Public accountability requires a clear explanation of how this case unraveled
This letter is based on publicly available court opinions, court filings, the filed settlement exhibit, and reported proceedings, and it expresses my opinion on what those records show.
The public deserves a plain-English explanation of how a major public-corruption case ended in dismissal with prejudice (meaning permanently dismissed and generally not able to be filed again) after years of litigation. Based on the public record, this case appears to have been weakened not simply by the existence or nonexistence of the underlying allegations, but also by years of conflict litigation, privileged-information issues, screening disputes, and repeated challenges to the prosecution’s structure. In August 2025, the CNMI Supreme Court reversed the blanket disqualification of the entire Office of the Attorney General, but it also affirmed the disqualification of specific attorneys and recognized conflict-related problems in the record.
The warning signs were visible early. The Supreme Court’s 2025 opinions show that the subpoena dispute had already raised “obvious conflict and other ethical concerns” before later criminal prosecution developed around related issues. The same opinions also describe how Attorney General Edward Manibusan and Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass were tied to the later conflict litigation through prior advisory involvement and privileged-information issues.
Key Public Timeline
2020: According to the CNMI Supreme Court, the Office of the Governor sought legal advice from the OAG regarding compliance with a legislative subpoena. The record described “obvious conflict and other ethical concerns,” making clear from an early stage that any later prosecution arising from that same dispute would require strict conflict controls and careful separation of roles.
2021: Public proceedings show the subpoena issue had become part of a formal public-accountability dispute involving legislative oversight and public expenditures. That meant any later criminal case connected to the same subject would predictably draw close scrutiny over privilege, conflict, and fairness.
April 8, 2022: The Commonwealth charged former Governor Ralph DLG Torres in Case No. 22-0050 with 12 counts of misconduct in public office, one count of theft, and one count of contempt. Public reporting described the case as involving allegations tied to premium-class airline travel and the subpoena dispute.
May-June 2022: The defense moved to disqualify the OAG. The evidentiary record later summarized by the CNMI Supreme Court reflected that Glass had been exposed to privileged information relating to the contempt issue, and that Manibusan had prior involvement through the earlier legal-services request.
August 23, 2022: The trial court dismissed the contempt count without prejudice (meaning it could be filed again later) because of the privileged-information problem, while allowing the remaining charges to continue. In my view, that should have prompted a thorough reassessment of conflict controls and prosecutorial independence. The Supreme Court’s later summary confirms that the contempt count had been dismissed over privileged-information concerns.
February-March 2023: The OAG retained special prosecutor James Kingman. But the Supreme Court later noted that Kingman’s arrangement still involved reporting to the Attorney General and association with Glass as local counsel. That became a major issue because the same opinions later held that Glass and Kingman had to be disqualified based on the facts surrounding those relationships.
April 2023: The defense again moved to disqualify the prosecution, arguing that the screening measures were insufficient. By that point, the case had already moved beyond the underlying allegations and into a sustained legal fight over whether the prosecution could continue fairly and lawfully. That is my characterization of the procedural posture reflected in the public opinions.
October 2023: The Commonwealth filed a separate case, No. 23-0127, charging contempt and misconduct in public office related to the subpoena matter. Public reporting and later court materials indicate that this widened the litigation rather than cleanly resolving the earlier conflict questions.
Late 2023 through 2024: The trial court found the earlier screening ineffective and disqualified the entire OAG along with Kingman. The cases then became consumed by reconsideration motions, probable-cause disputes, and appeals. In practical terms, the public record suggests that the focus shifted from the merits alone to whether the Commonwealth had compromised the structure of its own prosecution.
August 22, 2025: The CNMI Supreme Court issued two opinions. It reversed the blanket disqualification of the entire OAG, but it affirmed the disqualification of specific attorneys, including Glass and Kingman, and recognized the privileged-information and conflict issues in the record. In other words, the institution survived, but the procedural damage was real.
November-December 2025: A new OAG lawyer, Assistant Attorney General David Karch, appeared in the case. Variety later reported that Karch had been assigned the case in September 2025 after the Supreme Court remand, and that by December 2025 the government was pursuing a non-trial disposition (meaning a resolution without trial).
March 23, 2026: The two criminal cases ended in a global settlement (meaning one agreement resolving both cases together). Public reporting said the cases were dismissed with prejudice after Torres agreed to repay $23,745 tied to airfare upgrades, and the settlement barred further criminal or civil charges tied to his government service through January 9, 2023.
March 29, 2026: Variety reported that Assistant Attorney General David Karch was terminated days after the settlement ended the Torres prosecution. The same report stated that Karch, after six months reviewing the case, had concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove criminal violations. That reporting does not by itself establish why he was terminated, but it does add another public fact that heightens the need for a clear explanation from the OAG.
By the time the appellate courts clarified the legal framework in 2025, the prosecution had already spent years losing time, momentum, and public confidence. A few months later, the public was told that a non-trial resolution was being pursued. Then, in March 2026, the matter ended in a global settlement and dismissal with prejudice. Days later, the public learned that the prosecutor who said the evidence was insufficient had been terminated. That sequence raises serious public-accountability questions, even if it does not by itself answer them.
In my opinion, this was preventable. A seasoned office confronted with this kind of case should ask basic questions at the outset: Did anyone previously advise the target on the same subject matter? Has anyone in the office seen confidential information? Can the office establish a real and documented ethics screen? Is a truly independent outside prosecutor needed before charges are filed? The public record suggests those issues became central later, when they should have been resolved early.
This letter does not claim to know anyone’s private motives. It does not claim that any lawyer intentionally undermined the case. It does, however, fairly raise a public question: whether visible conflict concerns and screening problems were addressed with the urgency and structure that a case of this magnitude required. That is a legitimate question for the public to ask when official proceedings themselves show years of disqualification litigation, appellate correction, a prosecutor publicly saying the evidence was insufficient, and an eventual settlement rather than a trial verdict.
Sometimes a case is lost not because the public stops caring, but because procedural problems become powerful enough to overshadow the merits. Based on the public record, that is a question the people of the CNMI have every right to examine here.
Sincerely,
Vincent S. Aldan
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMI News Service or its staff. All assertions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
To submit an op-ed for consideration, email your piece to brad.ruszala@nminewsservice.com
