Showing posts with label Federal Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Lawsuit. Show all posts

Sunday, April 03, 2011

The Military's Rape and Sexual Assault Epidemic



On February 15, 2011, fifteen female and two male military veterans filed a class action lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and current Defense Secretary Robert Gates. A second round of plaintiffs will likely be announced in early April. These veterans have charged the defendants with the wholesale and systematic failure to protect service members from being oftentimes repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted while serving in the military; and with a failure to investigate and subsequently prosecute and punish perpetrators.

The complaint reads like a horror story. One gruesome account after another detailing brutal assaults; sometimes repeated and sometimes committed by multiple perpetrators. Rapes and sexual assaults that are ignored and if not ignored so callously prosecuted within the Military Code of Justice as to suggest that rape is nothing more than a minor infraction deserving of little punishment, if any. A system set up to hide evidence, encourage victims to recant, and when the victim tries to receive some semblance of justice they are generally rewarded with demotions, harassment, and shockingly further rapes and sexual assaults as punishment. Victims are warned to stay quiet or face dire consequences. The brave victims are blamed – the women in particular were just asking for it.

One victim in the lawsuit recounted being gang raped; the perpetrators videotaped the rape and then circulated it among other soldiers. When the victim reported the rape to her superior officer, who then viewed the video recording, he told her bluntly that he did not believe she was raped because she “did not act like a rape victim” and “did not struggle enough” in the video. This same victim was seriously injured and covered in severe bruises after the assault --- particularly from her shoulders to her elbows from being held down during the repeated rapes.

Another victim was threatened with a court martial if she continued to “lie” about being raped by her superior officer. Because she deigned to report the rape, as well as the months of sexual harassment and physical abuse she had endured prior to the actual rape, her identity was revealed to others on the military base by her commanding officers. She was subjected to harassment from other soldiers who spit on her, called her names, and one commanding officer said “let her burn” because “she ruins careers.”

Yet another victim that reported her rape to the military chaplain was told that “it must have been God’s will for her to be raped” and he then suggested that she needed to go to church more. Still another victim who was raped in 2007 was later murdered and then buried in a shallow fire pit six months after reporting the rape.

The ramshackle investigatory apparatus and reporting system in place is staffed with military personnel who are often completely unqualified to investigate these crimes. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) token attempt to address the epidemic by creating the very limited and still underfunded “…Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which distributes posters, collects data, but has no enforcement or investigative authority…” has been a constant reminder of how the military thumbs its nose at any attempts to implement genuine reform. In fact, the director of SAPRO, Dr. Kaye Whitley, has absolutely no experience or training dealing with sexual violence. Greg Jacob, the Policy Director for the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), said that Whitley, a social worker, has no real access to policy makers. She has no enforcement, or investigatory authority, and no actual authority to really do anything at all. The Pentagon even went so far as to ignore a subpoena and prevent Dr. Whitley from testifying before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in July 2008.

Specifically, Secretary Gates is accused of ignoring specific Congressional mandates and deadlines designed to implement a sexual assault and harassment prevention system. Instead, plaintiffs allege that Gates hired an inexperienced contractor to implement that prevention system – and that the contractor that was selected had only three employees and their prior contracts were solely for janitorial work. The Washington Post reported on this specific contractor story debacle on November 26, 2010. The inexcusable lack of seriousness with which this epidemic has been treated by the Pentagon truly shocks the conscience.

SWAN Policy Director and former Marine Greg Jacob recently detailed the crux of the investigatory deficiencies within the military for these types of crimes. He stated “[t]here’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence…Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, ‘the character and military service of the accused’.” Jacob described the assessment of each reported crime as “…an HR approach to criminal conduct…Military justice imbued me with the ability to be judge and jury. Honestly, I had no idea what to do.”

It almost sounds impossible to believe – how the DOD has ignored this growing epidemic for years and still no one has been held accountable. Where is the outrage – and where are the resignations? Donald Rumsfeld has not been held to answer for his knowing refusal to implement reform measures mandated by Congress. And on Rumsfeld’s recent book tour, not once during his numerous interviews did any journalist ask a single question about this issue. Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has responded with vague acknowledgments of a clear problem but with no specific response regarding his own failures to address the problem of what can only be characterized as complicity in perpetuating the problem.

An August 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the results of a 2006 survey of 3,750 servicemembers stationed in the U.S. and overseas concluded that:

…occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. At the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip.

Despite the inescapable evidence that this problem is getting worse with each passing year the DOD still maintains that it has a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault in the ranks.

So now these seventeen brave veterans have gone public – with news conferences and repeated interviews – detailing the horrific assaults they have endured and the aftermath of deigning to report these crimes.

The problems for these victims do not get any better when they return home. Shamed, traumatized, and psychologically scarred – suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder known as military sexual trauma (MST) – these victims are so disabled that they cannot function let alone find employment. To add further insult to this disgraceful treatment of the women and men victimized by the DOD’s recalcitrance, these victims have found it next to impossible to receive disability compensation from the Veterans Administration (VA) for their resulting MST. The main reasons being a lack of evidence, evidence being destroyed, and a patently unfair evidentiary burden that victims finds nearly impossible to satisfy. Representative Chellie Pingree (D - ME) recently introduced legislation to redress this specific compensation issue. H.R. 930 will “…mandate that survivors of military sexual violence get the same service-connected disability compensation for their mental health conditions and physical injuries that combat veterans are currently awarded for wounds of war.”

A previous lawsuit filed last December has also charged the DOD with a failure to comply with numerous and ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation regarding the military’s records detailing the reports, investigations, and subsequent dispositions of these crimes.

And the statistics are indeed staggering. In December 2010, the Pentagon released its annual report on sexual harassment and violence – and the number of reports increased 64 percent from the previous year.

Last December, Al Jazeera reported the following shocking statistics:

Every year, rape increases at an alarming rate within American military institutions – and even males are victims of the cycle. In fact, due to raw demographics, one can roughly surmise that most victims of sexual abuse in the military are male. Regardless of gender, reports of victims of military sexual assault have been increasing. In 2007, there were 2,200 reports of rape in the military, whilst in 2009 saw an increase up to 3,230 reports of sexual assault. Many of the victims suffer from Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and are shamed into silence, with numerous cases not even reported. A disturbing trend, however, is how military officials seem to be sweeping this damaging issue under the rug and deflecting blame.

Even more disturbing is the fact that “[a]ccording to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the rate of sexual assault on women in the military is twice that in the civilian population.” Furthermore, “[c]ompared with a 40 per cent arrest rate for sex crimes among civilians, only eight per cent of investigated cases in the military lead to prosecution.”

In 2006 Congress required the Pentagon to begin tracking these reported crimes and their subsequent disposition. Al Jazeera reported that in 2006:

…there were 2,974 reported cases of rape and sexual assault in the military. Of these, only 292 cases resulted in trials, and those netted only 181 prosecutions of perpetrators. Nearly half the cases are dismissed for lack of adequate proof or due to the death of the victim. Less than 11 per cent of the cases result in a court martial. Often, those prosecuted merely suffer a reduction in rank or pay, and 80 per cent receive an honourable discharge nonetheless. The victim, on the other hand, risks ending his or her career when they file charges.

Last week the Air Force released a study finding that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men have been sexually assaulted while serving in the Air Force.

Speaking with SWAN’s Policy Director Greg Jacob, he discussed the current status of the litigation and how SWAN has been working to garner increased bipartisan support for legislative and regulatory reform within the military and the VA. He believes Congress has the political will to act and that the issue is being taken seriously now that the class action lawsuit has been filed. He told me that even though the victims desperately need to be compensated for their disabilities, what these women and men are really seeking is real reform and justice for their suffering and help for those women and men dealing with the threats of sexual violence each and every day while still trying to serve the nation with honor.

But real change can only be achieved when the military begins to consider the seriousness of the crimes and the impact on the victims as paramount to any potential impact on the careers of the accused servicemembers; right now the concern within the military is focused solely on protecting the accused and not the victims. The military has become an entrenched system that all too easily blames victims – and retaliates against those victims with systematic harassment and intimidation. Victims are subjected to ridicule and they all too often become convinced that the shame will be too much to bear.

Real change will take time – but before that change can even begin the military and Secretary Gates must take responsibility for refusing to confront the problem and acknowledge the military’s complicity in obstructing justice for so many years and creating what Greg Jacob called a “climate of impunity.”

You can visit SWAN’s Change.org page to take action and let Congress know that the Armed Forces must be held accountable for perpetuating this rape and sexual assault epidemic.

Antoinette Bonsignore, J.D., is a Seattle based workers’ rights advocate most recently focused on worker compensation issues. She is a regular blogger for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. She lives in Redmond, WA.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Release of federalization suit docs OK'd

Release of federalization suit docs OK'd

Thursday, November 26, 2009
House committee, Sablan press for documents
By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

The Fitial administration has started preparing for the release of copies of contracts, fee agreements and other records connected with the governor's federalization lawsuit.

Rep. Tina Sablan (Ind-Saipan) and House Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Ray N. Yumul (R-Saipan) made a follow up request for the release of the documents on Wednesday.

The request came a few days after U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed on Monday two of the three counts of the lawsuit, citing the CNMI's failure to prove its case.

Gov. Benigno R. Fitial reiterated yesterday that he wants to read Friedman's opinion first before deciding what to do next, including whether to appeal the decision.

At least 14 sets of documents are still being requested by Sablan and the Ways and Means Committee from the Office of the Attorney General, in addition to the over 30 pages that the OAG released in August.

Sablan identified these additional documents in a Nov. 19 letter to assistant attorney general Anthony Welch.

“I was told last week and again this [Wednesday] morning by Mr. Welch that these documents are now being prepared for release,” Sablan told Saipan Tribune in an interview at her office yesterday.

Welch, in a brief phone interview, confirmed that the OAG is “working on what Sablan asked for.”

He said it takes time for these documents to be sorted and prepared for release.

Sablan said the contract, engagement letter and/or fee agreement, along with change orders, between the CNMI government and its Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Jenner & Block LLC, are among the 14 specific sets of documents that she and the committee have asked from the OAG.

“There are probably a lot more than what was has been spent since the contract was signed early last year,” Sablan told Saipan Tribune.

Jenner & Block LLP billed the CNMI $395,971.81 between Aug. 26, 2008 and Feb. 27, 2009.

But Sablan said the released billing invoices of close to $400,000 covers only six months, and does not include the prior months when the contract was signed and the months after February this year.

The federal judge handling the federalization lawsuit said he will issue an opinion explaining his decision later this week.

Fitial's special legal counsel, Howard Willens, is traveling to Washington, D.C. this Sunday to consult with Jenner & Block on Monday.

This means the CNMI continues to incur billings as the law firm continues its work.

The CNMI filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over federalization of the CNMI, asking the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Labor from taking over the local labor system.

Federalization is set to start on Saturday, Nov. 28.

14 sets of documents

Attorney General Ed Buckingham tasked Welch to handle the release of documents to Sablan and the House committee pursuant to an Open Government Act request.

On Nov. 18, Buckingham, Deputy Attorney General Joe Taijeron, Welch, Sablan and Yumul met to discuss the documents requested by the committee. The OAG asked Sablan to identify the specific documents requested.

On Nov. 19, Sablan wrote a two-page letter addressed to Welch identifying the 14 sets of documents, including a copy of the contract, engagement letter and/or fee agreement between the CNMI government and Willens, including any change orders.

In that letter, Sablan said the OAG indicated that the earliest time the requested documents would be provided would be Nov. 25, which was yesterday. OAG needed more time to prepare and release the documents.

Sablan also asked for a copy of summaries and detailed and unredacted billing invoices from Jenner & Block, as well as from Willens, to the CNMI government, from April 1, 2008, to the present.

The lawmaker also asked for a copy of memoranda issued by Fitial to the Department of Finance authorizing any payments made to Jenner & Block and Willens, from April 1, 2008 to the present.

Also requested are copies of wire transfer authorizations from Finance with respect to payments made to Jenner & Block and Willens from April 1, 2008 to the present.

Sablan, who won an Open Government Act lawsuit against the government, also asked for a copy of complete and unredacted fund status reports of all accounts under the Office of the Governor from April 1, 2008 to the present date.

Also being requested is a copy of a full listing and description of all sources of funding for the CNMI government's contract or agreement with Jenner & Block and Willens.

Lastly, Sablan is asking for a copy of a full listing of the departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the CNMI government from which any public funds have been reprogrammed in order to finance the CNMI lawsuit against the federal government.

After the documents are received, Yumul will be calling for a meeting of the members of the House Ways and Means Committee to review the records.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

All set for federal takeover

All set for federal takeover

Wednesday, 25 November 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter

THE U.S. Department of Homeland Security will take control of the islands’ immigration system as scheduled on Saturday following federal Judge Paul Friedman’s decision to dismiss Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s lawsuit.

Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia placed the case under advisement last March 12, 2009.

The first complaint seeks a permanent injunction on labor-related provisions of the federalization law, or U.S. P.L. 110-229, on grounds that it infringes on the CNMI’s right to self-government under its Covenant with the United States. It was filed on Sept. 12, 2008.

In November of the same year, the governor, through the Jenner & Block law firm and his special legal counsel Howard P. Willens, amended the complaint and sought for a preliminary injunction citing constitutional violations as grounds.

The governor said federalization law is an economic disaster for the CNMI’s economy because it will reduce to zero the number of foreign workers on the islands by Dec. 31, 2014.

The U.S. Department of Justice asked the federal court to dismiss the case, saying the CNMI’s arguments are purely speculative and stressed that local immigration policy had opened up the islands to security risks, including from Russian Mafia and Chinese triads.

DOJ also noted that the Covenant allows the U.S. Congress to apply federal immigration law to the islands.

In his Nov. 23 two-page order dismissing the case, Friedman said the CNMI “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to counts I and II of its amended complaint and that those claims therefore should be dismissed.”
The judge said the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.

He said an opinion regarding the court’s reasoning for its order will follow.
The administration is paying Jenner & Block a retainer of $50,000 a month for its legal services, excluding out-of-pocket reimbursements.

Saipan Independent Rep. Tina Sablan, who forced the administration to release the billing records, said they had known that the lawsuit was unlikely to prevail.
“Even Howard Willens and Jenner & Block acknowledged months ago, before filing the lawsuit in the first place, that the CNMI was likely to lose. Judge Friedman’s dismissal should not come as a surprise to anyone, not even the administration,” she told the Variety in an e-mail.

The lawmaker hopes to get the remaining financial records further detailing how public funds were spent for the lawsuit.

The financial records she obtained were up to April of this year only.
“I hope that the financial records will be fully disclosed now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and that the CNMI can finally move on toward mending relations with the federal government and adjusting to the fact that federal immigration law will apply here starting on Nov. 28,” she said.

“The CNMI has been fighting federalization for so long, and fighting so hard to maintain the status quo, that we have missed the opportunities to build a better, stronger, more self-reliant CNMI. Now is the time to open our eyes and wake up to the reality that times are changing. The old labor and immigration system is coming to an end. We have to adapt,” she added.

In a statement, Fitial said: “We had excellent representation from our lawyers in Washington, D.C. We respect Judge Friedman and appreciate the time and careful consideration he gave to this case. We look forward to examining his opinion before making any decisions about our future course of action on this matter.”

The judge, he added, is expected to separately rule this week on the CNMI’s third complaint, an emergency injunctive relief to stop the interim final regulations on transitional worker program on grounds that they failed to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act.

Fitial said Willens is “traveling to Washington this Sunday and will be consulting with our D.C. lawyers on Monday. After those discussions, I expect to receive a recommendation from counsel regarding both of Judge Friedman’s decisions.”
The ruling came almost a day after the governor won the runoff election.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

GovGuam Found to Be in Civil Contempt

GovGuam found to be in civil contempt
By Mindy Aguon
Published Mar 20, 2009
KUAM News

Despite the Government of Guam's contention that Public Law 30-1 was a viable solution, District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood in a 16-page decision shot down every argument presented by the government. Not only did she hold the government in civil contempt and order the immediate payment of nearly $4 million by Monday, but the judge admonished lawmakers for passing legislation that she deemed unconstitutional.

It's clear in the chief judge's decision that the she wasn't buying GovGuam's argument that existing Guam policy was the answer to closing the dump and opening a new landfill. In fact, the judge contends lawmakers who voted for its passage violated their oath of office. Her order requires weekly one million dollar payments and compliance by the government otherwise stiff monetary penalties will be imposed.

Saying the court and the people of Guam have been more than patient in expecting Guam's leaders to jointly arrive at a solution to the Ordot Dump crisis, Tydingco-Gatewood made it clear Friday that inaction and obstacles will no longer be tolerated. She further reiterated her position by finding the government of Guam in civil contempt. Saying the government met both thresholds to be held in contempt, the judge first found that the government disobeyed a specific court order she handed down on February 13, mandating weekly cash payments beginning March 1.

Tydingco-Gatewood noted that the order could not be more specific and definite, writing, "It unequivocally told the government what it was to do, and when it was to do it. No reasonable person or entity could be confused as to what was required." While the government maintained that Public Law 30-1 represented its good faith effort to find a viable alternative to the weekly payment, the chief judge found that despite Governor Felix Camacho's cooperation through the introduction of Bill 51 and specific funding mechanisms, the legislature made "radical amendments" and "Cannot imagine how PL 30-1 could qualify as a reasonable step taken in compliance with the court's February 13 2009 order."

Senator B.J. Cruz introduced Section 6 of the public law prohibiting the government from making any payments for consent decree-related projects unless first receiving approval from the Guam Legislature. It's this particular section the judge says was clearly enacted in direct contravention of her order and it's this section that she declared null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Tydingco-Gatewood added that every lawmaker who supported the enactment of Section 6 violated his or her oath of office, saying, "...not only have our island's officials wasted time and money by enacting patently unconstitutional legislation designed to frustrate compliance with a valid court order effecting federal law, they have 'warred against the Constitution', thereby violating their oath of office."

She also found that the government's force majeure argument was not only unfounded and frivolous but she warned that future attempts to use that argument would be cause for sanctions.

After finding the government in civil contempt the court ordered the government to immediately turn over the $3.9 million that has been set aside by the Camacho Administration by noon on Monday, March 23. The judge noted that the government may purge its contempt and avoid the actual payment of the coercive sanction by immediately coming into compliance reiterating the suggestion of using Section 30-backed revenue bonds. She even referred to the government's consultants that pointed out flaws in Public Law 30-1 that created uncertainties for the issuance of financing for consent decree projects.

Should the government fail to deposit the money on Monday, the court will immediately impose daily civil contempt sanctions beginning at $10,000 and doubling each day, up to a daily limit of $250,000. If no payment is made by April 1, the sanctions will accrue at a quarter-million dollars per day until the government comes into full compliance.

With a little more than two years of airspace left at the dump, the court is hopeful today's order will be the catalyst for officials to take action in compliance with the consent decree.

Voicing her own response to the order, Senator Judi Guthertz wrote, "I am disappointed in the District Court Judge's ruling. I am studying the ruling and I believe the repercussions on our community will be severe. I believe that the judge is not being reasonable and I believe the Legislature should consider whether it should challenge the judge’s interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.” As for acting speaker Tom Ada, he reacted by saying he was disappointed because he felt the Legislature provided viable options in the Public Law 30-1, however he understands the reality is those options may not be available as soon as the court may have wanted them. Ada added he is focusing his attention on how the million dollar weekly payments will affect the people of Guam.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Feds Ask Court to Dismiss Fitial Lawsuit

Feds ask court to dismiss Fitial lawsuit
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
By Gemma Q. Casas
Marianas Variety News Staff

THE U.S. Department of Justice is asking the federal court in the nation’s capital to dismiss the Fitial administration’s federalization lawsuit, saying the governor’s arguments are “speculative and hypothetical.”

Gov. Benigno R. Fitial filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 12.

Theodore W. Atkinson, a trial attorney of the District Court Section of the Office of Immigration Litigation under the U.S. Department of Justice, argued in his four-page motion that there is no basis for the federal court to address the speculated disastrous impact of the federalization law.

“The action should be dismissed for four reasons: 1) the CNMI lacks standing to bring this action because the injuries alleged by the CNMI are not ‘concrete and particularized’ but are instead speculative and hypothetical; 2) even if the alleged harms are not speculative, the injuries alleged are too remote for the court to adequately address them at this time and thus the action is not ripe,” Atkinson stated.

He added: “The governor of the CNMI lacks standing to bring this action on behalf of the CNMI because he cannot show that he has protected ‘procedural interest’ that confers standing on him to bring this action; and 4) even if the CNMI has met its constitutional standing requirements, the action should be dismissed because the Covenant generally permits Congress to apply federal law to the CNMI and expressly and unambiguously permits Congress to apply the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States to the CNMI.”

Atkinson also submitted to the federal court 65 pages of memorandum of points and authorities to substantiate the DOJ’s position on the lawsuit which named as defendants Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao in their official capacities.

The governor’s lawyers have up to Jan. 16, 2009 to file a reply.

According to his lawsuit, the federalization law will be disastrous to the local economy, which is heavily dependent on cheap foreign workers.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Admin insists lawsuit met legal requirements

By Agnes E. Donato

The Fitial administration insists it met legal requirements when it filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Commonwealth against the U.S. government to block the labor provisions of the new CNMI immigration law.

Press secretary Charles P. Reyes, in response to a legal opinion issued by the Senate's staff legal counsel Michael Ernest, said, “There is no legal issue here. We are in compliance with the legal requirements, even according to Mr. Ernest's analysis.”

Ernest maintains that the CNMI Constitution allows an outside law firm to “represent the CNMI in the litigation, but it must be with the explicit authority granted from the [attorney general] and the AG must maintain some minimal control over the litigation.”

Acting attorney general Gregory Baka holds that the CNMI Constitution authorizes the AG's office to refer cases to private law firms and that delegation is not legally required to be in writing. “Hundreds of pleadings are filed annually by the OAG without the AG's personal review or signature. Yet as the deputy attorney general, I did personally review and comment upon various drafts of the complaint in our Section 903 litigation,” Baka has said in a letter previously sent to Rep. Tina Sablan.

Section 903 of the U.S.-CNMI Covenant allows either party to bring to court any dispute arising under the Covenant.

“Regarding the story on the federal lawsuit,” Reyes wrote in an email yesterday, “again, the AG did approve the filing of the lawsuit, and written authorization is not required. Secondly, Howard Willens has served as an Assistant Attorney General, as well as Special Counsel to the Governor, since January 2006, and he has represented the Commonwealth in that capacity in the local courts.”

The U.S.-based law firm, Jenner & Block, and attorney Howard Willens, special legal counsel to Governor Fitial, are representing the CNMI government in the lawsuit.