Attorney General Leevin Camacho’s office failed to disclose a gag order he issued in July 2019 despite its existence as a public record, and stated the gag order doesn’t exist.
Kandit, in response, sent the gag order to the OAG and asked whether it’s a forgery. If it’s not, we asked why the OAG did not disclose it.
Kandit sixteen days ago sent the Office of the Attorney General of Guam a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for disclosure of the gag order following source information declaring Camacho and his managers stifled the ability for prosecutors to speak with senators about criminal justice reform legislation.
“Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I request any email, memorandum, letter, or any such correspondence from Attorney General Leevin Camacho or any of his secretaries, assistants, deputies, etc. to others within the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, the contents of which request or direct the recipients of such correspondence to not speak with any senator unless approved prior by the attorney general,” the March 12, 2022, FOIA request stated. “To be specific, this would be during the term of Attorney General Camacho.”
According to the FOIA, custodians of public records have four working days to produce copies of publicly-disclosable documents from demand. The FOIA states the custodian may request an extension of 10 calendar days, if there are several documents the custodian must search for, compile, and reproduce for disclosure. The gag order Kandit asked the OAG to disclose would have been due by close of business March 18, 2022.
“We are reviewing, processing your request and expect to provide you a response by March 18, 2022,” OAG paralegal Gabriela Rojas Rippel wrote to Kandit on March 14.
At 4:52 p.m. on March 18, the day she said the OAG would respond, Ms. Rippel emailed, “Unfortunately we will not be able to respond today. We will be exercising the extension to respond authorized by 5 GCA § 10103(e) based on the need to search, collect, and appropriately examine more than ten separate and distinct records. We will be working on getting back to you as soon as possible. Please expect our response no later than March 28, 2022.”
Today, March 28, Ms. Rippel forwarded an official response from Mr. Camacho’s general counsel, Stephanie Mendiola, which states in part: “Our office has not records responsive to your request because no such directive was given.”
Gag order exists
Despite the response, Kandit was given proof of the gag order through two documents. The first is a June 13, 2019 letter from Camacho to then-Sen. Kelly Marsh Taitano, where he informs the senator she should no longer reach out directly “with lawyers and other employees in our office.” He informs her of a new policy instituted in his office, whereby all communication with senators would be coursed through his deputy attorney general, Rebecca Perez, who was general counsel at the time.
A July 3, 2019, forward of the letter to all prosecutors from Chief Prosecutor Basil O’Mallan states, “As you can see from the attached letter to Sen. Taitano, ALL communications with any senator MUST go through Rebecca Perez. If a senator should ask for any guidance or assistance with any bill, you must refer them to DAG Perez. Basil”
The policy had a debilitating effect on pending legislation to improve sex crimes statutes, and other draft bills by senators wanting to improve criminal justice on Guam.
“There were a lot of emails and phone calls that went unanswered after that,” a source close to the issue confirmed. “This was a gag order.”
Sources say the situation at the OAG since the exposure of Mr. Camacho’s shortcomings and behavior has been tenuous, and that fear of reprisal is growing among prosecutors.
Kandit sent the proof of the gag order to the OAG in response to its claim it did not have the documents, with the following questions:
If there were no documents responsive to my request, why did the OAG exercise the extension meant only for the compilation, search, and preparation of several separate documents responsive to my request?As to the response from the OAG, please see the attached images. Are these forgeries? If not, why were these documents not disclosed to me?
