’t have too, you’re probably covering your illegal tracks from being uprooted. Like the wise man said, what smells will eventually, wreak one day no matter how you cover it!.
What a loser!