FSM Supreme Court throws out three criminal charges against Mark Deorio in Ipwal road project matter

Details

Category: News

Published: Wednesday, 31 March 2021 05:30

Written by Bill Jaynes

Hits: 411

By Bill Jaynes

The Kaselehlie Press

February 15, 2021

FSM—The FSM Supreme Court, late this afternoon issued an order dismissing three of five criminal counts against Mark Deorio that the FSM Department of Justice filed against him. 

The government charged Deorio with committing five crimes: obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function, conflict of interest, theft, unauthorized possession or removal of property, and deprivation of rights.  In the charges, the government alleged that Deorio, having found a copy of a letter his wife had written to President David Panuelo who received it and made a notation on it for a cabinet official, took the letter and gave it to Norleen Oliver, Deorio’s wife.  The government alleges that action was criminal in the ways that it defined in its charges.  The letter regarded the Congress approved special project to pave a road across land over which Oliver is trustee.

“The government has not pled sufficient facts to show how Deorio’s alleged actions caused an adverse action by Oliver for which he should somehow be held criminally liable or what that adverse action was. Or, alternatively, the government has not pled sufficient facts to show how Deorio’s alleged actions directly, without any action by Oliver, interfered with the Secretary’s or the contracting officer’s duties,” the Court ruled when dismissing the charge of obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function.  The Court dismissed the charge “without prejudice”, which means that if the government decides to do so it can resubmit it with deficiencies addressed at some later date if it chooses to do so.

On the charge of “conflict of interest” the Court essentially ruled that for this charge to apply, the accused must have acted as a public official to influence decisions regarding the road-paving project on his wife’s land.  It points out that Deorio signed off on the Project Control Document for the project, which is a function of his official position. “The government has not pled sufficient facts to show how Deorio’s alleged actions caused an adverse action by Oliver for which he should somehow be held criminally liable or what that adverse action was. Or, alternatively, the government has not pled sufficient facts to show how Deorio’s alleged actions directly, without any action by Oliver, interfered with the Secretary’s or the contracting officer’s duties,” the Court said when completely dismissing the charge.

The Court disagreed with Deorio’s assertion that he could not be charged with theft because his wife wrote the letter and it was therefore his wife’s property.  It ruled that once the President received the letter it became his property and as such, the property of the government.  It ruled that Deorio’s belief that the letter was his wife’s property is not grounds to dismiss the theft charge before trial.  It ruled in the same way and for the same reasons for the charge of unauthorized possession or removal of property.

Ruling that the government did not name whose civil rights were allegedly violated by Diorio’s actions and also that governments do not have civil rights that can be violated, the Court also dismissed the deprivation of rights charge against Deorio.