For those curious as to the history of the Roe/Doe Federal Court Case here is an overview and some relevant information.

From the outset of the Roe/Doe litigation 3 years ago, Roe/Doe have sought on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Fund beneficiaries to protect and preserve the Fund’s viability and assets, through judicial remedies available in the U.S. District court but not in the CNMI judiciary.  Had the Fund Board and/or CRA proceeded along the course proposed, initiated, and pursued by Roe/Doe in the U.S. District Court—rather than spending millions of Fund dollars in failed efforts to contest/oppose the Roe/Doe efforts—the Fund would have availed itself and its beneficiaries of the opportunity throughout the ensuing 3 years to expeditiously and aggressively collect/enforce the $230 million judgment in the U.S. Court with the assistance of U.S. Marshals, rather than having the judgment languish with no meaningfuly collection/enforcement transpiring in the CNMI Superior Court under guidance of the Fund’s privately retained counsel.

These efforts by Roe/Doe in the still pending U.S. District Court litigation have included:

• appointment of a federal equity receiver, selected and monitored by a U.S. judge, with the objective not to liquidate the Fund (as falsely claimed by Roe/Doe adversaries/opponents in design to frighten and alarm Fund beneficiaries who indeed would have over the past 3 years benefited from this federal remedy) but, rather, to expeditiously seek Federal Court/U.S. Marshall enforcement, collection, and satisfaction of the $230 million judgment now unpaid over 3 years (as, meanwhile, the Fund has paid more than $1 million and now going on $2 million to private lawyers Joseph Camacho [now a CNMI judge], his wife Viola Alepuyo, Deborah Fisher [now CUC's well compensated in-house lawyer], her husband Braddock Huesman, and Huesman’s law school classmate [SMU Class of 2000?] Jeremy Coffey of the Boston situated Brown/Rudnick law firm—these sums paid over the past 3 years in opposing the Roe/Doe litigation and denigrating Roe/Doe counsel in the U.S. District Court; in the initiation of a failed appeal of Chief Judge Alex R. Munson’s 1/25/10 order (copy attached—see especially pp. 2-6) by Fund attorneys Alepuyo, Fisher, and Huesman, to the 9th Circuit Court (see also the representations made 2/26/10 (transcript attached) by attorneys Alepuyo and Fisher to CNMI Judge Govendo—purporting to decry the notion of ‘pension cuts’ ultimately sought by Alepuyo/Fund counsel last January and, more recently, in the bankruptcy court) with the appeal dismissed last October 17 (copy attached); and, most recently, lavishly paid Fund counsel Huesman and his SMU Law School classmate Coffey (see attached Coffey application at ¶3 & Huesman’s TX Bar Registration) then orchesatrating with Coffey’s Brown/Rudnick law firm their failed bankruptcy but handsome-attorney-fee-payday.)(incidentally, there has been mention that Fund officials had already/long ago been advised by way of legal research/written memoranda from a then-Fund lawyer (James E. Hollman?) that bankruptcy for the Fund was not an option as it the Fund was precluded by Federal Bankruptcy Law from seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection);

• initiation of a U.S. Court mandated equitable accounting of Fund assets and expenditures over many years, with federal legal remedies available in light of any illicit misconduct;
  
  
• assessment of past/current Fund officials as to mandatory legal obligations including utmost fiduciary/trust responsibilities, with federal legal remedies available in light of any illicit misconduct respecting past/current Fund officials, board members, attorneys, etc.;
  
  
• class action certification to pursue the above-described matters, including claims premised on breaches of trust/fidiciary duties;
  
  
• issuance of what is known as a creditors’ bill in equity in order to enforce the $230 million judgment against the CNMI;
  
  
• issuance of federal court restraining orders, injunctions, and other equitable relief, preventing the CNMI government from exerting undue influence and/or control over the Fund and its assets (e.g. the CNMI’s now publicly-announced intention to declare an ‘emergency’ in asserting unilateral seizure/control of the fund and its assets…a design called to the federal court’s attention by roe/doe counsel a year ago during a federal court hearing);
  
  
• insulation of the Fund and its assets (by U.S. Court protective orders, restraining orders, injunctions) from CNMI political machinations, political designs, political intermeddling, and political squabbling (including any design to seize control of the Fund and Fund assets, now, by ostensible ‘emergency’ declaration by CNMI officials); and, 
• removal of the Fund and its assets from oversight by a CNMI Judiciary which is both: 
• utterly conflicted being itself staffed with judges/justices who are themselves actively-employed Fund beneficiaries, situated in a CNMI Judicial Complex built with Fund loan money to date never repaid to the Fund; and, 
• wholly incapable, due to CNMI constitutional provisions and law, from itself commanding or effecting the enforcement, collection, or satisfaction of the $230 million judgment from the CNMI government.

Roe.App.Notice.24Feb10.pdf

Roe.App.Memorandum.Opinion.17Oct2011.pdf

Fund.Transcript.26Feb2010.Govendo.pdf

Fund.06-0367.Motn.Recon.Equit.Relief.1Jan2012.CNMI.Super.Ct..pdf

Fund.Amended.$231Million.Judgment.29June2009.pdf

Fund.Coffey.17April2012.Application.pdf

Fund.Huesman.SMU.Graduate.May.pdf